Jump to content
3000AD Forums
Sign in to follow this  
LostInSpace

Just Another Tax On Smokers

Recommended Posts

CINCINNATI, Ohio (AP) -- Smokers squeezed by soaring cigarette costs and workplace smoking bans are increasingly being hit with another cost increase -- this time for health insurance.

Well most of you know where I stand on this issue. Funny how they left out people that DRINK or EAT too much and other medicaly risk factors people do in their private lives. Funny that. Very funny.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, but it's slowly becoming a catch 22 in this respects. I hope those companies are ready for the onslaught of discrimination lawsuits. It would be the first thing I would do if I found out that I was being charged $20-$30 more for my healthcare insurance because I am a smoker while the 275lb guy in the next cubicle shoving a twinkie in his mouth doesn't have to pay more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Obesity, Genetic traits, Smoking, eating high fat foods, drinking alchohol, they are ALL gonne make your health insurance higher, AND, if we EVER have a national health care plan and you do ANY of those things, or have genetic markers that show you are more inclined to certain diseases, you are going to pay a whole lot more, and big brother is going to watch like a hawk....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Remo Williams

quote:

Originally posted by Aperson:

What makes you think that? I'm unaware of any countries (with a national health care system) doing so already.

Because he's talking about the USA just think about how the US government operates for a minute, do they follow the example of others or do they go there own way regardless of others for the most part. With a punishment mindset already well in place they will surely try to change peopleÔÇÖs life styles in this manner to maintain the status quo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest $iLk

I think anyone who engages in activity or behavior that is detrimental to their own personal health they should then have to pay more for their coverage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by $iLk:

I think anyone who engages in activity or behavior that is detrimental to their own personal health they should then have to pay more for their coverage.

-Makes sense to me. Even though we all know the insurance companies are just looking for extra cash. As far as Im concerned, they have a perfect right to do this though because smoking icreases your risk of death and over fifteen other medical problems by like 30%. And to insurance companies, the more they pay to cover you the more profit they are losing and thats bad in any business and definately to be expected of an insurance company.

Taxes work in the same way. The general idea is to make America a smoke free nation sometime int the future because it spreads a bad gene pool and its a dirty habit. This is likely to happen to heavy alcohol users as well in the future although I dont know what to say about obesity, which is partly genetic (even though its not in most cases) so they cant really do anything about that.

Heres a helpful hint you probably dont want to hear: quit smoking. It aint easy as I know but...yeah.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Remo Williams

quote:

This is likely to happen to heavy alcohol users as well in the future

Well if we remember the last two times we attempted to prohibit alcohol we won't be stupid enough to try that for a third time. Although I don't drink so it makes no difference to me it would just be a fast way for me to make cash moonshining.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by $iLk:

I think anyone who engages in activity or behavior that is detrimental to their own personal health they should then have to pay more for their coverage.

Where does it end? Who determines what's detrimental to ones health? The health care sector has waffled on so many things. Take for example eggs. First it was eggs are bad for you but now they are condidered good for you again. Suppose for the years that eggs were determined bad for you the company that you worked for upped your insurance payment based on that information because it was a well known fact you loved to have eggs every morning for breakfast but of course they didn't lower your payment with the newer findings.

And if this issue is about prevention let me show you something about the dirty little secret of prevention in health care:

Listen carefully to this clip.

Ny Times: Diabetes

BTW: The podiatrist in this clip is the one I work for. He's an excellent specialist in the Diabetic foot as well as the holeistic aspect of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And if I smoke cigarettes that considerable lower tar intake, are my insurance premiums going to be considerably lower too?

Or how about if I smoke one regular cigarette as opposed to two packs a day.

I say it's court time.

http://www.eclipse.rjrt.com/ECL/home.jsp

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

QUOTE]Where does it end? Who determines what's detrimental to ones health? The health care sector has waffled on so many things. Take for example eggs. First it was eggs are bad for you but now they are condidered good for you again. Suppose for the years that eggs were determined bad for you the company that you worked for upped your insurance payment based on that information because it was a well known fact you loved to have eggs every morning for breakfast but of course they didn't lower your payment with the newer findings.

[/QB]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you have one car accident. Your insurance premiums go up a little. You can liken it to smoking one cigarette a day.

If you have an accident per year. Your insurance is going to be high. You can liken it to smoking a pack a day.

If you are have accidents at a rate of one per month. Your might not even be insurable. You can liken it to those with some genetic pre-disposition to some desiases. It's like a time bomb that will go off, and insurance will have to shell out dozens if not hundreds of thousands, you just don't know when.

So, this case WILL go to court. The claims will be that if I smoke a cigarette a day, why should I pay the same as the guy that smokes a pack a day, or how about what kind of cigarettes, or what if I smoke only cigars (you don't inhale cigars). Or why should I pay more than a guy with a family history of high blood pressure, or diabetes, or heart attacks, or cancer, or obesity. With me it's a risk, with them it's a certainty the question is the time frame.

We are not even touching on the factual side of "If smoking is bad, how bad", "How many smokers are in US vs. how many of them are having problems/industry costs, VS. How many *obese, alcoholics, drug users, high blood pressure, diabetis, cancerous, HIV/AIDS infected, ect..insert one* people are in US vs. how many of those are having problems/industry costs" For all you know, if you gather the data, it might turn out that the smokers that haven't developed cancer (might never) are costing less than some other people with some other unsafe life style, like suntaning (sking cancer), promiscuity, unsafe sex, (AIDS/HIV, that probably costs WAY more), how about certain genetics, or how about eating habits, do you have any idea how much a heart or liver transplant costs, HUNDREDS of thousands, so the smokers might actually be picking up the tab for those other peoples costs. Only because it's convinient and politically correct to single out smokers rather than lets day diabetics, or AIDS patients.

Liberals would go NUTS if insurance tried raising premiums for AIDS infected patiens.

[ 02-18-2006, 03:38 PM: Message edited by: Soback ]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That makes absolutely no sense though to raise insurance for diabetics or people born with diseases, etc. (And for those who acquire AIDs, etc. through sex, Im pretty sure their insurance rates do go up.) But for the most part, obese, alcoholics, drug users, high blood pressure, diabetis, cancerous, HIV/AIDS infected, ect..insert one, people, like you said, have no choice in this. They can't usually be prevented in most cases and insurance wouldn't raise because those people are rightfully protected by the constitution so lets not even talk about them. Smoking, on the other hand, may not cause as much money to be spent as those, but smoking is PREVENTABLE, which is the difference. Those other things are genetic or unpreventable.

But you're right- someones going to take this to court. Hope it aint any of you. About that though, it is relatively simple: if you smoke, no matter how much or what, you're still smoking and all who do are going to be treated equally by the insurance raise. It makes sense to those who are willing to actually see the truth. And smoking sucks and makes your lungs turn to **** so why even do it at all?

----And by the way, cigar smoking is just as bad if not worse than cigarettes. A lot of people dont know that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Obesity - Preventable, if not controlled, leads to farther damage such as blood pressure, heart attacks, diabetes

Alcoholism - Preventable, if not controlles leads to liver damage and other complications

Drug use - Preventable, a LOT of problems if not controlled

Diabetics - Preventable, if you end up getting it, controllable, not taking care of it leads to farther damage

HIV/AIDS - Preventable

High blood pressure - Preventable, and controllable, bad eating habits and not excercising can cause high blood pressure to return, causing heart damage, vision damage, and other complications

You want to repeat your statement that people with all those conditions or being pre-disposed to these conditions have no choice or is unpreventable.

A smoker that might NEVER develop cancer should NOT be picking up the tab for a diabetic or HIV positive patient, NOR for a person that is predisposed to obesity or high blood pressure. If you want to raise rates just because someone is a smoker and might end up costing more, then raise rates because someone is overweight or promiscious because risks are MUCH higher in those cases that the later will have heart, liver or a plethora of other problems.

Posted by the Black ghost:

"They can't usually be prevented in most cases and insurance wouldn't raise because those people are rightfully protected by the constitution so lets not even talk about them."

--- There's NOTHING in constitutions that says you are protected and guaranteed healthcare just because you might have high blood pressure or be obese. Go look it up.

On the other hand, constitution guarantees me the freedom from slavery. On the other hand, forcing me to pay for YOUR healthcare through taxes, medicare, medical, is UNCONSTITUTIONAL, just like it is unethical to be forcing one specific category of people to pick up the tab for the other category that is coming up short.

If you let that go, then the next thing you will be facing is a law that states that "All white men, blondish hair, blue eyes *or insert your own category, stats, whatever you want* are responsible for.....ect."

When you pass a law or do something, it has to be logical and based on facts. Having higher fees for smokers makes sence, but NOT when you ALSO do not impose higher fees on other high risk customers. Personal feelings of how bad smoking is and how smokers shold pay more while thos that are obese or with diabetes are just unfortunate and shouldn't because they just happen to have it, not only lacks in logic but has no place in legal sence.

[ 02-18-2006, 06:36 PM: Message edited by: Soback ]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What everyone failed to realize in this thread is that local, state and federal government have already imposed (in some states very high) taxes on cigarette products (except for cigars again funny that) to be put aside to relieve this supposed strain smokers put on the health care industry. Now these companies are coming along with the health insurance companies and telling smokers that they are ignoring this fact and we will charge you even more. I mean come on. What other section of the population do you see being treated like this?

Here's the break down:

Federal: Taxes collected from tobacco growers passed along to the consumer from the cigarette companies

State/Local: Taxes collected on cigarettes to pay for future health care smokers may require. Cigars are exempt from this tax.

Do you know what New York State was caught doing with that supposed health tax of cigarettes? I've posted about this before but in one instance they built a posh golf course in upstate NY and yes it was from the taxes collected on cigarettes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh yes, I HAVE forgotten that.

Very true. Those slimy politicians DID impose extra taxes on tobaco, just for that very reason.

It's as if they tax your gasoline for the purpose of fixing, building and maintaining the roads, and then they start taxing the number of miles you drive for the very same purpose of fixing, building and maintaining the roads.

Citizens HAVE to wake up to this tripple and quadruple "special" taxation that's going on. When will the time come, when we can throw these scum bags off our backs, and take out all they have done to us on their rotten hides.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest $iLk

I still don't have sympathy for smokers. And my mom and step-dad both smoke. If you like paying someone for cutting fifteen minutes off your life with each drag - more power to you.

I still say it's stupid. Pay me 30 cents for the bullet and sign a waver and I'll cash in your death policy a lot faster and cheaper.

For the record, I think all the other preventable things above should have higher premiums for health insurance tacked to them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

uhh... i'm a writer so I guess its my own fault for assuming people can read between the lines...

I'll restate what I said so you understand.

-Everything can have bad results. Obesity, drugs, you name it: all can badly affect your health. In the cases of drugs and all, you didnt mention those earlier and since drugs are illegal, you'll probably be worrying about getting out of jail than about your insurance policy.

-Obesity, diabetics, Aids, and other diseases: half the time these are unpreventable (inheritance, etc...). The other times, when they are acquired from bad choices, you should, or probably do have to pay more for insurance.

But for the most case, they are not meant to be acquired and people have no choice. Should those people who get HIV from thier parents have to pay for it? No! What about people born with diabetes? Thats what I meant about things being unpreventable. And youre right, like I also said earlier, many are from people's own bad choices- and they SHOULD pay the price for it.

When I said the constitution protects those people, I didnt mean there was a line that says "Diabetics, obese, and people with diseases are exempt from insurance raise" What I meant was that those people cannot be treated differently than those who dont. The constitution DOES SAY(not in these words) "that

people cannot be discriminated or taken advantage of because of how they're born". the point is, those people who get that all from birth or other things they cant control are immune mostly because they would easily win in a court argument. Think about it: do you think insurance companies would get away with that unfair treatment? Of course not. That's what I meant by protected by the constitution. And those people who are get all this from their own bad ways wont be able to defend themselves cuz its their own fault.

I can see where you are coming from though. I do agree that this might seem to be the first step in an unlimited government where everything is going to go insane with little "cant do's" or taxes on everything. Trust me, if it ever in a million years goes that far (which it wont), I'll be the first one to stand up to it. I'd suport a full scale revolution in that case.

But these smoking laws and taxes and all are for the best. If you smoke you arent going to understand this, but the rest of us dont like smokers. Smoking IS the leading cause of death, not just for smokers, but from people with secondhand smoke (4000 deaths a year from secondhand). It also wastes lots of money, is disqusting, health detrimental, and is in some ways a disturbance on other people around you. These laws and all are all to get rid of smoking in America. Smokers hate this. But the the 250 million of the rest of us dont. Smoking sucks and its bad: everyone should understand it. We want it gone for good, just like drugs, THAT is why this is all happening. THAT is why you now are paying so much tax and insurance. If you dont like that, then go live in Columbia where they smoke all day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by The Black Ghost:

Should those people who get HIV from thier parents have to pay for it? No! What about people born with diabetes? Thats what I meant about things being unpreventable.

Should I pay for it? Or should smokers pay for it? How about obese people? Who should pay for it? What you need to understand is, just because you are born, you are NOT entitled to be getting ANYTHING from anyone. Liberals give people the mind set that if they are breathing, they are entitled to health care, food, shelter, and a little bit of cash. It all comes at the expense from someone else. The ONLY things you are guaranteed, is freedom, life, and the persuit of happiness, how you go about it is your choice and your struggle. Don't be putting someone elses burden on my back.

quote:

Originally posted by The Black Ghost:

When I said the constitution protects those people, I didnt mean there was a line that says "Diabetics, obese, and people with diseases are exempt from insurance raise" What I meant was that those people cannot be treated differently than those who dont. The constitution DOES SAY(not in these words) "that

people cannot be discriminated or taken advantage of because of how they're born".

I have a copy of the constitution on my desk. Let me quote you from it. First, what you are thinking of is probably the Declaration of Independence.

--- Thus, the cardinal moral truths are these:

that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness - That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed.

What the Constitutions says, and mind you, NOT the original writing, but an Amendment is: (which guarantees me MY rights, to keep me free from paying for your obesity, HIV or any other disease, inherited or otherwise)

Amendment XIII. Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

---Which means, that I should NOT be picking up the tab for ANYONE and ANY REASON. Forcing me to pay for you is considered INVOLUNTARY SERVITUDE, and eventually, people will take wellfare to court for this very reason.

quote:

Originally posted by The Black Ghost:

But these smoking laws and taxes and all are for the best. If you smoke you arent going to understand this, but the rest of us dont like smokers. It also wastes lots of money, is disqusting, health detrimental, and is in some ways a disturbance on other people around you. These laws and all are all to get rid of smoking in America.

--- I do not smoke. What you need to understand is, it doesn't matter what you like or dislike that other person does. It's NONE of your bussiness, it's THEIRS. What if I don't like the way you eat, or that you don't execrise. And I get 5 million people who dislike fat people. We can apply the same statement there, "taxes on you are for the best, your life style is unhealthy, and the rest of us don't like it" That would be designed to get rid of fat people in America. Or maybe we should even move on to people recreational activities, or maybe even skin color. It all goes one step at a time my friend. You give them an inch, and you have already lost the battle.

To sum it up. It doesn't matter what you like, dislike, consider safe, or unsafe. The founding fathers knew that people are different (unlike liberals that want us to believe that we are all the same). That's why we all should pay for OUR life choices, consequences, ect... Inherited or not, I shouldn't pay for a mother with 10 kids out and run away dad. It's sad, but it wasn't my misstake. I have my own life to live. Taxing smokers and not other problem cases is NOT right, no matter if you like or dislike their choice of activity. Not only is it not right, it is UN-CONSTITUTIONAL to have smokers pick up the tab for others medical problems.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest $iLk

I'm still saying that all existing conditions and choices which carry increased risk for health crisis should be subject to higher insurance premiums.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×