It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Healthcare and the Cost for High Risk Individuals

page: 1
3
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 4 2009 @ 06:54 PM
link   
If you have ANY healthcare plan, you are paying for healthcare for other people. You are. It's like life insurance. You pay money to a company who uses it for other people, and when you need it, the company pays for your care. They don't say "Oh, here, John Smith sent in his payment. Let's put it in his account until he gets sick and needs it."

I was mistaken when I created this thread and assumed that all health insurance companies do not charge more for smokers. Some do not charge more for smokers, including mine, when smokers are in a high-risk category for many illnesses for which the risk is greatly increased by smoking.

Life insurance companies, on the whole, charge more for smokers. Why do health insurance companies not all have the same policy, especially in group plans?

[edit on 8/4/2009 by ravenshadow13]




posted on Aug, 4 2009 @ 06:57 PM
link   
reply to post by ravenshadow13
 


So you want a nanny state? Please don't answer. But it's worth mentioning that if we inflate the government into a big nanny protector who is going to protect us from the government when it abuses that right? Say like manditory euthansia when they feel population is getting a bit out of hand?

I mean, do you really want to live in a "Demolition Man" future? That's the road we are heading down now.

Lenina Huxley: [A]nything not good for you is bad, hence, illegal. Alcohol, caffeine, contact sports, meat . . .
John Spartan: Are you sh**ing me?
A computer: John Spartan, you are fined one credit for a violation of the verbal morality statute.
John Spartan: What the Hell is that?
A computer: John Spartan, you are fined one credit . . .
Lenina Huxley: Bad language, child play, gasoline, uneducational toys, and anything spicy. Abortion is also illegal. But, then again so is pregnancy, if you don't have a license.



[edit on 4-8-2009 by Watcher-In-The-Shadows]



posted on Aug, 4 2009 @ 07:02 PM
link   
So how about you also make swimming in the sea illegal, just incase you might be spending some of your tax dollars on the coast guard. How about making bungee jumping illegal and roller coasters and skydiving, and mountain climbing, and canoes, skiing, hiking, motor sports, walking across the street, getting up in the morning ect ect, if you're going to start picking and choosing who gets healthcare why not do away with those just in case you might have to end up paying for someones medical bills as a result of their "outgoing" lifestyle. How about we just put down the mentally and physicaly disabled too, they just cost cost cost. Old people too. Damn all these people we pay taxes to help, let em all die if it means I pay less tax.

/sarcasm.



posted on Aug, 4 2009 @ 07:10 PM
link   
See revised OP

[edit on 8/4/2009 by ravenshadow13]



posted on Aug, 4 2009 @ 07:18 PM
link   
reply to post by ravenshadow13
 


And what about alcohol as that causes more deaths and illness and social problems than anything else. In fact make everyone exempt from healthcare because you won't find many people living this idealistic healthy lifestyle. Anyway you can smoke until 90 and be fine...equally you can live as heallthily as can be and still be struck down with cancer or any other serious disease.



posted on Aug, 4 2009 @ 07:24 PM
link   
reply to post by oneclickaway
 


I'm just saying that if something has a warning posted on it saying "Doing this causes cancer" that people who still do it, at their own risk, should have to pay a little more. I'm not talking about the people who get cancer from other things. I'm talking about people who've gotten a certain condition that they would not have gotten if they did not smoke, like emphysema.

It's not right that individuals who take good care of themselves and stay away from really obvious carcinogens have to pay for medical care for people who get lung cancer because they have chain-smoked for 40 years.

See Revised OP

[edit on 8/4/2009 by ravenshadow13]



posted on Aug, 4 2009 @ 07:27 PM
link   
If I am going to pay to everybody's healthcare (which is sort of what is supposed to be done in insurance-- share the risk), I really don't care what they do. In fact, I wouldn't mind so much so long as there is no nannying going on because I think people deserve it. I really don't mind that someone else benefits from my work so long as it doesn't bankrupt me. Nannying will create a much more expensive situation than just having care available and leaving people alone otherwise.

But really we all know (and we do know this) that it won't happen that way without an evolution in consciouness.



posted on Aug, 4 2009 @ 07:27 PM
link   
Raven we got a Trillion a year or so going on death, Medical care wont bankrupt us or be the real reason your taxes are so high.

There is no way to divide amog people in regard to WHO should recieve health care.

We will ALL end up in the intensive care unit eventually (most of us) when old...

frankly i'm not sure it even saves money to encourage people to not smoke or have vice by law...

The 300 lb smoking guy who get's his coronary at 54 is liable to die quickly and quietly... NO SS payout, no long term care

Where as

Joe health and fitness, might hang in till 80 get alzhiemers, be on SS for 15 years, then require 10 years of managed care until he is 90 then get Cancer and instead of putting him out of his misery they will treat it... virtually torturing him in his demented state ....

Big Fatheart attack guy total cost to system 8,500 for failed ambulance ride

Health boy who hangs around 30 years... total cost 12.5 Million

Once you factor in SS and prolonged care... the healthy cost the system far more money in old age, sorry to say that but true...

If you want to see a Guy who will spong the system for Millions

Look at me, I exercise daily, have advanced knowledge of longevity methods, went pure of all chemicals quite a time back now... meditate and liv free of the city and pollutants

I guesstimate you'll be paying for my health care and rutine visits and SS... for about 40 years after I retire

And trust me I won't be working or contributing



Just sayin the big fatty smoking a big ol cigar and eating MC D's for dinner... that guy won't cost you a dime compared to me who wants to hang around to be 120 if I can...



posted on Aug, 4 2009 @ 07:29 PM
link   
You do not need to put draconion restrictions on people's personal habbits to make a socialized healthcare system work. Europeans have a socialized medical system and they drink and smoke, perhaps more than Americans.



posted on Aug, 4 2009 @ 07:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by ravenshadow13
reply to post by oneclickaway
 

Drinking and driving is illegal. People who do it and crash because of it- it's their own fault. They made a bad decision.


That's a bit warped. Drinking and driving puts a 1-3 ton (or greater) object under the command of someone not in maximum control of their faculties. It isn't just a personal decision because it is directly a risk of bodily harm to others.



posted on Aug, 4 2009 @ 07:31 PM
link   
I definitely think that people that have been unwittingly exposed to asbestos should REALLY have to pay a lot.

You know, I agree with this on a certain level. If you play, you pay...but it's just too gray. We accept ever-increasing intrusion into our PERSONAL lives and before you know it, it's just accepted that you're not allowed to smoke, drink, eat meat, drive, watch tv, breathe outside, walk in your city, fly on an airplane, enjoy a soft drink, swim with your kids, go outside when there's ice on the sidewalk, go to work....you know, anything that could be construed as raising your risk of needing to have medical care.

Should an active alcoholic get his THIRD liver transplant on our dime? Last I checked, I wasn't even CLOSE to being omnipotent enough to pretend that I am qualified to make that judgement. Do I have feelings about it? yeah. Would it make me angry? Probably. Would his kids appreciate having a couple more months with their dad? Maybe so, maybe not. What price would a couple more days of life be worth to anyone?

It all sounds really impressive to puff my chest out and say, 'not on MY watch.' You degenerate smokers, drinkers, partiers, unintelligent, mentally retarded and OLD people need to pay more because I'm so much more healthy than you and I make so much better decisions. When it comes time for me to slip and fall on the ice, on my way to work, and suffer brain damage making me one of those that I despise, my guess would be that my tune would change a little bit. I think I would all of the sudden become really tolerant, when it's MY ass on the line; when it's ME being told that I need to pay more than I can afford; when it's ME being told that because I made a poor choice, my life isn't worth as much as somebody else's.

Because, you know, when it comes down to it, it seems to me that that's what your saying. If I have to pay more for insurance, I have less to spend on food, clothing and shelter.

I hope to get really old someday. I hope that when and if I do, I can look forward to reaping the benefits of working my whole life to pay for OTHER people medical bills.



posted on Aug, 4 2009 @ 07:31 PM
link   
reply to post by mopusvindictus
 


Woah. That's an excellent point that I did not even think about.

You're right.

Hm. I feel better now, though. Somehow.

That's probably it, that's probably why the country isn't healthier.



posted on Aug, 4 2009 @ 07:32 PM
link   
reply to post by ravenshadow13
 


And from a certain point of view you are being self centered and "mean". Not withstanding that what you want to do is giving the government ENTIRELY too much power over our lives.

[edit on 4-8-2009 by Watcher-In-The-Shadows]



posted on Aug, 4 2009 @ 07:32 PM
link   
What do you mean you dont want to pay for other peoples healthcare? Your already pay for the health care of politicians and many seniors! (medicare)


I laugh when people say in shock "Im going to pay for somebode elses healthcare??
Uhhh you have been all this time.


This one "conservative" woman sent an email to Obama telling him to leave her taxes alone, she doesnt want any form of socialized healthcare, and also leave her medicare alone as well.



[edit on 4-8-2009 by Southern Guardian]



posted on Aug, 4 2009 @ 07:33 PM
link   
reply to post by ravenshadow13
 


I smoke, but you'll never catch me going to a doctor, I go and do my own healthcare; I get the herbs I need out of pocket, I go to a reikki specialist, probably would still have to pay out of pocket for that, too, as I don't see alternative medicine ever coming into the mainsteam. I trust that medicine better than the crooks who call themselves doctors. Just like I had sinus infection, with seizures yeah ok whatever. I will find other means always!

But how about all the coke, meth, crack, potheads out there? What about them? How are you not assaulting their actions? How about the drunks who not only kill themselves, but cause others injury and death? Why should they not be lumped into your pot? As cigarettes and tanning beds go that's mild compared to the waste in cash given for people to go to rehab/ or fix them when they od or fix somebody they ran over in a motor vehicle. They are far worse than smokers. Actually smokers make up about 10 percent of the healthcared burden while the others I mentioned are somewhere between 50-60 percent of the burden!



posted on Aug, 4 2009 @ 07:34 PM
link   
reply to post by EnlightenUp
 


But people know not to drink and drive. You're supposed to have back up plans, someone sober to drive. If you don't have a way to get home safely, don't drink.

That's supposed to be how it is. It's supposed to be engrained. It's irresponsible for people to say "Well, I'm going to try and get home anyway."

It's sad if something happens to them, and it's awful because usually they kill other people. But really, generally people who are irresponsible and risk their health because of that... just... ugh.



posted on Aug, 4 2009 @ 07:35 PM
link   
reply to post by ldyserenity
 


They should be, but those drugs are illegal and people won't be admitting that they do them on their papers.

[edit on 8/4/2009 by ravenshadow13]



posted on Aug, 4 2009 @ 07:37 PM
link   
reply to post by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
 


So not the government then, what about general healthcare providers? Life Insurance companies charge more for people who smoke, why not Health Insurance companies?



posted on Aug, 4 2009 @ 07:39 PM
link   
reply to post by ravenshadow13
 


We as a society in general should not be paying for anyone else's healthcare than our own, period.

Anyone who suggest that I or anyone should pay for someone else's healthcare needs to have their head examined, and I will pay for that.

I bet getting their head examined will find that there's absolutely nothing in there anyway.



posted on Aug, 4 2009 @ 07:41 PM
link   
EVERYONE

I changed the title of the thread to "Healthcare and the Cost for High Risk Individuals" because I think the socialized healthcare thing was ruining my point.

So, now, under ANY healthcare plan, why should healthy people who do not take part in activities known to cause cancer pay as much for healthcare as the people more likely to need treatment due to unhealthy habits?



new topics

top topics



 
3
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join