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: 4
3
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 4 2009 @ 09:44 PM
link   
Lets forget smoking for a second and focus on your wanting to tax people for fake tanning, which says a lot about how you've probably never even been and just despise those who do.

But anyways, why would people who suntan at the beach daily not be taxed as well?

You just want to tax those who want to get it over with quickly because they have other things to do?

Are you against muli-tasking as well?

What about people who's job is in the sun, like a lifeguard or construction worker?

Should we charge them more too?

Maybe we should get RFID chips which will record how long we stay at the beach and how long we stay outside, and we get a pro-rated warranty on our skin cancer?

If your still reading, this is just to show you how quickly a good idea can go wrong when you play on such slippery slopes




posted on Aug, 4 2009 @ 09:48 PM
link   
reply to post by ravenshadow13
 


And you said this:

Obviously sunlight is healthy, so is food, so is travel.

Which is contrary to what you just said.



posted on Aug, 5 2009 @ 12:58 AM
link   
If you start with smokers, it just keeps going down the line. Next it will be something else. Overweight people, chronically ill people etc. etc. etc. You can't just blame smokers and expect them to pay more. Everyone at one time or another will need medical care, even you Shadowraven. You are not exempt from getting cancer or becoming an invilid from an accident. I have known people who exercised, ate healthy and still got cancer. Anything can happen to anyone at anytime, and it will cost big bucks.



posted on Aug, 5 2009 @ 01:11 AM
link   
reply to post by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
 


You can't live in the dark. You need light to live. It's healthy to not sit in dark rooms all the time. Your body does need a certain degree of sunlight to live.

I'm not saying go stand outside with your shirt off.

Edit- why would I put a person in my avatar that isn't me? =)
I'm getting a new one soon, though. Won't have a picture of me on it. So everyone should absorb the complete paleness while they can.

[edit on 8/5/2009 by ravenshadow13]



posted on Aug, 5 2009 @ 01:12 AM
link   
reply to post by breakingdradles
 


Going out into the natural sun does not come with a direct disclaimer. People know that they should take precautions, but they don't need to sign forms. Sunlight isn't regulated by the business industry.

When you go tanning, you need to sign forms saying that you are aware of the risks. It's very different.



posted on Aug, 5 2009 @ 01:14 AM
link   
reply to post by ravenshadow13
 


Um, all you said is that sunlight is healthy, you can add all the layers of not even infered meaning as you want after response but that is what you said. Which is untrue. In can be extremely unhealthy.



posted on Aug, 5 2009 @ 01:15 AM
link   
reply to post by ravenshadow13
 


P.s.: I like pale chicks. Alot.
But, it does not mean that because you are using a picture that it must be your picture.



posted on Aug, 5 2009 @ 01:15 AM
link   
reply to post by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
 


But it can also be healthy.
Who is adding layers now?

It is healthy in moderation and unhealthy in strong doses. So come on, now. Stop twisting my words.

Are you encouraging people to stay out of the sun completely so that there are more pale chicks to choose from? I sense conspiracy...

It's 2am. I'm so far gone...

[edit on 8/5/2009 by ravenshadow13]



posted on Aug, 5 2009 @ 01:18 AM
link   
reply to post by ravenshadow13
 


I am not twisting your words. You said it is healthy, nothing else and keep adding information when called on it. But we are digressing. Tanning period is dangerous and using the logic you use should be banned as well. Thus further sinking us into a nanny state.



posted on Aug, 5 2009 @ 01:19 AM
link   
reply to post by ravenshadow13
 


LoL!!!!!!!!!
Nah, I am very much a personal freedom type of guy. I just happen to be attracted to those that feel the same as I do about the subject.



posted on Aug, 5 2009 @ 01:20 AM
link   
reply to post by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
 


I don't want to make them illegal I just think people who are in high-risk categories, as defined by their health insurance providers, should pay more. Not a lot, just a little. Regardless of the health insurance plan.

That's it. The end. Good night.

I don't want to ban anything and I've never set foot in a tanning bed in my life or kept up a tan because it causes cancer. I also don't smoke because it's harmful. I also don't do drugs, I don't really drink, and I eat healthy.

But I'm a minority and that's just awesome.

[edit on 8/5/2009 by ravenshadow13]



posted on Aug, 5 2009 @ 01:25 AM
link   
reply to post by ravenshadow13
 


Good for you. Allow me to be different with a minimium of flak.



posted on Aug, 5 2009 @ 04:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by ravenshadow13
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]



And many people won't admit they do smoke cigarettes and some won't admit they have unprotected promiscuous sex either.which also is a health risk. However I do feel if you don't work = no healthcare. period. Except senior citizens who have held jobs. in short, never worked/welfare recipient= no healthcare. Period!



posted on Aug, 5 2009 @ 04:49 PM
link   
reply to post by ldyserenity
 


Oh, people who have never worked?

Because unemployed people should get healthcare. And people employed by like... McDonalds. I don't know if they get healthcare or not.

Everyone should either be working at some job or unemployment or past unemployment. My dad is lucky because our healthcare is from his first layoff- they bridged him to retirement. But our unemployment is about to run out. So... if it wasn't for that, it would be awful.

Like, for unemployment you need to document your hours and send out your resume at least 3 times a week, and take the first job offered that pays more than the unemployment does. If you do that and you are unemployed, you should get healthcare, even after unemployment runs out.

But if you're lazy and don't, you shouldn't. Although if you are ill or physically disabled, and it's documented, and you are unable to work, you should get healthcare.



posted on Aug, 6 2009 @ 01:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by ravenshadow13
Yes but people are in the sun all the time and don't get skin cancer.
The people who generally get skin cancer go tanning or go lie out in the sun or spend time in the sun for extended periods without sunscreen.


I also don't tan, primarily because I was badly sunburnt when I was 10, and I don't really want skin cancer. I usually encourage my friends to avoid tanning beds, as well. With that said...

Tanning also serves as a therapy for Seasonal Affective Disorder. As somebody who gets SAD every winter (thank you Michigan!) I think that it's important to separate the people who tan for aesthetic reasons from the (comparatively minute) group who use tanning to fight off psychological hell. I've heard of doctors suggesting it for other purposes, as well.

This has more in common with marijuana (some potential benefits) than tobacco, IMO.

Also, as a smoker and a drinker (careful with the choices you make in your early 20's, kids!), I have no problem paying more for medical coverage. I'd charge myself more for medical insurance. I'm always shocked when people can't accept their vices for what they are. Can we say "cognitive dissonance?"


[edit on 6-8-2009 by theWCH]



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join