ObamaCare slams smokers with sky-high premium costs, could backfire

signalfire

butcherguy
I eat raw shellfish.

That behavior, which I freely choose to do, is associated with foodborne illnesses which can cause death.

Is this going to be equated with behaviors such as smoking?

Umm, no. Because eating raw shellfish is more like Russian Roulette. You'll either get off scot free, or die rather quickly, utilizing very little of the medical profession.

Good luck with that. Take pictures when your skin turns yellow and post 'em on Facebook.

I have worked with two gentlemen for years that have hepatitis C.
Want to venture a guess how much they have cost us in health care dollars?

reply to post by signalfire

but smoking is almost a guaranteed one.

The 'almost' that you used there makes it a game of Russian Roulette, does it not?

butcherguy
reply to post by signalfire

 

but smoking is almost a guaranteed one.

The 'almost' that you used there makes it a game of Russian Roulette, does it not?

Its pointless man some people won't look past their own ideas and thoughts to even take account of anyone else's. It's a case of it's only right in the case I'm referring to not yours even though its for all intents and purposes the same. You guys enjoy this madness I'm gonna leave now...the ignornce here is blinding.

Opps ,,,wasn't the Big Tobacco Settlement of 1998 suppose too help offset the heathcare of smoking.....or was that just more lies & broken promises



the truth is ,,smokers die alot sooner ,often before they can even collect social security & other benefits...saving money

for awhile raising taxes on smoking was all the rage,,,then TPTB found out they would lose alot money if they raised them to high...

reply to post by Krazysh0t


It's funny because Obama is a smoker himself. I don't know if he quit or not though.

Pretty messed up that a health plan that's supposed to be easy and cheap is anything but, especially for certain people.

Smoker? No problem:

Obamacare Navigator Tells Applicants to Lie About Smoking, Extra Income

The woman has been caught on hidden camera in Texas. She is asked by an applicant what he should declare in the smoking session, and she advises him to lie about the fact that he smokes. It is common knowledge that the difference would save him a lot in premiums.

news.softpedia.com...

reply to post by IAMTAT

Smoker? No problem:

Yes, but the NSA already knows if your naughty or nice.

Smoke them if you got them

Back to the topic of smoker's getting dinked by ACA. In reality this is just another way to tax smokers, seriously you non-smokers all need to give us a nice round of applause for lowering YOUR TAXES.

btw…you're welcome!


The insurance companies were going to go ballistic re-writing policies to limit their risk, the ACA was just the nudge they needed. The sentiment of everyone having affordable care, is just that, a nice idea. In reality the insurance companies are in the business of making money for their shareholders, limiting their liability is number one priority.

No one thinks to themselves the health insurance companies are no different than a casino owner where the odds always favor the house. You should because it's the same thing. This time govt/law got mandated adding another layer of complication ( thus costs) so no way was this going to be either affordable or cheap.

Another thing, little OT, is the new medical billing codes. Now other than your cost's monthly for a premium, it's the billing codes where we get hammered as consumers. It's a nightmare to find them, and more of a nightmare to find out on a bill with ones were used. Without this you can't compare medical costs.

I'm willing to bet in the insurance companies risk accessment of cost is a reevaluation of what codes are covered fully or partially. This little detail is where we as consumers are going to get bit in the wallet again. A procedure may be covered, but aftercare may not be, it's going to be a new game of medical roulette.

reply to post by IAMTAT


Yes, it's great.
Lie, say you don't. Pay your premiums for a couple months to a year. Then go to the doctor. Your doctor reports to the health insurance, you smoke. Health insurance drops you, and nobody will pick you up.
Free money for them.
No healthcare for you.

Yea Government!!!!

signalfire
Methinks most of you doth protest too much.

Take a pathology course and get a real good look at what a smoker's lungs look like, then ask yourself while you're 'longboarding to class' if that's going to be you in another short decade or two, and whether it will effect your health once you're out of your 20s.

The fact is, there are lots of ways to crap your body to hell, but smoking is almost a guaranteed one.

And yes, old people cost lots of money in their last few months typically but that's another issue and a good one for a discussion. It's idiotic to spend millions keeping an 85 year old with numerous serious medical issues alive for a few extra weeks or even months, when there's not enough medical care available to children in any given society.

But you chose to be addicted to nicotine, most of you hold to the idea of 'I can quit anytime I want to' and society is not only sick of the smell, but sick of spending a fortune trying to protect you from your own bad choices. Stop whining about the extra cost of insurance while you're paying $50+ a carton for cigarettes.

Same thing for heavy drinkers. And if we're going to treat smoking and heavy drinking as an addiction, the first choice for treatment should be locking you in a facility without the ability to buy your drugs for a good couple of weeks while you get heavy therapy for whatever it is you're nervous about or unable to deal with, like reality.

As far as being a 'nootropic', uh, NO. It's a nervous system poison, you just feel better momentarily when your toxin levels are dropping off and you hit the receptors again with another cigarette. You've long since forgotten what clear thinking without nicotine is like.

Research REAL nootropics, if you feel like enhancing your brain power.

You do realize that detoxing someone by cold turkey can be extremely dangerous right? It can even be deadly. Throwing someone in a room to sweat out the addiction is an awful thing to do. I also don't smoke, but I at least have the sympathy to understand that price gouging people because they choose to smoke is downright wrong.

So this, out of evrerything in obama-snare, is going to backfire? Not a shocker, the entire program has been nothing, but a failure from before it started.

Screw obama-snare anyway. I'm not signing up for that crap, smoker or not and I implore the rest of you to follow suit.

This isn't the country I want to be around for the next generation to have to experience. I want an America where you can walk into a place of business and get a job the same day. Where the cost of living doesn't stagger over the amount of income you have.

Implementing this garbage legislation is a giant step in the WRONG direction. All parts of it are doomed to backfire because nearly nobody wants it. A bad idea is doomed to fail in implementation.

reply to post by Krazysh0t


It is a bit unfair that smokers are being penalised, but I think they still should be. However, alcoholics, recreational drug users and the obese should be penalised with higher insurance premiums as well. These conditions cause healthcare costs to skyrocket, you need to make that money back somehow. If obama wants to 'unfairly' punish smokers, he should just introduce plain packaging laws and introduce ridiculous taxes on cigarette packets like what the Australian government has done- here a single packet of smokes costs on average $18-20. The cheapest you can get a packet of smokes is about $13, and thats a brand called 'Just Smokes'... quality stuff.

If you want to intentionally try and cause yourself to not only get sick but get cancer. I have no empathy for you. You should in fact pay more then someone who does not smoke. There is no argument. If you are going to destroy your lungs and their immune system you should penny up the extra money for coverage. Everyone I know or knew that smoked got cancer, Pneumonia, and or upper respiratory infections and its not my job to foot your bill when you're the one doing it.

LeatherNLace
AWESOME!!! If you are going to intentionally give yourself cancer, then guess what? You should be uninsurable! Just die already. To complain about higher rates for smokers is pathetic. Smokers should consider themselves lucky that they can even get insurance. And I say this as a former smoker.

edit on 25-11-2013 by LeatherNLace because: (no reason given)

So if you;
Smoke
Eat more than the government says
Drink more than the government says

Then die?


Guess the death panels are confirmed!

Haven't read through the entire thread yet, but I'm sure someone already posted that lower income people are more likely to be smokers.

YAY Obama!

reply to post by s4196606


But there are so many things in this country that are unhealthy, chances are EVERYONE or close to it are doing something that can cause medical problems later in life. Whether you are a smoker, drinker, drug user, over eater, under eater, don't exercise enough, unhealthy eater, have a dangerous job, live in a dangerous area, or any other number of things. Right now they are targeting smokers, but what is to stop them from targeting whatever vice that you partake in? This is why this is unfair to smokers. This high and mighty attitude from non-smokers towards smokers is ridiculous, those non-smokers probably do something that is unhealthy for them that will cause them to have large amounts of medical bills later in life. I don't smoke, but I know I'm not the healthiest eater and I don't exercise. There are other things, but I'm not getting into it, the short story is that smoking is just the beginning, the government can target any number of things that we do that are unhealthy and cause higher medical bills.

Krazysh0t
reply to post by IAMTAT

 

According to the article it says that drug addicts don't have higher than average premiums, just tobacco smokers. Obama apparently singled out tobacco users and only tobacco users for these higher premiums.

Isn't nicotine dependence a drug addiction, as well?

Asktheanimals

Caver78
One thing everyone overlooks is TAXES.
Suppose everyone quit….your taxes would skyrocket since smokers are subsidizing all manner of things.

Yep, I was going to say smokers finance the SCHIP program in Virginia among other things.
We're talking tens of billions of $ in taxes here, not chump change.
Why are smokers the only group penalized? What about overweight people, people who drink, those who do extreme sports, people who travel a lot? They are all high risk.

As usual smokers are the only group they feel they have a moral superiority to.
So we get the shaft.
Thanks society!!!

I'll even do everyone a favor by dying earlier and costing social security less.
Can I get a thank you?

forgot to add people who exercise and or lift weights regularly, their health costs go up as well with the rehab, surgery, and joint care required from doing these activities. people think it's healthier to exercise more than 1-2 days a week but it isn't, you just trade ailments down the road.

Are you people smokers, if not then what ever insurance company you decide to use will make you pay more money for behing a smoker.

It aint obamas fault lol

Tobacco is bad lol

reply to post by Krazysh0t


If the government is providing socialised medicine, they need to cover costs, best way to do that is by targeting vice. I'm not saying its the best thing to do (I'm a university student, alcohol tax in Australia is extremely high, which is no fun) but it definitely makes sense.
I'm not too familiar with the new obamacare legislations (but then again who really knows whats going on right?) but is it safe to assume that smokers were already paying higher premiums for private health insurance? I just don't really understand the difference, I thought it was just universal that smokers were charged higher premiums