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.

 

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

page: 8
33
<< 5  6  7   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 26 2013 @ 05:21 PM
link   
Insurance 101 (and most likely pointed out but I've not read all the posts)... you engage in risky behavior and you're also insured, you pay more than those who don't engage in risky behavior.

Be it speeding (go over the speed limit and not a junky) or in this case smoking.

If you're more apt to cause a payout, you pay first. Insurance is for profit after all.

Don't like it, quit smoking.

It is all about choices, you're making a financially unsound one in the vice (and the subsequent higher premiums).

Krokodil is cheaper that smokes, maybe that is the vice for you? I don't know of any krokodil user upcharge... yet!


Derek




posted on Nov, 26 2013 @ 06:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Viesczy
 


That's funny because I have quit SMOKING. I still use nicotine though, and I would be treated like a smoker by an insurance company. This is not based on actual risk or science, it's based on profit obviously. Someone who uses nicorette would be slammed with the same crap. Does that make sense to you? Punish those who QUIT smoking? Brilliant



posted on Nov, 26 2013 @ 07:53 PM
link   

Krazysh0t

signalfire

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.


Bull Puckey. Detoxing from heroin is dangerous, but rarely more than extremely uncomfortable.

Probably millions of people have given up a nicotine habit cold turkey without any dangerous effects. Uncomfortable, miserable, crabby as all get out, yeah. But not dangerous. Since you're detoxing from a neurotoxin, every minute without it is all to the good. Sorry, no sympathy whatsoever, the first cigarette was your choice, as was every one after that.

And some people won't stop unless they're put on a desert island without a 7-11 nearby to buy the damn things. Maybe it could be considered a good treatment choice, all in all. Short, sweet, to the point. No access.

I wonder how many people say they can't afford health insurance, but spend godknowshowmuch on tobacco.

And it's not price gouging to charge someone for the effects of their lifestyle. Should 2 quarts of gin a day alcoholics be given the same insurance rates as a healthy 20 year old with no bad habits? Should a parachuter, mountain climber, race car driver be given the same rates as a secretary?

As far as lying about being a smoker, don't bother. It's considered fraud and any medical care paid for by the insurance company could be demanded paid back if they see an xray of your lungs or find out otherwise you've been smoking all along (rarely does anyone start smoking after age 21).



posted on Nov, 26 2013 @ 09:15 PM
link   
I thought everyone would be insured regardless of their lifestyle and regardless of pre-existing conditions?

WTF is this crap then? The rates are already astronomical compared to nations with nationalised healthcare, now they are going to make exceptions for smokers? What about if you drink too much alcohol, do drugs, have too much sex, get abducted by aliens, etc?

ACA makes as much sense as santa claus delivering your presents on christmas eve. ZERO!

The more I read about it, the less interesting it becomes.



posted on Nov, 26 2013 @ 09:30 PM
link   

signalfire
Bull Puckey. Detoxing from heroin is dangerous, but rarely more than extremely uncomfortable.

Probably millions of people have given up a nicotine habit cold turkey without any dangerous effects. Uncomfortable, miserable, crabby as all get out, yeah. But not dangerous. Since you're detoxing from a neurotoxin, every minute without it is all to the good. Sorry, no sympathy whatsoever, the first cigarette was your choice, as was every one after that.

And some people won't stop unless they're put on a desert island without a 7-11 nearby to buy the damn things. Maybe it could be considered a good treatment choice, all in all. Short, sweet, to the point. No access.

I wonder how many people say they can't afford health insurance, but spend godknowshowmuch on tobacco.

And it's not price gouging to charge someone for the effects of their lifestyle. Should 2 quarts of gin a day alcoholics be given the same insurance rates as a healthy 20 year old with no bad habits? Should a parachuter, mountain climber, race car driver be given the same rates as a secretary?

As far as lying about being a smoker, don't bother. It's considered fraud and any medical care paid for by the insurance company could be demanded paid back if they see an xray of your lungs or find out otherwise you've been smoking all along (rarely does anyone start smoking after age 21).


I'm sorry, but "Since you're detoxing from a neurotoxin, every minute without it is all to the good." is pretty ignorant. The dose makes the poison. Water can be toxic as well. Some things listed as neurotoxins are known to be essential in smaller quantities. "Some substances such as nitric oxide and glutamate are in fact essential for proper function of the body and only exert neurotoxic effects at excessive concentrations.".

I guess you skipped over my previous comments? I guess we should also crusade against people eating tomatoes and eggplants? I'll start posting peer-reviewed papers if you'd like, but this link will be funner to read. Nicotine in Peppers, tomatoes, eggplants, etc reduce risk of Parkinsons.

This is scientific fact. Nicotine can help many people with many different ailments. Give me an actual GOOD reason why you should feel superior to those who use nicotine? I hope you aren't a hypocrite and eat any peppers or tomato products either.
edit on 26-11-2013 by BanTv because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 26 2013 @ 11:01 PM
link   
reply to post by Caver78
 


Especially with piss poor evidence!



posted on Nov, 26 2013 @ 11:08 PM
link   
reply to post by LeatherNLace
 


Since 2000, federal taxes on a pack of cigarettes have increased 197 percent. Use that money to subsidize their health care. Tax the twinkie eaters! Tax the meat eaters! Tax the big gulp drinkers! Tax everything that doesn't fit into your perfect mold. Maybe when everything you enjoy is taxed, they will start taxing your bowl movements and the water to flush.

You die already. Hateful thing.



posted on Nov, 27 2013 @ 01:39 AM
link   
Well I smoke over a pack a day and I work in a Union....So I'm exempt. But I do pay union dues, so I have paid for part of it anyway.



posted on Nov, 27 2013 @ 04:35 AM
link   

RobinB022
reply to post by MystikMushroom
 





You can't have your cake and eat it too. The government either wants to let us keep smoking and tax it fairly, or have us quit and risk loosing a pretty nice tax revenue stream.


No-they want us smoking, and they want to sintax us. Because they are hypocrites. And them wanting us to quit is just more income, more reason to punish smokers. And last I knew, smoking was legal !

And the "Just die already" remark, we all will of something, and to each their own.(Not meant for you MM)

My mother quit smoking and 4 1/2 yrs later was DX'ed with cancer. My sister called the cancer society and was told that it's very common for people who quit smoking to get sick, even with cancer. It was explained to her that the body missed what it had, and in looking for ways to come to terms with the loss of (something) in the tobacco, can actually lead to cancer. I've no idea how true that is as it was my sister telling me, but I do know of several people who became sick after quitting.

Regardless-the whole thing is hypocritical of not only our Gov't, but Obama (smoker) himself.
edit on 25-11-2013 by RobinB022 because: no reason


dude, i believe it! i been smoking for 45+yrs, always felt that if i quit, i would die.

i rarely get sick, unlike my non smoking friends.

and the stats blame smoking, even tho they quit, years before.



posted on Nov, 27 2013 @ 04:54 AM
link   

UnifiedSerenity

ldyserenity

IBelieveInAliens
reply to post by Krazysh0t
 
It makes complete sense. Smokers get sick more (self-inflicted) so they should pay more. Where's the problem here? If they do't like it, then quit smoking. Easy. I quit, cold turkey, after two packs a day for 25 years. It was tough for a little while but I did it.



Smoked since I was 12 a pack a day, been sick maybe twice where I actually needed doctors not from smoking but from being in freezing cold temps taking buses to work and home late hours of night/early morning hours. Now that I have my own vehicle I get sick less than all of my coworkers that don't smoke ever did (And it's usually stomach issues not breathing or lung issues no flu or cold practically ever) And when I do I tend to be less sick than someone else and less amount of time in fact I've worked sick because it doesn't knock me down as badly as a non smoker. I am 41 years old had chest ex-rays in FL because of my chronic bronchitis that happened from the two times I had pneumonia in my life my lungs are still completely without a single dark spot they are clear as crystal.

I've since learned how to control on my own the chronic bronchitis from the web and friends who practice natural herbal healing and prevention. It has worked for the past 2 years. I am healthier than friends of mine with the same issues who see DR'S regularly.


I have stayed off of this topic because people are so indoctrinated about smoking, and it's a huge lie. Most people have no clue that all those pictures of black lungs of smokers are the lungs of coal miners and guess what? All coal miners who spent their lives inhaling that coal dust have lungs that look like this! I put up this article a long time ago. It explains the lies involved about smoking. Sure I think smoking affects how well you intake oxygen at some point and can get COPD. But, smoking does not cause cancer in and of itself.

Why is it that countries with much higher smoking populations do not have the lung cancer rates we do? That is a proven fact. The real issue is the fact that America, England, France, Russia all knew radioactive material causes cancer. One small dust particle hits your healthy lung and you WILL get lung cancer. One small particle hits your skin and you WILL get skin cancer. This is called gross culpable negligence to know this and spew TONS of this dust up into the atmosphere via open air nuclear tests. They know cancer takes time, so they had to create a fall guy, and the natural fall guy is smoking!

People have smoked for centuries and not gotten lung cancer prior to the 1940's. Suddenly within a decade of it, people started getting sick. The government knew these facts. They even knew smoking did not give the rats lung cancer, but this dust did!

Read the FACTS. Scientists Proved Smoking Prevents Lung Cancer

Now, I know you all want to believe what I am saying is not true. That it's obvious anything you inhale will make you sick oh, unless you are a pothead, then that is good for you. Ignore the evidence, ignore the fact millions smoke in other countries much more than we do and don't get cancer. In 3 decades when none of us smoke in America, what are you going to blame then? This radioactive dust has a 50,0000 year life, so get used to it folks, we screwed our environment and the government has us blaming evil smokers!
edit on 26-11-2013 by UnifiedSerenity because: (no reason given)

edit on 26-11-2013 by UnifiedSerenity because: (no reason given)


yeah, kinda funny we lived in caves for 300,000 yrs breathing campfire smoke.
all of a sudden, we get cancer, in the last 70yrs.

doesn't sound like evolution to me.
or even logic.



posted on Nov, 27 2013 @ 07:20 AM
link   
reply to post by signalfire
 


You do know that alcohol is more dangerous than smoking right?

Is Tobacco more dangerous than Alcohol?


Alcohol reports for approximately 79,000 deaths per year, from excessive drinking alone. This total raises to over 450,000 deaths when you factor in accidents and violence caused by drinking while Tobacco results in approximately 250,000 deaths per year.


All those alcohol related accidents and violence cause hospital stays and incur healthcare expenses.

Not to mention alcohol withdrawal CAN lead to death.

Alcohol Withdrawal


Alcohol withdrawal syndrome is a potentially life-threatening condition that can occur in people who have been drinking heavily for weeks, months, or years and then either stop or significantly reduce their alcohol consumption.


So tell me, why are we singling out cigarettes here? Clearly there are more dangerous legal psychotropic drugs on the market, but cigarettes are just the huge bad guys right now.
edit on 27-11-2013 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 27 2013 @ 01:16 PM
link   



posted on Nov, 27 2013 @ 01:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Krazysh0t
 


It is absurd the way that peoples personal choices are the subject of public mandates. It is fascist to force someone to do what an official government agency wants in all aspects of their lives. What I put into my body is my own personal choice and no one should have a say in that.

It is really annoying. I hate soy milk.....should I start a war on soy milk drinkers because of it.....

I will smoke until I feel like quitting and no one will change that.
edit on 11 27 2013 by tadaman because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 27 2013 @ 06:49 PM
link   

Tarzan the apeman.

beezzer
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!
I wonder if you still get subsidies if you smoke?



I am wondering if they are going to bother homosexuals about their risk of aids.



posted on Nov, 27 2013 @ 11:46 PM
link   
There really has been a war against smokers now for decades and the government is all too happy to bend over to these fanatics to make them happy. I do understand that second hand smoke is bad for peoples health but I cant stand all the gross exagerrations that have caused this incremental stupidty in laws. Its worst than the gun laws in fact.

"Its bad for my health governor." Ok lets create smoking sections and non-smoking section then and have air circulation systems to siphon out the smoke. Everyone should be happy now.

"The air filters dont remove all the smoke and I resent having to breath any smoke at all governor." Really, ok lets do away with smoking and non-smoking sections and force all the smokers to go out into the freezing cold if they need to.

Meanwhile lets tax tabacco and alcohol to death to collect as much revenue from these fools as we can.

Next insurance companies charge up to 50% more on their premiums.

You would think smoking is worst than drugs. In fact our society is too immature to do anything in moderation, while the native americans smoked tabacco, smoked cannabi, chewed on coca leaves, etc.

Society needs to grow the hell up fast. I really dislike social progressives, and I am a financial progressive too. I tend to be liberal on social affairs.



posted on Nov, 28 2013 @ 01:35 AM
link   
Healthcare, in many ways, has always been more expensive for smokers though, right?

This isn't really a new Obamacare mandate out of left field. It's more 'inline' with conventional health care costs, I believe. It might not be fair but smokers get sicker more often and there is a cost associated with it. You could have a philosophical argument bout pre existing conditions though...maybe more the philosophical.



posted on Nov, 29 2013 @ 03:17 AM
link   

Krazysh0t
reply to post by signalfire
 


You do know that alcohol is more dangerous than smoking right?


I'm on the side that thinks alcohol should be illegal with several other things made legal. Then again, I have history against me as we all know how prohibition turned out. Maybe it just needs to be less socially acceptable so fewer people drink to excess.



new topics

top topics



 
33
<< 5  6  7   >>

log in

join