For a 55-year-old smoker, the penalty could reach nearly $4,250 a year. A 60-year-old could wind up paying nearly $5,100 on top of premiums.
http://www.capitolhillblue.com/node/46183 (http://www.capitolhillblue.com/node/46183)
USSR, here we are.
Sprinkle in some draconiam gun control, a big tax jump, and get another 20-30% on the dole.....and it's complete.
Already have Pravda in the form of 8-10 formerly commercial ouotlets.
Right now, without Obamacare individual plans cost 10%-40% more for smokers. You can also be denied coverage entirely for smoking.
After Obamacare, insurers are allowed to charge up to 50% more, and aren't allowed to deny coverage. If the real cost is 10%-40%, I imagine some insurers will continue charging that to compete in the marketplace better.
It seems like this provision doesn't change much.
The alternative would be to not allow insurers to price based on smoking, which would raise everyone's premiums.
Quote from: mhughes on January 25, 2013, 11:11:44 AM
Right now, without Obamacare individual plans cost 10%-40% more for smokers. You can also be denied coverage entirely for smoking.
After Obamacare, insurers are allowed to charge up to 50% more, and aren't allowed to deny coverage. If the real cost is 10%-40%, I imagine some insurers will continue charging that to compete in the marketplace better.
It seems like this provision doesn't change much.
The alternative would be to not allow insurers to price based on smoking, which would raise everyone's premiums.
If we're going to be honest, and look at sheer cost and expense, smokers should pay less, under any system.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/05/health/05iht-obese.1.9748884.html?_r=0 (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/05/health/05iht-obese.1.9748884.html?_r=0)
http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2012/03/22/alcohol-obesity-and-smoking-do-not-cost-health-care-systems-money/ (http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2012/03/22/alcohol-obesity-and-smoking-do-not-cost-health-care-systems-money/)
But, since everything is driven by political agenda, facts don't matter. :sad:
Since smoking, (in particular), has been deemed to be a blight on the collective, leftist hive that we call society, smokers are being forced to pay for the long term illnesses that will eventually befall the so called "healthy".
It has been expanded to include any tobacco use, including chewing tobacco. Libs don't like it.
The only way for the current formula, (or the one in Obamacare), to make sense, is to assume that "healthy" people, either live forever or die very quickly; neither of which is true. Healthy people slowly decompose while still breathing.
It's cheaper ... "because both the smokers and the obese people died sooner than the healthy group"
That data isn't relavent in pricing policies that don't cover dead people.
Quote from: mhughes on January 25, 2013, 11:54:42 AM
It's cheaper ... "because both the smokers and the obese people died sooner than the healthy group"
That data isn't relavent in pricing policies that don't cover dead people.
You just made my point, and then said it isn't relevant. :confused:
You didn't look at overall healthcare costs. Less is spent on the smokers..............because they die sooner. More healthcare money is spent on the skinny, healthy people. If it costs more to keep them going in the end, why shouldn't they pay more?
The fat smokers consume less of the overall healthcare money pie.
Quote from: mhughes on January 25, 2013, 11:11:44 AM
Right now, without Obamacare individual plans cost 10%-40% more for smokers. You can also be denied coverage entirely for smoking.
After Obamacare, insurers are allowed to charge up to 50% more, and aren't allowed to deny coverage. If the real cost is 10%-40%, I imagine some insurers will continue charging that to compete in the marketplace better.
It seems like this provision doesn't change much.
The alternative would be to not allow insurers to price based on smoking, which would raise everyone's premiums.
Don't miss the big picture here, if they can do that to smokers, what's to stop them from gouging overweight people, not fat, but overweight according to some bureaucrats standards?
There is nothing to stop them, maybe charge more for those that travel more in a year, making them more prone to an accident, or people that travel overseas, coming in contact with disease more often.
Don't think they aren't considering it.
A smoker does pay less, because they don't pay for insurance after they're dead.
A smoker will cost more (on average) per year than a non smoker assuming they're both alive.
This is all in terms of deciding what you pay for health insurance, while alive.
I think this is the study those articles were based off of?
http://eurpub.oxfordjournals.org/content/14/1/95.full.pdf (http://eurpub.oxfordjournals.org/content/14/1/95.full.pdf)
QuoteResults: Annual direct and indirect costs of ever-smokers were higher than for never-smokers in all age groups of both genders.
Quote from: Solar on January 25, 2013, 12:11:20 PM
Don't miss the big picture here, if they can do that to smokers, what's to stop them from gouging overweight people, not fat, but overweight according to some bureaucrats standards?
There's more fat voters than smoking voters.
I think the free market would work out the travel question since some insurance companies would choose not to increase costs for travelers, and thereby gain more customers.
Quote from: mhughes on January 25, 2013, 12:24:59 PM
A smoker does pay less, because they don't pay for insurance after they're dead.
A smoker will cost more (on average) per year than a non smoker assuming they're both alive.
This is all in terms of deciding what you pay for health insurance, while alive.
I think this is the study those articles were based off of?
http://eurpub.oxfordjournals.org/content/14/1/95.full.pdf (http://eurpub.oxfordjournals.org/content/14/1/95.full.pdf)
Curious, do they include the increase in taxes to pay for this scam, or just the out of pocket charges?
Quote from: mhughes on January 25, 2013, 12:24:59 PM
A smoker does pay less, because they don't pay for insurance after they're dead.
A smoker will cost more (on average) per year than a non smoker assuming they're both alive.
This is all in terms of deciding what you pay for health insurance, while alive.
I think this is the study those articles were based off of?
http://eurpub.oxfordjournals.org/content/14/1/95.full.pdf (http://eurpub.oxfordjournals.org/content/14/1/95.full.pdf)
Here's the study. You have to look at the charts:
http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pmed.0050029 (http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pmed.0050029)
The point is, that smokers tend to die more quickly once they get sick.
Let me illustrate:
I'm a smoker. Based on everything I know, I will probably check out between 70-75, although I won't be smoking that long. The healthcare costs incurred will probably not be that high, because I will go fairly quickly.
On the other hand..........
Both my grandmother and her mother lived to 102 and 106, respectively. Both on medicare at age 65 or whatever it is. Non smokers.
Here's the catch: Both of them started falling down in their late 70's. This involved hip replacements, etc. In later life life it was dementia and 24 hour care.
Who costs less money over a lifetime? The healthy non-smokers.
Quote from: kramarat on January 25, 2013, 01:00:01 PM
Here's the study. You have to look at the charts:
http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pmed.0050029 (http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pmed.0050029)
The point is, that smokers tend to die more quickly once they get sick.
Let me illustrate:
I'm a smoker. Based on everything I know, I will probably check out between 70-75, although I won't be smoking that long. The healthcare costs incurred will probably not be that high, because I will go fairly quickly.
On the other hand..........
Both my grandmother and her mother lived to 102 and 106, respectively. Both on medicare at age 65 or whatever it is. Non smokers.
Here's the catch: Both of them started falling down in their late 70's. This involved hip replacements, etc. In later life life it was dementia and 24 hour care.
Who costs less money over a lifetime? The healthy non-smokers.
Damn those pesky facts!
It's why liberal math is so much easier to use than real math, 0 can be greater than 1 or even 100 when necessary. :laugh:
We're talking about insurance premiums that insurance companies charge people, right? That's an annual product.
Lifetime costs don't matter when you're pricing an annual product.
Imagine Bob and Gary. Both aged 35 in 2013, similar weight, similar background. Bob smokes. Gary doesn't.
It doesn't matter that Bob dies in 2014 and Gary doesn't. Bob has a higher risk of having health problems than Gary. Insurance is all about risk, so insurance costs more.
Age is the other factor that insurance companies are allowed to vary prices on. So Sue is paying more as she gets older and falls apart.
Lifetime costs don't matter when you're pricing an annual product.
Quote from: mhughes on January 25, 2013, 01:23:54 PM
We're talking about insurance premiums that insurance companies charge people, right? That's an annual product.
Lifetime costs don't matter when you're pricing an annual product.
Imagine Bob and Gary. Both aged 35 in 2013, similar weight, similar background. Bob smokes. Gary doesn't.
It doesn't matter that Bob dies in 2014 and Gary doesn't. Bob has a higher risk of having health problems than Gary. Insurance is all about risk, so insurance costs more.
Age is the other factor that insurance companies are allowed to vary prices on. So Sue is paying more as she gets older and falls apart.
Lifetime costs don't matter when you're pricing an annual product.
What does matter is double pricing via taxation then premiums.
Quote from: Solar on January 25, 2013, 01:26:40 PM
What does matter is double pricing via taxation then premiums.
Please explain where the tax is in regards to this.
Quote from: mhughes on January 25, 2013, 01:36:29 PM
Please explain where the tax is in regards to this.
Because half the nation is paying for it through increased taxes, then you have a premium as well, technically illegal, but one idiot on the SCOTUS didn't see it that way.
Quote from: mhughes on January 25, 2013, 01:23:54 PM
We're talking about insurance premiums that insurance companies charge people, right? That's an annual product.
Lifetime costs don't matter when you're pricing an annual product.
Imagine Bob and Gary. Both aged 35 in 2013, similar weight, similar background. Bob smokes. Gary doesn't.
It doesn't matter that Bob dies in 2014 and Gary doesn't. Bob has a higher risk of having health problems than Gary. Insurance is all about risk, so insurance costs more.
Age is the other factor that insurance companies are allowed to vary prices on. So Sue is paying more as she gets older and falls apart.
Lifetime costs don't matter when you're pricing an annual product.
Actually, the liberal mantra is the cost to society; which is why second hand smoke has become such a buzzword, even though we know that the argument is BS.
Imagine Bob and Gary. Both aged 35 in 2013, similar weight, similar background. Bob smokes. Gary doesn't.
It doesn't matter that Bob dies in 2014 and Gary doesn't. Bob has a higher risk of having health problems than Gary. Insurance is all about risk, so insurance costs more.Why is insurance based on
perceived risk, rather than actual cost of healthcare?
Bob dies in 2014 after a 3 month bout with lung cancer.
Gary lives to be 95, and starts having prostate problems at 65, gout at age 66, migraines at age 70, Alzheimers at age 73, slips and breaks a hip at 75..................followed by eventual 24 hour care.
Bob died at age 36: Total hospital tab- $125,000 and done.
Gary dies at 95: Total healthcare tab- $3,425,000
Why is Bob a higher risk? As far as cost goes, Gary is a big taker.
Quote from: Solar on January 25, 2013, 01:47:17 PM
Because half the nation is paying for it through increased taxes, then you have a premium as well, technically illegal, but one idiot on the SCOTUS didn't see it that way.
That's a completely different discussion not related to the smoking pricing differential. I'll agree with that one.
Quote from: mhughes on January 25, 2013, 02:07:46 PM
That's a completely different discussion not related to the smoking pricing differential. I'll agree with that one.
If we assume that smoking leads to early death, then smokers ultmately cost both the insurance campanies,
and society, less money in the long haul; which is what the study shows. They pay more in and take less out.
Quote from: kramarat on January 25, 2013, 01:48:04 PM
Why is insurance based on perceived risk, rather than actual cost of healthcare?
It's real risk. Both studies posted in this thread stated higher per annum costs for smokers over non smokers in similar situations.
Quote from: mhughes on January 25, 2013, 11:11:44 AM
Right now, without Obamacare individual plans cost 10%-40% more for smokers. You can also be denied coverage entirely for smoking.
That's the way it should be. In a free market, another insurance company would come along and figure out how to make money covering them.
Quote
After Obamacare, insurers are allowed to charge up to 50% more, and aren't allowed to deny coverage. If the real cost is 10%-40%, I imagine some insurers will continue charging that to compete in the marketplace better.
Why is that fair?
Quote
It seems like this provision doesn't change much.
The alternative would be to not allow insurers to price based on smoking, which would raise everyone's premiums.
Why is that fair?
Quote from: mhughes on January 25, 2013, 02:16:21 PM
It's real risk. Both studies posted in this thread stated higher per annum costs for smokers over non smokers in similar situations.
You're cheating. Per annum costs
can't be higher for smokers. The only way to figure it accurately, is to take total lifespan divided by total healthcare costs. The non-smokers are more expensive to maintain; it doesn't matter if it's by year or over a lifetime.
The only way to make your formula work, is to look at the cost of the smoker vs the non smoker, during the one year it takes for the smoker to get sick and die. The non-smoker keeps on living and getting less healthy with every year. It costs a lot to keep him going.
Quote from: taxed on January 25, 2013, 02:21:12 PM
That's the way it should be. In a free market, another insurance company would come along and figure out how to make money covering them.
Why is that fair?
Why is that fair?
Because in the lib world spreading the misery is the goal.
The bottom line is........both insurance and healthcare could be affordable for everyone.
Between the FDA, IRS, HHS, and the rest of the government BS red tape, billions of man hours are spent every year just to satisfy the government.
If we minimized the government role, allowed the purchase of insurance across state lines, and implemented common sense tort reform, there would be no healthcare crisis. It's purely invented by, and for, government. It's also been created by them.
The government does not care about anyone's health. Period. It's about control.
Quote from: kramarat on January 25, 2013, 02:30:01 PM
Per annum costs can't be higher for smokers.
Both studies very plainly stated per anum costs of smokers were higher.
Quote from: supsalemgr on January 25, 2013, 02:48:18 PM
Because in the lib world spreading the misery is the goal.
Off topic, but I was contemplating this last night.
Liberals have taken the schools.
They preach promiscuity and homosexual sex.
STDs skyrocket among young people.
Liberal answer to the new problem? Distribute condoms in the schools.
My tolerance for these complete idiots, grows shorter by the day. :cursing:
While I dont condone smoking, that would be ridiculous. Cigarettes already are insanely high in price, we don't need unnecessary penalties to pay just for our good health. Just another downfall on Obamas part.
Quote from: Balto on January 25, 2013, 08:15:44 PM
While I dont condone smoking, that would be ridiculous. Cigarettes already are insanely high in price, we don't need unnecessary penalties to pay just for our good health. Just another downfall on Obamas part.
It's the fallacy of leftist thinking. They believe that with enough laws and a huge government to impose them, everybody will do the right thing. Of course, the right thing has to be defined by them. It's the opposite of freedom.
Quote from: kramarat on January 25, 2013, 08:23:25 PM
It's the fallacy of leftist thinking. They believe that with enough laws and a huge government to impose them, everybody will do the right thing. Of course, the right thing has to be defined by them. It's the opposite of freedom.
Of course. If smart minds thought alike from both sides, America would not worry about losing her value of being one of the big economic powers, downgrading in credit ratings, losing constitutional rights, all those goodies our founders gave us.
Quote from: Balto on January 25, 2013, 08:28:07 PM
Of course. If smart minds thought alike from both sides, America would not worry about losing her value of being one of the big economic powers, downgrading in credit ratings, losing constitutional rights, all those goodies our founders gave us.
We are witnessing Obama's transformation. Lenin was all about power to the working people and wealth redistribution too.
In the end, Lenin was a ruthless dictator and the people were mired in poverty and hopelessness.
Obama speaks more like a ruler by the day.
Quote from: kramarat on January 25, 2013, 08:23:25 PM
It's the fallacy of leftist thinking. They believe that with enough laws and a huge government to impose them, everybody will do the right thing. Of course, the right thing has to be defined by them. It's the opposite of freedom.
I'll bet you got mad all over when you reread this reply before you posted it. You were suggesting that the left thinks that enough laws and bigger government to impose them would make everyone "do the right thing"? And the right thing as far as they are concerned is related to what? A hike thru Hades? :rolleyes:
Quote from: keyboarder on January 26, 2013, 05:00:56 AM
I'll bet you got mad all over when you reread this reply before you posted it. You were suggesting that the left thinks that enough laws and bigger government to impose them would make everyone "do the right thing"? And the right thing as far as they are concerned is related to what? A hike thru Hades? :rolleyes:
Well, the left's idea of the "right" thing could fill a book, and they would never stop writing new laws to keep us in line.
Lets just call it the false Utopian vision, that will never come to be. :wink:
Quote from: kramarat on January 26, 2013, 05:06:15 AM
Well, the left's idea of the "right" thing could fill a book, and they would never stop writing new laws to keep us in line.
Lets just call it the false Utopian vision, that will never come to be. :wink:
:thumbsup:
Quote from: kramarat on January 26, 2013, 05:06:15 AM
Well, the left's idea of the "right" thing could fill a book, and they would never stop writing new laws to keep us in line.
Lets just call it the false Utopian vision, that will never come to be. :wink:
So true.
Sadly libs core values are malleable, they change with the emotion of the moment.
One moment the First Amendment is written in stone, until the Right states facts that contradict their ideals, then suddenly the First is just a suggestion by old white guys that created the Amendment process so children in the future could rewrite the rules.
It's not that I hate libs, I just can't stand ignorant kids.
Quote from: Solar on January 26, 2013, 07:01:19 AM
So true.
Sadly libs core values are malleable, they change with the emotion of the moment.
One moment the First Amendment is written in stone, until the Right states facts that contradict their ideals, then suddenly the First is just a suggestion by old white guys that created the Amendment process so children in the future could rewrite the rules.
It's not that I hate libs, I just can't stand ignorant kids.
A lot of them aren't kids.
Hell, if for no other reason, we need a republican in office just so the left can remember what the constitution is. They love it when it fits their agenda. Most important document in the world. :rolleyes:
I Am Sick And Tired - Hillary Clinton (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NJxmpTMGhU0#)
Quote from: kramarat on January 26, 2013, 07:57:19 AM
A lot of them aren't kids.
Hell, if for no other reason, we need a republican in office just so the left can remember what the constitution is. They love it when it fits their agenda. Most important document in the world. :rolleyes:
I Am Sick And Tired - Hillary Clinton (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NJxmpTMGhU0#)
Bit by bit theyre trying to rip apart our constitution, such as the right to bear arms.
Quote from: kramarat on January 26, 2013, 07:57:19 AM
A lot of them aren't kids.
Hell, if for no other reason, we need a republican in office just so the left can remember what the constitution is. They love it when it fits their agenda. Most important document in the world. :rolleyes:
I Am Sick And Tired - Hillary Clinton (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NJxmpTMGhU0#)
In truth, they are all children. When one fails to matures into adulthood and accept responsibility for their own life, they remain forever children.
That is what I meant when referring to them as kids, the majority of the base are actual kids, the rest are pissed off adults angry at themselves for the abject failure their life has become.
So what better way to justify their very own existence than to strike back at those that made them feel inadequate.
Misery loves company and the Dim party finds solace in what they do.
Quote from: Solar on January 26, 2013, 08:35:05 AM
In truth, they are all children. When one fails to matures into adulthood and accept responsibility for their own life, they remain forever children.
That is what I meant when referring to them as kids, the majority of the base are actual kids, the rest are pissed off adults angry at themselves for the abject failure their life has become.
So what better way to justify their very own existence than to strike back at those that made them feel inadequate.
Misery loves company and the Dim party finds solace in what they do.
True, but it damned sure doesn't make them not dangerous. :scared:
Quote from: kramarat on January 26, 2013, 09:16:27 AM
True, but it damned sure doesn't make them not dangerous. :scared:
As Rush says, "When they are not in power they are hilarious, when they are in power they are dangerous".