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.

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.