I agree that insurance companies should be able to charge extra for smokers. Why
should non smokers have to pay for their treatment? To smoking I think should be
added obesity, alcohol use, drug abuse, sexually promiscuity and driving record.
These are all controllable behaviors that run up the cost of medical treatment.
Smokers supply high tax revenue. Why would the feds discourage smoking? Soon
obesity will be taxed for the sake of health.
Instead of a "sin tax" for those who smoke, drink, eat poorly, etc., I
would like to see those who live healthy lifestyles get discounts. It's
positive motivation instead of negative. Long term, I think it is better for
all. Those who have bad habits pay more, and those who don't pay less.
We should tax politicians who lie. We'd go from a deficit to surplus.
i agree with joseywalesour insurance company DOES give discounts for
healthy lifestyle. our premiums are reduced if we have lower body fat
percentages and exercise etc.it has saved us thousands! and in the long
run made our lives better.and i must say without the cast incentive
i'm not sure that i would have lost the weight. i received $1200 in cash!
plus they paid for weight watchers.
Healthy old people soak up retirement funds for many years without contributing.
Smokers tend to die soon after retirement. Who is a greater burden on society?
@ HotGlobe:It depends on the actual cases themselves.If an unhealthy
person draws $10,000/yr in SS and costs $50,000/yr in Medicare for 10 yrs.And a healthy person draws $25,000/yr in SS but only costs $10,000/yr in
Medicare and lives 20 yrs the healthy person has used more. But that changes if
the unhealthy person draws $15,000/yr in SS and costs $60,000/yr in Medicare. Or
what if the healthy person needs a hip replacement at 16 yrs or if either one
beats the odds and lives an extra 7 yrs?So there are a lot of variables to
be considered.But it does seem apparent that it would be more
beneficial to promote a healthier lifestyle so that people would be able to work
later in life.
Joseywales: I agree with you.Discounts for healthy living probably is a greater
motivator than penalties for unhealthy lifestyles. But, either way, it's a
win/win with more people living a healthy life style and extra funds coming in
from those that choose to live an unhealthy lifestyle.
What are these "very high cigarette taxes" used for, if not for the
extra costs on the public treasury from smoking? Dedicate the cigarette taxes to
this purpose, and adjust the rate continually based on the cost of the needed
care.Likewise, there's an ongoing debate about restoring the
sales tax on food. Restore it, but base it on calories rather than sales price,
and dedicate the revenue to the public cost of obesity. Then you wouldn't
need a ban on large drinks.
We all have an expiration date. How we live this life is a choice. I don't
know when my expiration date is nor do I want to know. Some things aren't
worth thinking about. I want to love the life I live. We have laws that help
make me more considerate of others. I think that free agency is ours to decide
what we do. I ain't hurting no body I ain't hurting mo one. Sure
hospital's have a corner on the market and can charge e nor mas amounts of
money for the aspen. I for one don't want to condone it and be penalized if
If you look up the EGW Subsidies report, it shows that the U.S. Government still
subsidies the tobacco farmers. They received 1,329,776,055.00 from 2000 to 2011
thats 1.3 billion that could be saved and be used to pay for the health
problems that their products cause. Its time that the government got out of the
farming business.If you are a user of products that cause health
problems, then may-be, you need to be charged more up front to help pay for the
health issues you will surely have during your life time.
hotglobe- first, how did these healthy old people not contribute? I'm
guessing they paid into SS and taxes just like the rest of us. Also, it's
proven that the healthier individuals make more in their lifetimes than their
non-healthy friends. Maybe this is because they work harder or are more
motivated, but either way, your thinking doesn't add up. A smoker or obese
person will cost insurance companies way more than a healthy person. Just the
same as a bad driver costs more than a good driver.
We can always wait around and see if Obamacare does to smokers and the obese
what England's healthcare system has done for thier smokers.They simply don't pay for their smoking related illneses.Imagine the liberal utopia, where the ill are forced to suffer because they
are not productive enough to work in a meaningful way to pay for their own care.
@ Redshirt1701"We can always wait around and see if Obamacare
does to smokers and the obese what England's healthcare system has done for
thier smokers. They simply don't pay for their smoking related
illneses".That is NOT the experience of my wives parents in
England. Please provide a reference
To "Allisdair" read the following:"Lung cancer victims
denied lifesaving scans" The Telegraph."Patients
'denied intensive care'" BBC news. That was is great because they
state quite clearly "Patients with chronic lung disease are being denied
intensive care treatment because doctors are too pessimistic about their
chances, research suggests.""The breast cancer patients TOO
OLD to save: Thousands are being denied surgery by 'ageist'
doctors" Daily MailWhile you have been lucky, these are the
realities of the UK system.
JSB said: To smoking I think should be added obesity, alcohol use, drug abuse,
sexually promiscuity and driving record.Too funny...Utah
Conservatives just love sharia law (Mormon Style)Why don't we
tax those who have to many children?I thought there was already to
many taxes? Probably not if your voting to tax someone else, or does that
only count for the sacred wealthy?