| |
|
|
|
|
Share/Bookmark this Topic:
|
| Message |
Author |
Do you think smoking should be classified differently than obesity for health insurance purposes?
| a. Yes, smoking is more destructive than overeating. |
| [ 0 ] 0% |
| |
| b. No, if one group is going to be charged more for risky behavior, then all those who "misbehave" must pay for their sins. Otherwise, the rule is unconstitutional. |
| [ 9 ] 100% |
| |
| c. Yes, I think smokers should be expected to give up what they like, but overeaters, alcoholics and crack addicts are totally out of control and can't be expected to embrace deprivation. |
| [ 0 ] 0% |
| |
Total Votes : 9 |
|
by libertarian99
on Mon Aug 10, 2009 4:43 pm |
|
I have heard it all now, as far as the lame justifications for pretending that smoking is somehow different, health-wise, from other personal behaviors that affect health such as eating and drinking alcohol. In the news, ASH is pushing for an extra health insurance surcharge on smokers, claiming that 57% of the population supports it.
http://www.pr-inside.com/most-want-health-insurance-smoker-surcharge-r1429307.htm
Of course, since smokers are a minority and the majority sees a chance to lower their own health insurance premiums by charging a relatively powerless minority group more, the sheeple are all in favor of a smoking surcharge.
The only cognitive dissonance issue the sheeple are experiencing as a result of their stand on this issue -- which really just boils down to "make someone else pay more so my premium goes down" -- is the fact they don't want to pay any extra surcharges for engaging in their own risky pleasure-seeking behavior. That means they have to come up with justification for applying a surcharge to smokers, while excusing all other forms of behavior that can have negative health consequences.
According to this article, only 36% of people favor a surcharge on the obese. Of course the sheeple don't want an obesity surcharge because 2/3 of Americans would have to pay it, and those 2/3 -- who SHOULD pay a surcharge but DON'T WANT TO -- can simply vote their way out of it due to being the majority.
Never has it been more clear that this issue is nothing but a numbers game, with the behavior of the majority being excused under any and all circumstances. After all, if you followed the "smoker surcharge" reasoning to its logical conclusion, you would have to charge more for anyone who was unwilling to conform to a "healthy lifestyle." You can't outrage the majority, though, so as long as the majority is misbehaving in majority-sanctioned ways, it's all cool.
Here is a quote from the article:
"MSNBC also reports that, according to a recent poll, 57% of Americans favor higher health insurance premiums
for smokers, as contrasted with only 36% favoring a similar surcharge on the obese. One possible reason, MSNBC suggests, is that two-thirds of Americans are overweight, but fewer than 20% still smoke.
Banzhaf notes that, while federal law classifies smoking as a "behavior," obesity has been officially classified as a "disease" (for tax and Medicare purposes) and as a "health status" for health insurance purposes. That's why, says Banzhaf, the government has ruled that it is permissible to charge smokers far more for health insurance, but has limited such additional costs regarding obesity. ash.org/higher4smokers
Most people see buying and using cigarettes as a habit or a choice, thus fitting the criteria for a user fee. Although there is evidence that for many people smoking involves addiction, the addiction is to the drug nicotine, not to the act of smoking itself, which is a behavior.
But because those who desire can easily ingest nicotine from nicotine gum, nicotine patches, nicotine spray, and nicotine inhalers, their decision to ingest it by smoking rather than by using other nicotine replacement products is a choice.
Since it is a choice rather than an addiction, disease, or health status, it is fairer to impose personal responsibility for the choice by making smokers bear at least a portion of the huge costs their choice imposes on the economy and on the health care system, argues Banzhaf."
* * *
The implication that smokers are making a choice, while people who put extra food in their mouth are not making a choice -- that just reaches the level of total astonishment, as far as people's ability to choose blindness over logic when it suits their purpose. According to this reasoning, someone who eats 10,000 calories worth of food each day is not doing so voluntarily, but if you choose a cigarette over a nicotine lozenge -- now, THAT is a voluntary choice.
Repeat after me: An obese person who chooses to eat a whole German chocolate cake for dessert instead of reaching for an apple is NOT making a choice; they are merely manifesting their "health status."
I feel like I have to go lay down because the logical inconsistencies are making me dizzy. |
|
|
libertarian99
Enthusiastic Smoker
Joined: May 01, 2009
Posts: 453
|
| |
Back to top |
|
|
| |
|
by garhkal
on Mon Aug 10, 2009 5:34 pm |
|
| It is cause of shit like this, i would LOVE for a new country to form up in the mid pacific, who would welcome all smokers with open arms, so we could all leave this cesspool our country is becoming. |
|
|
garhkal
Enthusiastic Smoker
Joined: Apr 24, 2009
Posts: 278
|
| |
Back to top |
| |
|
by libertarian99
on Mon Aug 10, 2009 10:39 pm |
|
garhkal wrote: It is cause of shit like this, i would LOVE for a new country to form up in the mid pacific, who would welcome all smokers with open arms, so we could all leave this cesspool our country is becoming.
I can't imagine devoting my life, as the people from ASH do, trying to force other people to behave the way I would like them to behave. I wouldn't waste a second of my time obsessing about other people's personal habits, because I know I would just be making both them and myself miserable, while accomplishing nothing.
You don't see me complaining about anyone else running up a medical bill, even though people do idiotic things and take idiotic chances every day. If there was any logic involved in all this, then doctors should be able to enforce their treatment plans for chronic conditions such as diabetes, which requires people to modify their diet and take prescribed medications to prevent the expensive, debilitating effects of that disease. Instead, diabetics remain free to eat whatever they want, neglect their meds and let their health go downhill until they suffer amputations and organ damage. No one questions their right to live the way they please, despite expensive and dire consequences.
The same goes for heart bypass patients. Theoretically, if extra charges are being applied to everyone who could potentially prevent some of their own bodily damage, then heart patients should be required by law to take every pill ordered, follow the appropriate diet and exercise according to the doctor's instructions.
People ignore medical advice all the time. They don't fill prescriptions. They don't go for recommended tests. They don't lose weight or exercise. I knew one woman who got so heavy, her knees were starting to collapse under her own weight. She refused lap band surgery that would have solved that and many other weight-related health problems she was being treated for.
Her sole reason for refusing the lap band surgery was because she felt restricting her food intake would render her life not worth living. Don't tell me this woman did not make a choice, that her choice did not put her own personal pleasure above public health, and that her choice did not create significant avoidable health care expenses.
I'm all for the island idea. If you can find a place where WHO hasn't taken over, please post it on this Web site. |
Last edited by libertarian99 on Mon Sep 07, 2009 11:51 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
libertarian99
Enthusiastic Smoker
Joined: May 01, 2009
Posts: 453
|
| |
Back to top |
| |
|
by violetfae
on Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:14 pm |
|
| Libertarian, thanks for the links you post. As for your opinions on this one, I couldn't have said it better myself (don't have the writing and language skills you do.) |
|
|
violetfae
Newbie
Joined: Mar 22, 2009
Posts: 33
|
| |
Back to top |
| |
|
by Slearwig
on Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:47 pm |
|
libertarian99 wrote: I can't imagine devoting my life, as the people from ASH do, trying to force other people to behave the way I would like them to behave. I wouldn't waste a second of my time obsessing about other people's personal habits, because I know I would just be making both them and myself miserable, while accomplishing nothing.
I think we used to call this behavior Religion.
Quote: I'm all for the island idea. If you can find a place where WHO hasn't taken over, please post it on this Web site.
We're not the only ones. That's why talk of succession as well as State's Rights is not unheard of.
I myself have a fantasy about moving to Pitcairn Island.  |
|
|
Slearwig
Enthusiastic Smoker
Joined: Mar 28, 2009
Posts: 213
|
| |
Back to top |
| |
|
by Smoker Sympathizer
on Wed Aug 12, 2009 12:14 am |
|
I did not vote in this poll because none of the choices reflected my views. I am a live and let live kind of person and I'm sick and tired of people being discriminated against due to lifestyle choices. If someone wants to smoke, I'll be happy to give them an ashtray and keep them company. If someone wants cake, I'll be more than happy to share a slice with them. Two things I've learned: smokers do not like to hear the words "your filthy habit", and obese people do not want to hear the words, "fatty, fatso or fatass". I've never said any of those things to anyone, and never intend to. Instead of marginalized people fighting amongst each other over which sin is worse and needs to be punished more severely, why aren't we united in demanding that the people responsible for this mentality not only get out of our private lives, but be stripped of any power they may have, so they will never again do such harm to a free country?
We shouldn't have to forgo the pleasures of life because some people aren't happy unless they're making others miserable. I can't imagine being at the end of my days and realizing that I did not live at all, but only existed. Bring on the German chocolate cake and beer! |
|
|
Smoker Sympathizer
Toker
Joined: Jul 19, 2009
Posts: 86
|
| |
Back to top |
| |
|
by libertarian99
on Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:30 am |
|
Smoker Sympathizer wrote: Instead of marginalized people fighting amongst each other over which sin is worse and needs to be punished more severely, why aren't we united in demanding that the people responsible for this mentality not only get out of our private lives, but be stripped of any power they may have, so they will never again do such harm to a free country?
I don't think people owe each other anything, as far as maintaining their health, contributing the maximum possible amount of productivity in the work force, or striving for the longest possible lifespan. People don't ask to be born. Your body is not like a car that you have asked someone else for permission to drive, creating an obligation to return it to the owner with no scratches or dents. You just wake up in a state of consciousness and find that you are stuck in your body without even knowing how you got there or why.
In this society, people assume that addictions must be broken once identified, but I don't think anyone is obligated to change if they don't want to. If people just want to accept and live with their addiction, that's their right as long as they don't kill anyone else in the process.
The reason I feel that way is due to my own personal experience with self-imposed "intensive lifestyle interventions" (a term coined by Dr. Dean Ornish, and something he advocates as part of health care reform). I can chart my whole life in terms of addictive behaviors I have "overcome," only to take up another equally addictive behavior.
For example, I was overweight as a teenager, then "overcame" my weight problem, only to become anorexic. I then "beat anorexia," but started smoking.
After about a decade of smoking, I "conquered" that addiction by turning to exercise. I thought my exercise program was the solution to everything and would save me from all future health problems, but eventually it, too, became destructive.
While living a smokefree lifestyle, I also developed what I call "tanorexia," or the compulsion to lay in tanning beds several times a week for fear of being pasty white. Did I mention caffeine and ephedrine? I had experiences with them, too, among others.
When all the dust settled, I went back to smoking moderately, exercising moderately and following a pretty good diet. I prefer to go right down the middle of the road now because I realize that putting rigid constraints on my behavior always backfires. I see no point in "conquering" any of my addictive behaviors because I know I will just replace it with some other addictive behavior, which may turn out to be even worse than what I gave up.
That's why I don't appreciate it when the government threatens to impose "intensive lifestyle interventions" on me. I've been down every road and don't want to go through any of that a second time.
The only way to eliminate all the lifestyle meddling is to quit pooling resources. Private insurance hasn't worked, and since so many people are screaming about it at the top of their lungs, I think it should be eliminated except for catastrophic coverage. Instead, everyone should be required to put a percentage of their income into their own personal health savings account, starting with their very first job as a teenager. By the time most people actually started developing health problems in mid-life, they could just take the money out of their own health savings account to pay for their own care.
If you didn’t have any health expenses, then the money would be yours to keep. It could also be passed down from parent to child, creating a situation where most people are self-insured after a few generations. Most people would end up better off if they did that instead of paying health insurance premiums for years, then losing their insurance and not being covered when disaster strikes. |
|
|
libertarian99
Enthusiastic Smoker
Joined: May 01, 2009
Posts: 453
|
| |
Back to top |
| |
|
by smallbird
on Wed Aug 12, 2009 10:37 pm |
|
I SO AGREE with you libertarian! I was just having this discussion today with my dental hygienist (I do not have dental insurance, I pay as I go).  |
|
|
smallbird
Enthusiastic Smoker
Joined: Jan 03, 2007
Posts: 362
|
| |
Back to top |
| |
|
by violetfae
on Thu Aug 13, 2009 8:28 am |
|
| Should I claim not to smoke, but say I chew nic gum or chewing tobacco, or maybe use e-cigs, to justify the nicotine found in a blood test? |
|
|
violetfae
Newbie
Joined: Mar 22, 2009
Posts: 33
|
| |
Back to top |
| |
|
by libertarian99
on Thu Aug 13, 2009 5:37 pm |
|
violetfae wrote: Should I claim not to smoke, but say I chew nic gum or chewing tobacco, or maybe use e-cigs, to justify the nicotine found in a blood test?
If you live in a state that bars employment discrimination based on smoking status, though, you could probably make a fuss about the test. You might want to complain to the Department of Labor, if that is the case. |
|
|
libertarian99
Enthusiastic Smoker
Joined: May 01, 2009
Posts: 453
|
| |
Back to top |
| |
|
|
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Page 1 of 2
Goto page 1, 2 Next
|
|
|
