I don't believe in smoking but......

[hal]

Pam wrote:
It's extremely wrong. People voluntarily ignore diet and exercise warnings resulting in diabetes, high blood pressure, high cholesterol, etc yet they'll single out smoking? Look at the obesity rate. But that's ok. Pop some pills, don't change your habits. There are far more people in that category than in the smoking category.

I disagree. I call it a good start. If one chooses to take on greater risk, they should pay for it. Obesity should be addressed too: sell insurance by the pound...

[Pam]

cbelt3 wrote:
[quote=Pam]
It's extremely wrong. People voluntarily ignore diet and exercise warnings resulting in diabetes, high blood pressure, high cholesterol, etc yet they'll single out smoking? Look at the obesity rate. But that's ok. Pop some pills, don't change your habits. There are far more people in that category than in the smoking category.

Pam..

And yet... you have people like me. I'm not 'obese'. (OK, I'm not svelte either, but I'm in decent shape, walk a couple miles a day, etc..)

I have three chronic conditions. All through genetic heritage.
Asthma
Diabetes
Hypertension

Not everybody with Diabetes is a doughnut sucking Wal-Mart electric cart driving lazy pig. Not everybody with cholesterol is a bacon sucking beer swilling redneck.

BUT... Everybody who smokes made a specific decision to smoke. There's no 'genetic heritage' that gives you smoking-related health issues.

And THAT is why smoking is something that can be reasonably targeted. It's already being targeted.

Now.. I'll point out another factor.

Smokers are ALREADY taxed significantly. And the taxes are supposedly going to the cost of healthcare for smoking.

So we're double dipping these folks. NOT fair !

(Disclaimer: Mrs. cbelt3 smokes. Pack a day. I've tried and tried to help her quit. Nothing works..)
Did I not say lack of diet and exercise? You were not in the group I was referring to. Can you ever get your head out of your butt long enough to realize it's not about you?

You obviously and others obviously do not understand the nicotine addiction process or the difficulty in quitting long term. How empathetic of you. Not a soul chooses to get addicted.

[cbelt3]

Pam-
I use myself as an example because absolute statements like a lot of folk like to make end up in laws. Which makes them bad laws. Because when it comes to biology, there are no absolutes.

And I definitely understand addiction. I've worked for 3 decades to try to help my wife quit. I recognize the pain and suffering she goes through. I watched my father in law die slowly and painfully from his lifelong cigarette addiction.

It's politicians who don't understand addiction who can make specious claims like "Well, they can just quit if they don't want to pay the tax ".

Sounds like your thinking is turning around on this one.

[SteveG]

I think nicotine is one of the greatest drugs available to humankind. Quitting 18 years ago was worthwhile, but sometimes I shed a tear over the loss of my old pal, who kept me going through many a travail.

[Manlove]

Hmm. To stop smoking stop putting cigarettes in your mouth. At some point you have the last one- don't buy another pack. To stop smoking you actually have to NOT smoke. Sounds tautological when put like that, but really, that truth has to sink in. And that truth can't sink in until you WANT to stop smoking. I didn't stop until I wanted to stop. Then I stopped. I discontinued what I was doing. Not being smug, just pointing out the obvious. You want to talk about addiction? Okay. The physical need dissipates fairly quickly. If you can keep yourself in line mentally, then you can overcome the physical need. You have to want to quit, not just feel like it, or say "I know I should, but I can't" because that is not wanting to. That's just negating the possibility.
Smoking and being seriously overweight are both indicators of being in general poor health and those in poor health are likely to cost more to heal and then keep healthy.
About the discrimination aspect, how many groups need to be included before it's not discrimination?
Just smokers paying more-discrimination.
Smokers and obese- discrimination.
Smokers, obese and older men- discrimination.
Etcetera etcetera etcetera.
Young people who are neither smokers nor obese should pay less- they cost less. Sorry Boomers, you need to foot the bill for this one.
Kids pay more in auto-insurance, you pay more for health insurance, unless you do what you can and should to look after yourselves.
Genetic predisposition, which is what cBelt says he has for his ailments. Yep, they exist, but can be massively exacerbated by not making some simple choices. Not necessarily choices made at a personal level, rather at the level of food production. A lot of what passes for food in this country really isn't!

So yes, fat old people who have had a lifetime of earning and not treating themselves properly need to pay more for their own care.

[Pam]

cbelt3 wrote:
Pam-
I use myself as an example because absolute statements like a lot of folk like to make end up in laws. Which makes them bad laws. Because when it comes to biology, there are no absolutes.

And I definitely understand addiction. I've worked for 3 decades to try to help my wife quit. I recognize the pain and suffering she goes through. I watched my father in law die slowly and painfully from his lifelong cigarette addiction.

It's politicians who don't understand addiction who can make specious claims like "Well, they can just quit if they don't want to pay the tax ".

Sounds like your thinking is turning around on this one.

Wait a minute. I was not referring in any sense to people who cannot control their conditions via diet and exercise. You chose to read it that way because you wanted to make it about you. "People voluntarily ignore diet and exercise warnings resulting in diabetes, high blood pressure, high cholesterol" does not speak to naturally occurring conditions. It specifically addresses reversible conditions.

If you understand addiction then you would not have made the statement "BUT... Everybody who smokes made a specific decision to smoke. There's no 'genetic heritage' that gives you smoking-related health issues." It's false. There is a definite genetic component. Some can smoke every now and then and never be addicted. Others can fairly easily quit. Yet there are many, many who got hooked on one puff. Usually at a young age and had no idea of what was happening. There is a genetic component that makes you far more susceptible. Just as there is for alcoholism. Quitting for this group is extremely difficult and usually does not last long term. People spend a crap load of money on nicotine patches, hypnotism, nicotine gum, and even clearly bogus treatments to try and quit. Painting these people as choosing to smoke because they made a dumb move as a kid is ridiculous. And shows a clear lack of knowledge.

[Pam]

Manlove wrote:
Hmm. To stop smoking stop putting cigarettes in your mouth. At some point you have the last one- don't buy another pack. To stop smoking you actually have to NOT smoke. Sounds tautological when put like that, but really, that truth has to sink in. And that truth can't sink in until you WANT to stop smoking. I didn't stop until I wanted to stop. Then I stopped. I discontinued what I was doing. Not being smug, just pointing out the obvious. You want to talk about addiction? Okay. The physical need dissipates fairly quickly. If you can keep yourself in line mentally, then you can overcome the physical need. You have to want to quit, not just feel like it, or say "I know I should, but I can't" because that is not wanting to. That's just negating the possibility.
Smoking and being seriously overweight are both indicators of being in general poor health and those in poor health are likely to cost more to heal and then keep healthy.
About the discrimination aspect, how many groups need to be included before it's not discrimination?
Just smokers paying more-discrimination.
Smokers and obese- discrimination.
Smokers, obese and older men- discrimination.
Etcetera etcetera etcetera.
Young people who are neither smokers nor obese should pay less- they cost less. Sorry Boomers, you need to foot the bill for this one.
Kids pay more in auto-insurance, you pay more for health insurance, unless you do what you can and should to look after yourselves.
Genetic predisposition, which is what cBelt says he has for his ailments. Yep, they exist, but can be massively exacerbated by not making some simple choices. Not necessarily choices made at a personal level, rather at the level of food production. A lot of what passes for food in this country really isn't!

So yes, fat old people who have had a lifetime of earning and not treating themselves properly need to pay more for their own care.

Don't be so smug. Feel lucky that you were able to quit. Just because it was easy for you does not mean it is that easy for the next person. It's not just about wanting to. Nor is everyone over the physical condition in a couple of weeks. Addiction for some is tied to physiology in the brain. It's not a problem of mental weakness or not "wanting" to quit.

[davester]

hal wrote:
[quote=Pam]
It's extremely wrong. People voluntarily ignore diet and exercise warnings resulting in diabetes, high blood pressure, high cholesterol, etc yet they'll single out smoking? Look at the obesity rate. But that's ok. Pop some pills, don't change your habits. There are far more people in that category than in the smoking category.

I disagree. I call it a good start. If one chooses to take on greater risk, they should pay for it. Obesity should be addressed too: sell insurance by the pound...
I agree pretty much with hal, with some caveats. Looking at it another way, why is it OK to charge people who take care of their bodies more money so that those who abuse their bodies can get extra care to repair the damage.

Given the nature of addictive conditions, I feel that people with high health risk factors (smoking, obesity) should be offered a way out of their conundrum. This could take the form of anti-smoking programs, healthy eating and exercise programs, etc. However, if the folks with high risk factors refuse to participate in programs that will put them on the way back to health then it is perfectly fair to charge them extra for the cost of dealing with their problems medically.

Perhaps it would be better to take a carrot rather than a stick approach. Charge everybody the same, but give tax credits or rebates to those who can score above a certain level on standardized physical assessments that evaluate risk factors or progress in programs that reduce risk factors.

[August West]

Perhaps it would be better to take a carrot rather than a stick approach. Charge everybody the same, but give tax credits or rebates to those who can score above a certain level on standardized physical assessments that evaluate risk factors or progress in programs that reduce risk factors.

This was the first idea I formed on the topic, it offers much more incentive than punitive measures.

And I agree with Pam about the personal nature of addiction. Some are hooked immediately, others not so much.

[Ted King]

I'm not in tune with the "pay more for your health care because you do 'X' in your life." If somebody needs medical care then, sh*t, I say let's give it to them. Everybody pays the same and gets the health care that they need when they need it. I don't feel that way about everything, but I do feel that way about health care.