Smokers to pay for public health insurance in Maryland?

[Somdmommy]

That's a fabulous question, and the answer is because fat people have a stronger and more vocal lobbying group than smokers do. That's the bottom line.

Only because of this
~Obesity is medically accepted to be a disease in its own right~

Thats Bull...its just being lazy, and more and more generations are learning how to be lazy and not healthy.

 

[MysticalMom]

:lightingupandeatingatwinkie:

 

[nomoney]

That's a fabulous question, and the answer is because fat people have a stronger and more vocal lobbying group than smokers do. That's the bottom line.

it could be because no one can understand all the smokers with them talking through that thing thru their throat.

 

[BS Gal]

Most people who are obese have a genetic disposition to it. It's not defined if they are going to be obese because of their genes, they just have an easier time getting that way, than say me, who could eat everything in sight and not gain a pound (not that I do that). CDC has done plenty of studies on families genes, twins that are separated and obesity. There is a strong link.
I'm not denying that our lifestyle, dietary shifts, etc, are playing a huge role in this, but I am saying is that some people are more 'set up' for disaster than others.

You're fat, huh?

 

[dck4shrt]

And, on that note, you should also be concerned about obesity as well.

AND, while we're on the subject of behavioral diseases that cost the taxpayers money, care to discuss AIDS?

How about the hordes of children who are uncared for by their parents, forcing us as taxpayers to pick up not only their health care, but their food and shelter as well?

Really, if you're talking strictly money, smokers should be the least of your concerns.

I am concerned with all of those 'ailments' where personal choice lands up hurting everyone in the pocketbook. Smoking is an 'easy' target because it's easy to identify and single out those individuals. Obesity is a gradual issue, it's not an either/or like smoking. There are plenty of arbitrary guidelines to say who is obese and not. If you lined up everyone in this country you'd have a tough time drawing a line where normal people ended and overweight people began. If you go to get life insurance, there is a box to check if you are a smoker, then you get a different rate. There is no box that asks if you are obese. They take your height/weight and put you in a risk category that gets tagged with a greater and greater risk as you go up the scales.

AIDS is an issue that, yes, your own action can increase your risk of acquiring it. Presumably any sexually active individual is in the at-large population pool for acquiring it. Of course, certain specific acts and behaviors can greatly increase your risks. I'm not sure of its burden to employers/insured workers/citizens vs. smoking though. I'll have to research it though. I guess that both lung cancer and AIDS are ridiculously expensive to treat (and notoriously difficult).

 

[dck4shrt]

You're fat, huh?

Not even close to it. Thin as a rail.

 

[BS Gal]

Not even close to it. Thin as a rail.

Since you aren't fat and don't smoke, what are you doing in here?

 

[vraiblonde]

Smoking is an 'easy' target because it's easy to identify and single out those individuals.

Actually, if you lined up 100 people, I could tell you who was fat before I could tell you who smoked.

If you go to get life insurance, there is a box to check if you are a smoker, then you get a different rate.

You also get a different rate if your cholesterol is high and if you have an out of proportion height/weight ratio.

 

[dck4shrt]

Since you aren't fat and don't smoke, what are you doing in here?

Good question. I think it all started when someone accused 'us' of trying to force them not to smoke. At any rate, I feel that issues that can affect all of us (financially or otherwise) are a concern for the general public and worthy of debate.

 

[FromTexas]

That's a fabulous question, and the answer is because fat people have a stronger and more vocal lobbying group than smokers do. That's the bottom line.

They are afraid the fat people may sit on them. They know you all won't even make it out of your house to protest from all the coughing and wheezing. :shrug:

 

[dck4shrt]

Actually, if you lined up 100 people, I could tell you who was fat before I could tell you who smoked.


You also get a different rate if your cholesterol is high and if you have an out of proportion height/weight ratio.

There are simple blood tests to see if you are a smoker. I could tell you who was fat, too, but I couldn't tell you at what point along that line it became a significant health risk.

 

[BS Gal]

I am concerned with all of those 'ailments' where personal choice lands up hurting everyone in the pocketbook. Smoking is an 'easy' target because it's easy to identify and single out those individuals. Obesity is a gradual issue, it's not an either/or like smoking. There are plenty of arbitrary guidelines to say who is obese and not. If you lined up everyone in this country you'd have a tough time drawing a line where normal people ended and overweight people began. If you go to get life insurance, there is a box to check if you are a smoker, then you get a different rate. There is no box that asks if you are obese. They take your height/weight and put you in a risk category that gets tagged with a greater and greater risk as you go up the scales.

AIDS is an issue that, yes, your own action can increase your risk of acquiring it. Presumably any sexually active individual is in the at-large population pool for acquiring it. Of course, certain specific acts and behaviors can greatly increase your risks. I'm not sure of its burden to employers/insured workers/citizens vs. smoking though. I'll have to research it though. I guess that both lung cancer and AIDS are ridiculously expensive to treat (and notoriously difficult).

So, who should be taxed to pay for all those children out there that don't have daddies that support them? I'm thinking anyone who buys a pair of boxers or briefs........JMHO

 

[dck4shrt]

So, who should be taxed to pay for all those children out there that don't have daddies that support them? I'm thinking anyone who buys a pair of boxers or briefs........JMHO

Now we've gone from asking who's paying for our choices, to who's paying for innocent children. I know it was someone's choice to abandon that child, but the moral reasons to care for children that didn't choose to be put in that situation may outweight the stupidity of their dubmass parents.

 

[ylexot]

If you go to get life insurance, there is a box to check if you are a smoker, then you get a different rate.

Doesn't that mean that they are paying for the additional medical care that they might need?

 

[vraiblonde]

At any rate, I feel that issues that can affect all of us (financially or otherwise) are a concern for the general public and worthy of debate.

How about reckless drivers who kill and maim others and cause property damage?

How about people who spread disease by not washing their hands after they go to the bathroom?

How about people who let their pets run wild to cause damage and potentially injure someone?

Smoking shouldn't even be in the Top 10 list of things to be concerned about. If you don't smoke, don't worry about it. If you don't like smoke, don't go to places where they allow smoking.

The only way you're going to be protected from potential harm is to stay in your home, lock the doors and don't come out, ever. Otherwise you will be inundated with any number of things that could cause you injury or death, smoking being the least of them.

 

[dck4shrt]

Doesn't that mean that they are paying for the additional medical care that they might need?

life insurance doesn't equal medical insurance. Most states have laws prohibiting employers to charge more for medical insurance to smokers and high risk individuals.

 

[vraiblonde]

Now we've gone from asking who's paying for our choices, to who's paying for innocent children.

Doesn't it stand to reason, then, that if someone abandons their child or fails to provide for it, THEY (not the rest of us) should be taxed to kingdom come to pay for it?

Instead of taxpayers picking up the tab for neglected children with no adequate food, shelter or health care, why wouldn't we make the parent themselves pay for it? Garnish their wages or something.

 

[ylexot]

life insurance doesn't equal medical insurance.

Ah, sorry...was thinking health insurance.

Most states have laws prohibiting employers to charge more for medical insurance to smokers and high risk individuals.

So you want to add another law (tax) to account for a bad law that's on the books? I'd rather fix/repeal the bad law. :shrug:

 

[BS Gal]

Now we've gone from asking who's paying for our choices, to who's paying for innocent children. I know it was someone's choice to abandon that child, but the moral reasons to care for children that didn't choose to be put in that situation may outweight the stupidity of their dubmass parents.

Why should only smokers be taxed to pay for expanded medical (i.e.,innocent children and the lazies that won't get a job?) Why not make it a tax across the board for everyone????

 

[dck4shrt]

How about reckless drivers who kill and maim others and cause property damage?

How about people who spread disease by not washing their hands after they go to the bathroom?

How about people who let their pets run wild to cause damage and potentially injure someone?

Smoking shouldn't even be in the Top 10 list of things to be concerned about. If you don't smoke, don't worry about it. If you don't like smoke, don't go to places where they allow smoking.

The only way you're going to be protected from potential harm is to stay in your home, lock the doors and don't come out, ever. Otherwise you will be inundated with any number of things that could cause you injury or death, smoking being the least of them.

I'm not worried about physical harm to me from smokers.

One of the largest individual financial burdens upon medical insurers and the accompanying premiums is due to smokers. It is an important issue for anyone who has to deal with the (rising) costs of health care.

Smokers only partially cover their smoking related disease treatments. Admittedly, they end up paying it back by not collecting pensions, avoiding typical elderly disabilities, and less overall time to cover the individual (they die younger).

As far as the perpetrators that you mentioned above they all come with their own set of issues. Reckless drivers suck but are insured at higher rates(perhaps not high enough). I don't know how you catch poor handwashers, but you can limit your exposure there. And people who let their animals run wild should be shot.