Page 8 of 13 FirstFirst ... 678910 ... LastLast
Results 71 to 80 of 128

Thread: Federal government releases long-awaited health reform rules

  1. #71
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Last Seen
    08-29-17 @ 09:28 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    16,575

    Re: Federal government releases long-awaited health reform rules

    Quote Originally Posted by Harry Guerrilla View Post
    There are more, later on.
    Do you really need a peer reviewed article, because this seems to be a diversion from the topic.
    I've brought supporting evidence, rather than debate the issue you're debating the material.

    It's not a Fox news, blog, alex jones, or any other non credible link.
    Neither are the other links I posted later on.

    Why should some carcinogenic substances be allowed, without an increase, while others are not?
    It's inconsistent at best.
    Peer reviews would be better, however, I won't discount everything you have provided. I just don't see how you can make the claim that a 2-3 pack a day smoker should be under the same scrutiny as a drink every 3-4 day person. There is FAR more probability of the smoker getting the cancer than the drink every 3-4 day person. And probability is how insurance works.

  2. #72
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Last Seen
    08-29-17 @ 09:28 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    16,575

    Re: Federal government releases long-awaited health reform rules

    Quote Originally Posted by lizzie View Post
    That wasn't what I said, was it?
    you mentioned the acid reflux would have more influence rather than the smoke. But the smoke makes contact all the time as well.

  3. #73
    Sage
    Harry Guerrilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Not affiliated with other libertarians.
    Last Seen
    09-01-17 @ 02:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    28,955

    Re: Federal government releases long-awaited health reform rules

    Quote Originally Posted by TheNextEra View Post
    Peer reviews would be better, however, I won't discount everything you have provided. I just don't see how you can make the claim that a 2-3 pack a day smoker should be under the same scrutiny as a drink every 3-4 day person. There is FAR more probability of the smoker getting the cancer than the drink every 3-4 day person. And probability is how insurance works.
    What about a once a month cigar smoker vs. a 3-4 day drinker.
    We just did open enrollment at work, there is no difference to them between an occasional cigar smoker and a guy who dips 4 cans a day.
    They're all classified as tobacco users and charged the increased premium.

    We have a lot of weekend binge drinkers that aren't charged an extra nickle, even though it could be argued that they represent a larger cost to my employer.
    I was discovering that life just simply isn't fair and bask in the unsung glory of knowing that each obstacle overcome along the way only adds to the satisfaction in the end. Nothing great, after all, was ever accomplished by anyone sulking in his or her misery.
    —Adam Shepard

  4. #74
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Last Seen
    08-29-17 @ 09:28 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    16,575

    Re: Federal government releases long-awaited health reform rules

    Quote Originally Posted by Harry Guerrilla View Post
    What about a once a month cigar smoker vs. a 3-4 day drinker.

    We just did open enrollment at work, there is no difference to them between an occasional cigar smoker and a guy who dips 4 cans a day.
    They're all classified as tobacco users and charged the increased premium.
    If I were an occational smoker and only did once a month, I wouldn't list myself as a smoker. Is that lying? Depends on how you look at it. If you look at it as the logic that a smoker is someone who smokes a pack or more a day, then no you aren't a smoker.

    If that is what is needed to get by that, then that's what will happen. I do know for a fact that the lungs of a once a month smoker is not going to look like a 3-pack a day smoker. People will have to make the judgement for themselves and suffer the consequences if they are wrong.

    Quote Originally Posted by Harry Guerrilla View Post
    We have a lot of weekend binge drinkers that aren't charged an extra nickle, even though it could be argued that they represent a larger cost to my employer.
    And that is why I said I didn't discount everything you said because it is a fact binge drinking CAN cause problems. But again, I think the prevailing factor is that smoking is easier to detect. Is that wrong? yes. but how would you test for that within a cost reason?

    Much like I think is compeltely stupid that someone that smokes pot maybe once a month can fail a drug test yet all the cocaine and heroine user has to do is quit in a shorter amount of time and not get nabbed.

  5. #75
    Sage
    AdamT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Last Seen
    02-13-13 @ 04:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    17,773

    Re: Federal government releases long-awaited health reform rules

    Quote Originally Posted by Harry Guerrilla View Post
    The point I'm making here, (no I really don't think meat eaters should have to pay more) is that jumping on the "smokers pay more band wagon", completely and totally ignores other behaviors associated with increased cancer/disease risk.
    It's wrong and shouldn't be tolerated.

    People who have diabetes that can be controlled with diet, rather than medication, don't pay more, why should I?
    I understand your point (was a smoker for 25 years), but the fact is that smoking is the No. 1 preventable cause of death.
    "The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess. ... It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion."

    -- Adam Smith

  6. #76
    Sage
    Harry Guerrilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Not affiliated with other libertarians.
    Last Seen
    09-01-17 @ 02:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    28,955

    Re: Federal government releases long-awaited health reform rules

    Quote Originally Posted by TheNextEra View Post
    If I were an occational smoker and only did once a month, I wouldn't list myself as a smoker. Is that lying? Depends on how you look at it. If you look at it as the logic that a smoker is someone who smokes a pack or more a day, then no you aren't a smoker.

    If that is what is needed to get by that, then that's what will happen. I do know for a fact that the lungs of a once a month smoker is not going to look like a 3-pack a day smoker. People will have to make the judgement for themselves and suffer the consequences if they are wrong.
    These questionnaires don't ask "Tobacco User (more than x amount of tobacco a day) Yes/No."
    They just simply ask, "Tobacco User, Yes/No.

    Answering honestly, you'd say yes.
    Even if it weren't detectable.

    Quote Originally Posted by TheNextEra View Post
    And that is why I said I didn't discount everything you said because it is a fact binge drinking CAN cause problems. But again, I think the prevailing factor is that smoking is easier to detect. Is that wrong? yes. but how would you test for that within a cost reason?

    Much like I think is compeltely stupid that someone that smokes pot maybe once a month can fail a drug test yet all the cocaine and heroine user has to do is quit in a shorter amount of time and not get nabbed.
    I think there are ways to detect excessive alcohol consumption, liver damage and enzyme tests.
    That kind of stuff.

    Basically though, they should just ask and require a higher premium for those who answer honestly, with reimbursement from those answer dishonestly (if discovered).
    I was discovering that life just simply isn't fair and bask in the unsung glory of knowing that each obstacle overcome along the way only adds to the satisfaction in the end. Nothing great, after all, was ever accomplished by anyone sulking in his or her misery.
    —Adam Shepard

  7. #77
    Sage
    Harry Guerrilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Not affiliated with other libertarians.
    Last Seen
    09-01-17 @ 02:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    28,955

    Re: Federal government releases long-awaited health reform rules

    Quote Originally Posted by AdamT View Post
    I understand your point (was a smoker for 25 years), but the fact is that smoking is the No. 1 preventable cause of death.
    Cause of death, likely, most expensive preventative problem, nope.
    Obesity is the number 1, most costly condition, mostly because they get chronically ill.

    In some cases, smokers can be cheaper than no smokers.
    I was discovering that life just simply isn't fair and bask in the unsung glory of knowing that each obstacle overcome along the way only adds to the satisfaction in the end. Nothing great, after all, was ever accomplished by anyone sulking in his or her misery.
    —Adam Shepard

  8. #78
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Last Seen
    08-29-17 @ 09:28 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    16,575

    Re: Federal government releases long-awaited health reform rules

    Quote Originally Posted by Harry Guerrilla View Post
    I think there are ways to detect excessive alcohol consumption, liver damage and enzyme tests.
    That kind of stuff.
    I don't think so. My ex was a binge drinker and she got bloodwork done each and every year by the VA. Tested liver, cholestorol, etc. She always came up good.

    I'm not sure at what point the liver takes more damage than it can handle, but I do know about 6 years of that nothing showed up. The binge drinking was every weekend.

    As for the smoking thing, I can tell you if I were a once a month smoker I would put no on the smoking tab.

  9. #79
    Sage
    AdamT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Last Seen
    02-13-13 @ 04:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    17,773

    Re: Federal government releases long-awaited health reform rules

    Quote Originally Posted by Harry Guerrilla View Post
    Cause of death, likely, most expensive preventative problem, nope.
    Obesity is the number 1, most costly condition, mostly because they get chronically ill.

    In some cases, smokers can be cheaper than no smokers.
    Not sure about that, on a per-fat-ass basis. Total cost is higher because there are about 50% more fat people than there are smokers. Personally I would have NO problem if obese people had to pay higher premiums.
    "The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess. ... It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion."

    -- Adam Smith

  10. #80
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Last Seen
    08-29-17 @ 09:28 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    16,575

    Re: Federal government releases long-awaited health reform rules

    Quote Originally Posted by AdamT View Post
    Personally I would have NO problem if obese people had to pay higher premiums.
    Much like higher premiums spurred "quit smoking" programs, I think higher premioums for Obese people might be the way to go to really help the obesity problem.

Page 8 of 13 FirstFirst ... 678910 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •