• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Federal government releases long-awaited health reform rules

TheNextEra said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.

TheNextEra said:
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.
Click to expand...

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).
 
AdamT said:
I understand your point (was a smoker for 25 years), but the fact is that smoking is the No. 1 preventable cause of death.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
I think there are ways to detect excessive alcohol consumption, liver damage and enzyme tests.
That kind of stuff.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
AdamT said:
Personally I would have NO problem if obese people had to pay higher premiums.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Not much harm in smoking a cigarette a few times a week. Maybe just when you have that glass of wine.


TheNextEra said:
Again, you still have not shown proof of health issues from having a glass of wine every 3-4 days. That isn't an increased risk.
Click to expand...
 
j-mac said:
Here we go....We had to pass it to find out what is in it....Unfortunately it doesn't look good.
Click to expand...

reform law requires, insurers will no longer be able to dump patients who are starting to cost too much,
Click to expand...

That looks great tome.
 
TheNextEra said:
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.
Click to expand...

I just get somewhat bitter, when I hear that I have to pay more for my insurance (because I smoke), when a crap ton of my coworkers do the binge drinking, are seriously obese, but there are no consequences for their behavior.
It's very one sided.
 
specklebang said:
Not much harm in smoking a cigarette a few times a week. Maybe just when you have that glass of wine.
Click to expand...

If it were every 3-4 days for a cigarette I'd agree with you that they are about the same.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
I just get somewhat bitter, when I hear that I have to pay more for my insurance (because I smoke), when a crap ton of my coworkers do the binge drinking, are seriously obese, but there are no consequences for their behavior.
It's very one sided.
Click to expand...


I don't blame you for getting upset, I would to. I just have had family in my life that have died from cancer due to their smoking. I don't disagree with higher premiums for smokers (what I consider smoking), however, that doesn't negate the problems of obesity and other issues.

I'm there with you with the obesity thing though, I think that causes more problems overall than smoking does. I've seen what obesity did to me and I almost had to take various medications because of high blood pressure. I lost the weight and have lived healthier and feel better.

It is one-sided and many more health issues are ignored.
 
TheNextEra said:
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.
Click to expand...

I think so too. And weight loss programs should be covered just as smoking cessation programs are.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
Yea, rescission touted as a huge problem, was nearly nonexistent.
Click to expand...

almost nonexistent as long as you aren't one of them, eh?
from wiki:
The practice of health insurance rescission was partially limited starting September 23, 2010,[8] following the adoption of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act in 2010. A House committee report[9] found that WellPoint Inc., UnitedHealth Group and Assurant rescinded policies for more than 20,000 people over a five-year period;[7] the House report also highlighted 13 particular cases.[9]
 
So, essentially they are redistributing costs to healthy people and those who don't make poor health choices and not decreasing them. Now I understand why my coverage lessened and my family's monthly premium went up by $100. This **** needs to be repealed.
 
Last edited:
Harry Guerrilla said:
Ok, now that is settled.
Why should people who use any amount of alcohol be exempted, while tabacco users, of varying degrees, must pay the full price?

Light drinking may relate to increase in risk for certain cancers
Click to expand...
Actually Harry, alcohol was already punished by most plans if a heavy drinker showed increased enzymes. One of the qualifier question on every life/health case I worked had consumption frequency as an underwriting question, as well as BMI, and relevant risk related questions. Those idiots who put Obamacare into play have eliminated much of that, those increased risks are now going to have to be weighted into every policy.
 
lizzie said:
Exactly. As a long-time RN, I see a much higher percentage of obesity-related illness than smoking-related illness.
Click to expand...
Obesity leads to longer term health usage, smoking related diseases typically aren't as long term, usually much later in life. Obesity can lead to heart disease, kidney failure, and many chronic and very expensive illnesses. Smoking isn't exactly exempt but from an underwriting standpoint many would have rathered the smokers that I used to interact with.
 
grip said:
While you're at it let the government control exactly how many calories you consume, when you see the doctor for what and how to spend your money. Personal responsibility will no longer have to be learned or a possibility for an independent thinking person, you can be a robot.
Click to expand...
What led you to this conclusion?
 
digsbe said:
So, essentially they are redistributing costs to healthy people and those who don't make poor health choices and not decreasing them. Now I understand why my coverage lessened and my family's monthly premium went up by $100. This **** needs to be repealed.
Click to expand...
I really wish we would remove protections from congressmen from civil lawsuits when they pass damaging legislation. Every single person who made this bill happen should be sued into the poor house.
 
LaMidRighter said:
I really wish we would remove protections from congressmen from civil lawsuits when they pass damaging legislation. Every single person who made this bill happen should be sued into the poor house.
Click to expand...

Maybe after seeing this the American people will elect a competent leader that will fix the damages of Obama's term. 2016 can't come fast enough.
 
digsbe said:
Maybe after seeing this the American people will elect a competent leader that will fix the damages of Obama's term. 2016 can't come fast enough.
Click to expand...
Congress needs to grow a pair and just defund the damn thing, of course they are spineless at this point in time.
 
LaMidRighter said:
I really wish we would remove protections from congressmen from civil lawsuits when they pass damaging legislation.

Every single person who made this bill happen should be sued into the poor house.
Click to expand...
That's a fairly disastrous proposition. Just look at the amount of crackpots that pursued lawsuits regarding Obama's birth certificate alone, you want to open up the legal system to hear the personal gripes of average joe sixpack who doesn't particularly care for his local congressman? It would also inevitably lead to intimidation via public opinion and negative press.

Because of a personal distaste for the bill itself? Sounds like a wild goose chase spurred by nothing more than sour apples.
 
a351 said:
That's a fairly disastrous proposition. Just look at the amount of crackpots that pursued lawsuits regarding Obama's birth certificate alone, you want to open up the legal system to hear the personal gripes of average joe sixpack who doesn't particularly care for his local congressman? It would also inevitably lead to intimidation via public opinion and negative press.

Because of a personal distaste for the bill itself? Sounds like a wild goose chase spurred by nothing more than sour apples.
Click to expand...
Fine, let them pay for any financially damaging legislation. Maybe then politicians will start to think before tinkering around with bad legislative ideas instead of just issuing horrid legislation. Both parties are guilty of giving this nation absolute crap laws.
 
LaMidRighter said:
Fine, let them pay for any financially damaging legislation.

Maybe then politicians will start to think before tinkering around with bad legislative ideas instead of just issuing horrid legislation. Both parties are guilty of giving this nation absolute crap laws.
Click to expand...
"Financial damage" alone doesn't constitute a legitimate lawsuit.

One man's trash.. or so the saying goes. What you may consider a "crap law" may appear perfectly legitimate and even optimal for your fellow man. If a law is deemed to be legal by court review, no one who participated in it's passing should face reprecussions outside of a short stay in Washington. Legal matters shouldn't be subject to revenge motivated witch hunts conducted by outside sources.
 
AdamT said:
Yes, I think there is value in simplicity, and in expanding how much insurance companies can jerk some people around.
Click to expand...

Sorry, but I had to "fix" your post. When the government says XYZ group should be charged more, than you have given the insurance companies license to jerk certain people around, and give others a discount.
Let's look at this in the case of a smoker vs. a female;

Man smokes for 10 years, but is perfectly healthy, per results of a physical.
Insurance company charges premium because he is a smoker.

Woman has had 5 abortions in the past 10 years, but is perfectly healthy, per results of a physical.
Her rate is lowered due to insurance company being required to charge the same as they would charge a healthy male.

It's lifestyle discrimination, pure and simple.
 
a351 said:
"Financial damage" alone doesn't constitute a legitimate lawsuit.

One man's trash.. or so the saying goes. What you may consider a "crap law" may appear perfectly legitimate and even optimal for your fellow man. If a law is deemed to be legal by court review, no one who participated in it's passing should face reprecussions outside of a short stay in Washington. Legal matters shouldn't be subject to revenge motivated witch hunts conducted by outside sources.
Click to expand...
If the person is responsible for it through illicit, negligent, or fraudulent actions it most certainly is enough. That said if found to be outside of the authority of the congress everyone who voted for that bill would be responsible for losses incurred due to it because not only is it beyond the scope of powers, but it likewise was passed using dubious protocols. From legislation to execution this thing has been a turd.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom