• 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

The obesity problem is one that nobody really wants to address, and my suspicion, is that it is because so many people are personally effected directly or indirectly. Our obesity rates are climbing, to the point that one in three will be considered obese in just a few years. Smokers and drinkers have been marginalized into a minority, and as we all know, it's okay to penalize smokers and drinkers, because they are the exception and not the rule. If we penalize the obese, then 1/3 of the population will have to take a look at themselves as a part of the problem, and God knows, we can't have that many people claiming personal responsibility. We just want to collectively point at the smokers as the derelicts who are ruining health care.

Unfortunately, some folks (like myself I suspect) have more than a simple addiction to cigarettes.
I think I'm predisposed to chronic depression, nicotine has been a fabulous regulator of it.

I tried anti depressants when I was a kid, they made me worse.
 
Sure, considering that we're deciding to charge people more based on behavior.
Hell alcohol is pretty darn expensive, since we can't deduce who is an excessive alcohol user, from a light user, all users of alcohol, must pay like all tobacco users.
It's only fair.

"CDC reports excessive alcohol consumption cost the U.S. $224 billion in 2006"

CDC Online Newsroom - Press Release: October 17, 2011

You didn't answer the meat question. Presumably you would agree that all meat eaters should also be charged higher premiums. Let's also not forget coffee, low fiber diets, french fries, cosmetics, use of plastic bottles, etc., etc., etc.

Incidentally, how would you enforce the alcohol/meat/coffee/cosmetics/plastic bottles/low fiber premiums? Random screening? Surprise inspections?
 
You didn't answer the meat question. Presumably you would agree that all meat eaters should also be charged higher premiums. Let's also not forget coffee, low fiber diets, french fries, cosmetics, use of plastic bottles, etc., etc., etc.

Incidentally, how would you enforce the alcohol/meat/coffee/cosmetics/plastic bottles/low fiber premiums? Random screening? Surprise inspections?

I said sure.
Logically, if we're going to charge higher rates for one "bad" behavior/situation, we should do it for all others.

Self reporting and if people lie, they should not be covered, if a condition develops based on the lied about behavior/situation.
 
Self reporting and if people lie, they should not be covered, if a condition develops based on the lied about behavior/situation.

Sometimes people just get cancer. It's not because of what they necessarily do. It's going to be VERY hard to pinpoint it to ONE behavior.

It's easier for smokers because there are tell tale signs of a smoker that they cannot hide, black lung etc.

How are you going to pinpoint someones cancer to say Diet Soda versus just getting cancer?
 
Sometimes people just get cancer. It's not because of what they necessarily do. It's going to be VERY hard to pinpoint it to ONE behavior.

It's easier for smokers because there are tell tale signs of a smoker that they cannot hide, black lung etc.

How are you going to pinpoint someones cancer to say Diet Soda versus just getting cancer?

How do we know that all cases of lung cancer in smokers, is because they smoked?
It's merely a jumping of conclusions.

My wife's grandfather got throat cancer, he smoked all his life.
The doctor said it was like a result of his acid reflux.
 
Sometimes people just get cancer. It's not because of what they necessarily do. It's going to be VERY hard to pinpoint it to ONE behavior.

It's easier for smokers because there are tell tale signs of a smoker that they cannot hide, black lung etc.

How are you going to pinpoint someones cancer to say Diet Soda versus just getting cancer?

You can also detect nicotine in the bloodstream when you have your physical, which makes it easier to underwrite. I wonder what the policy is with electronic cigarettes? You still get nicotine, which would show up blood tests, but you don't get all of the carcinogens and fewer of the cardiovascular problems (carbon monoxide).
 
How do we know that all cases of lung cancer in smokers, is because they smoked?
It's merely a jumping of conclusions.

My wife's grandfather got throat cancer, he smoked all his life.
The doctor said it was like a result of his acid reflux.

Insurance is based on probability. AFAIK the only cancer that can be attributed to a particular cause with reliability is mesothelioma, which is caused by asbestos. But even then, there's the rare case where no exposure can be shown.
 
Insurance is based on probability. AFAIK the only cancer that can be attributed to a particular cause with reliability is mesothelioma, which is caused by asbestos. But even then, there's the rare case where no exposure can be shown.

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?
 
Last edited:
My wife's grandfather got throat cancer, he smoked all his life.
The doctor said it was like a result of his acid reflux.

And how did they pinpoint it was acid reflux, but not smoking?
 
The hell if I know.
It may have been the change in the lining of his throat.

This story gives details.

Why Persistent Acid Reflux Sometimes Turns Into Cancer: New Clues

I understand that Acid Reflux "can" cause cancer, but not sure how a doctor pinpoints it to just acid reflux and not smoking.

That's making the claim the smoking DIDN'T cause the cancer which we know smoking "can" cause cancer.

It's not passing the smell test. I can see a doctor saying it could have been the smoking or it could have been the acid reflux, but I have yet to see a case where both are presented and a doctor says with certainty it's the acid reflux and not smoking. That's all.
 
Just like smokers and obese people, indulging in these things doesn't necessarily mean you'll develop problems, but because people do, and you use it, you need to pay for the added risk.

Oh and alcohol is a group 1 carcinogen.


Look! a NON response.
 
I understand that Acid Reflux "can" cause cancer, but not sure how a doctor pinpoints it to just acid reflux and not smoking.

That's making the claim the smoking DIDN'T cause the cancer which we know smoking "can" cause cancer.

It's not passing the smell test. I can see a doctor saying it could have been the smoking or it could have been the acid reflux, but I have yet to see a case where both are presented and a doctor says with certainty it's the acid reflux and not smoking. That's all.

That's what she was told, by her family. :shrug:
 
I understand that Acid Reflux "can" cause cancer, but not sure how a doctor pinpoints it to just acid reflux and not smoking.

That's making the claim the smoking DIDN'T cause the cancer which we know smoking "can" cause cancer.

It's not passing the smell test. I can see a doctor saying it could have been the smoking or it could have been the acid reflux, but I have yet to see a case where both are presented and a doctor says with certainty it's the acid reflux and not smoking. That's all.

Smoking is more likely to cause lung cancer than throat cancer, but it appears that a combination of heavy drinking with heavy smoking does cause throat cancer. I'm assuming that the chronic acid from GERD, on the esophogeal lining, has a similar effect to chronic alcohol intake in the throat, thus contributes to the cancer, rather than the smoke itself.
 
Does it have a peer review?

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.
 
I'm assuming that the chronic acid from GERD, on the esophogeal lining, has a similar effect to chronic alcohol intake in the throat, thus contributes to the cancer, rather than the smoke itself.

So you think smoking does not cause any cancer but lung cancer? Not sure how you can say that when cigarettes contain carcinogin that makes contact with all those.
 
So you think smoking does not cause any cancer but lung cancer? Not sure how you can say that when cigarettes contain carcinogin that makes contact with all those.

That wasn't what I said, was it?
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.

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.
 
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.
 
Back
Top Bottom