Yup, that's why gambling was legalized and soon to be weed.

Funny article on NPR today about the hempheads in CA NOT wanting the legalization proposition as it would make it good for big business and taxation but bad for the small guy that grows the weed today.
Legalized Pot's Unlikely Supporters: Moms And Cops : NPR

I think there's an alternate narrative that your costs are going up anyway and that long-term the reforms will work to slow the rate of increase while also covering the 40M or so presently uninsured. Remember that most of the bill hasn't even been phased in.

Now, I'm not sure I agree with this story in whole, but the existing trajectory was clearly not sustainable either.

The Health Care Bill won't magically fix the problem, the problem is huge, but it will probably drive the real change necessary to make lasting improvements more real. If this means shifting control of Congress to force bi-partisan reforms then so be it.

-spence

Funny, he was upset that Obama (and this is a person who's generally against Obama mind you) wanted to kill Medicare Advantage as part of the legislation. When I explained that their benefits from Medicare Advantage -- even with his cash contribution -- consumed a higher rate of taxpayer money than regular Medicare he didn't seem to care because he felt he was being less dependent on the Government.

I agree that lawsuits are a problem (and those predatory HMO's trying to kill off the independent practitioner) but tort isn't the root cause. I've seen numbers like 185B or so a year could be saved by tort reform, a lot for sure, but I can't believe it's the main driver behind increases.

They raise rates because they can.

And I support both. Kerry in 2004 proposed that medical malpractice cases should be moved to Federal courts where the standards of evidence were much higher, hence, making frivolous lawsuits more difficult to bring before a court.

I do think that interstate competition is an easy one the Dems should have used as barter to get some Repubs on board. I think it would have a dramatic impact on cost and there's really no counter argument that the average person can understand...it's basic competition and some states really have few choices available.

-spence

The health benefits of being a smoker, obese, and using drugs is in the eye of the beholder?

You're absolutely nuts if you think the average person who is 100lbs overweight won't have higher health care costs over their lifetime than a person.

Exceptions do not make up the rule. Sure, I have met people that smoked for 65 years and lived into their 80s. I've met a whole lot more people that had family members smoke and died in their 50s.

There are people that eat garbage every day and will live to be 90. There are far, far more people that eat garbage and will have their first hear attack or stroke in their 50s.

More than half of Americans are overweight. Diabetes rates are going through the roof.

Why should I - a person who exercises, eats well, and rarely sick even though I work a desk job - pay the same rates as someone that is overweight or a smoker?

So the same government who provides the most unhealthy school lunch program in the world will make you pay more for healthcare for being fat?

Yup, I get it now............

This government has absolutely no common sense and too many loafer citizens & non-citizens looking for a free ride. No way they can manage or should be managing a Healthcare system. The best run institutions are run privately.

Hey, like the government, I'm not perfect, but I get it right at least some of the time.

JD, haven't I seen you smoking a cigar before?

The government wouldn't want any of what I suggest. I think the insurance companies should implement surcharges.

The government provides it, but the parents allow it. If parents don't like what the schools are serving, they could take the 10 minutes at night to make lunch for their kid. The parents should be held responsible for what their kids eat. Also, the one meal a day a kid eats at school isn't going to make them fat. It's the 2 other meals, plus junk food they get at home that does.

More than once. And if I have to pay a surcharge on my insurance in order to do so, then I'd have to make a choice. If I lie about it, then get mouth or throat cancer, then the liability is on me.

What if you don't wear sunscreen?

What if you have a dangerous occupation (Cop, Fireman, Fisherman, Construction, Prostitute)?

What if you live with someone who smokes?

What if your house has Radon?

What if you touch lead sinkers?

What if you don't wear rubbers (on your feet)

My original point is where do you draw the line?

From reason to ridiculous.

These are the types of questions that ARE asked and ARE taken into consideration in under written states, which most of the country is. The are called riders that won't be covered. Conn is pretty bad for them.
Biggest one that affects your health insurance in under written states (take physical, based on results, they decide how much it costs from person to person), motorcycle riding is a huge mark up. They run a DMV check so you can't lie.
At least here in Mass as a guaranteed issue state, we can all get it, no pre-exisiting condition worries, regardless of what it costs. The problem is in the other states that aren't where people CAN'T get insured due to such issues discussed above, no matter how much they are willing to pay. Sucks paying so much for something you may or may not ever use, but you'll thank god you have it when you do need it.

I need health care. I got none.

Ridiculous?

So where do you draw the line? You still haven't really answered it.
Since you feel higher risk people should pay more, how do you classify “high risk’ people? (And not just fat ones or one who smoke). Someone who goes out every day without sunscreen is at high risk for Skin Cancer. Someone who has a lot of unprotected sex has high risk for a lot of things and it goes on and on. Someone who has a lot on stress and anxiety has high risks for cardiovascular issues. Where do you draw the line? I don't think you can………..

Yup, ever been in a VA,State or County Hospital?
I wouldn't send my dog.

And like I've asked multiple times, why should I pay the same rates as these people who will statistically have significantly higher health care related costs than I will over my lifetime:
http://www.nsma.org.au/pics2008/fatgirl.jpg
http://www.dvorak.org/blog/wp-conten...07/02/fat1.jpg

What you are arguing is a liberal's dream - the many healthy people paying for the few sick people with no ability to discriminate and charge people relative to their use.

JD's former girlfriends gathered for a reunion recently....

Because JD, it would be profiling, discriminatory and not PC. :hihi:

Nice pics. I’d bet they don’t (or didn’t) have insurance in the first place.

Read my previous posts,

I think you are getting confused as there are 2 things here
#1 is Government "dictated" healthcare, #2 is identifying people with high risk health coverage.

I'm not a liberal (far from it) and not arguing a liberal's dream. I don't want to pay the same rate as a smoker. I don't think government should tell people what they can or can't do. I don't think the government should be involved in Healthcare. I don't think someone should be paying for health coverage for another free loader (unless it is an elderly retired person who has worked their whole life and is on a fixed income or similar scenario). I'm talking about the people who feel they are entitled to it. I think one should get an education/skill, work hard and pay your insurance premiums. My question is once that is established, where do you draw the line on identifying a "high risk" person? Also, another way to look at this is if your friends in these pictures die of a heart attack at 40 then no more healthcare is need for them but if you live to be 90 then there is 50 more years of health related expense that will have to be paid for your care.

My opinion is the government needs to stay out. If a private insurance company in a free market wants to add to premiums for people who abuse themselves then so be it (still not sure where they would draw the line). But in a free market, they will have to compete with other insurance companies and major employers will be able to negotiate those premiums.

And why do I have more posts on this site about non-fishing related stuff? :confused:

We are much closer than it appears. I agree the government should stay out. What I've been stating above, and I thought I was clearer, is that the private insurance companies should be applying these surcharges. The government needs to get the hell out of it.

Private companies and institutions (who provide private health insurance) can make decisions without Government involvement. My wife is an HR manager for one of the largest companies in the world (over 300,000 employees world wide) and they will have 100% tobacco free campuses by the end of 2011. This was a decision made privately and not by any government. No smoking will be allowed at any of their sites across the world. You can’t use tobacco in your car or while on company property. Her company’s stance is, if you don't like it, you don't have to work here. This was a big deal and particularly big issue with factory workers as they can not get off the property to smoke and be back before their break is over.

That is one of the ways they are trying to urge employees to quit to help reduce Insurance costs

This is that part that there may not be a black/white answer to. Is it just the smokers and fat people in your picture album :) ? Not to be a broken record but what about everyone else: Drinkers, Non-Sun Screen users, heavy labor intensive jobs, modercycle riders, sky jumpers, skiiers, shore fisherman who swim out to remote rocks at night, etc, etc. Where is the line in the sand on who pays higher and where does it end?

The reason the govern. stepped in originally is b/c there is no incentive for a private business to cover someone that the business will lose money on. I'm guessing that someone with 1 incident of cancer will have a much higher chance of a repeat. The insur. company cannot make enough money on that one person w/o charging a higher rate. Then your going to have sickness/illness that are so expense that if you have it once and are likely of getting it again, no ins. company will cover you. Now you have someone w/no insur. and when they get sick again, they can't pay the bills. Thus, you have guaranteed issue which spreads the cost of JohnnyD's fat people amongst all of us fit, healthy people.

Insur. comp. can deal with guaranteed issue if everyone in the state is required to have coverage. Without people being able to pick and choose if they want coverage, the ins. comp. can't spread the risk amongt all of us. With guarantee issue you don't have to do risk assessment for smokers or fatties - you spread the risk amongst all of us.

this should fix everything...


BALTIMORE -- The Baltimore City Health Department issued its first environmental citation for repeat violations of the city's trans fat ban.

The Health Department issued Healthy Choice, a food facility in the 400 block of Lexington Street, a $100 fine on Thursday.

"It was the second time they were found with a high trans fat level in their ingredients," said Health Department agent Juan Gutierrez.

Officials said that during inspections in July and this month, the facility was found to be using a margarine product with trans fat levels in excess of what the law allows.

The law banning food facilities from serving or selling non-prepackaged food items containing 0.5 grams or more of trans fats went into effect in September 2009.

"While we are pleased with the high rates of compliance we've seen since the ban took effect, we will continue to sanction businesses that repeatedly fail to comply."
- Dr. Oxiris Barbot, Commissioner of Health

"They originally had a margarine that was above 3 grams, actually, which is very high compared to the .5 that is allowed. Then when we came back and they had replaced it, they replaced it with one that was 2 grams, so it still was too high," Gutierrez said

If that was the reason the Govt stepped in, then why a 3000 page
bill that covers everybody?

Why not a special program or tax credit for those individuals?

They stepped in to take complete control of HC and increase their
power base.

You would approve of special bill to cover certain individuals?

Why do you think the government has passed bills pertaining to health care for the last 60 or 70 years? There were bills proposed/passed by both parties in that time.

Good. Smokers are less productive in the workplace and are sicker more often.

This is a few years dated but:
Now tack on that insurance companies offer businesses discounts on health insurance if they don't hire smokers and it's even better of a financial decision for businesses.

This is no different than delivery companies that won't hire people with a bad driving record - I don't and we get reduced vehicle insurance rates because of it.

redlite knows the insurance industry and brought up a good point - the questions you're asking are already being addressed by these companies when decided if they will provide coverage. They make the decision based on how risky you are. My opinion is for them to take it one step further and either provide me a kick-back for being a healthy person or create a surcharge for those who don't.

You want me to draw a line in the sand, then fine - Obesity and smoking - the two biggest causes of preventable deaths in America and two of the most expensive. Done. The line is drawn.

I Googled it so not sure if it is 100% true:

Deaths and Mortality
(Data are for the U.S.)
•Number of deaths: 2,423,712
•Death rate: 803.6 deaths per 100,000 population
•Life expectancy: 77.9 years
•Infant Mortality rate: 6.75 deaths per 1,000 live births

•Heart disease: 616,067
•Cancer: 562,875
•Stroke (cerebrovascular diseases): 135,952
•Chronic lower respiratory diseases: 127,924
•Accidents (unintentional injuries): 123,706
•Alzheimer's disease: 74,632
•Diabetes: 71,382
•Influenza and Pneumonia: 52,717
•Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome, and nephrosis (kidney disease): 46,448
•Septicemia (infections: 34,828

What search terms did you use?

I'm talking preventable deaths. Deaths where an intervention or change in lifestyle could have prevented it.

This chart comes from a medical journal published in 2000:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...s_of_death.png
http://proxychi.baremetal.com/csdp.o...earch/1238.pdf

good thing we have a fat First Lady and chainsmoking President for role models :uhuh: and they are REALLY expensive...