Obama Care

[Piscator]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

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?

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by Piscator

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.

[Piscator]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

From reason to ridiculous.

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………..

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by Piscator

Ridiculous?

So where do you draw the line? You still haven't really answered it.

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:



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.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

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:



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....

[Piscator]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

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:

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.

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?

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by Piscator

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.

...

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?

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.

[Piscator]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

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

[Piscator]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

What I've been stating above, and I thought I was clearer, is that the private insurance companies should be applying these surcharges.

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?

[redlite]

Originally Posted by Piscator

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?

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.

[goosefish]

I need health care. I got none.