• ODT Gun Show & Swap Meet - May 4, 2024! - Click here for info

Penalty could keep smokers out of health overhaul

yeah its about time those *#%^# none smoker pay their own *#$%@# way!

See, I post simple facts and assessments from research studies, and someone always has to go assigning a position to such information ;) ... It's much easier to see anecdotal evidence of a cost based on one factor (health care in the case of smokers generally) and forget all of the other factors that go into the overall picture. I'm just trying to present an idea of the rest of the picture for clarity and informational purposes.
 
See, I post simple facts and assessments from research studies, and someone always has to go assigning a position to such information ;) ... It's much easier to see anecdotal evidence of a cost based on one factor (health care in the case of smokers generally) and forget all of the other factors that go into the overall picture. I'm just trying to present an idea of the rest of the picture for clarity and informational purposes.
Too bad were not in a "NO SPIN ZONE" Who is providing these "facts" Phillip Morris?
 
If smokers do in fact contribute more overall, then why pay the higher insurance premiums? Shouldn't they pay the same as non-smokers since the difference is made up elsewhere. Seems like to me, and the "facts" you have presented they should in fact pay less since in the scheme of things they will cost insurance companies and taxpayers less in the long run. Basically what I gather is they should not even pay into Social Security since they won't live long enough to collect. Am I right?
 
Healthcare will go to the Hispanic plan when obammie care is introduced.51% don't buy into the plan but the rest will pay for them to be covered.You not get the memo?
 
If smokers do in fact contribute more overall, then why pay the higher insurance premiums? Shouldn't they pay the same as non-smokers since the difference is made up elsewhere. Seems like to me, and the "facts" you have presented they should in fact pay less since in the scheme of things they will cost insurance companies and taxpayers less in the long run. Basically what I gather is they should not even pay into Social Security since they won't live long enough to collect. Am I right?

The total costs and total payments are not made in a single homogeneous economic activity. Insurance companies assign a risk to the behavior and likely costs because of that behavior and adjust premiums in an attempt to maintain overall profitability based on their assessments. That happens completely separate from the government taxation which pays for programs like SCHIP etc. It also happens separate from their life-expectancy affecting how long they will likely collect social security. It also happens separately from the economic contribution to the GDP and tax base from the tobacco industry. While all of these combined result in X, these various components of the whole picture happen separately and are dealt with separately. What "should" be done in any given person's opinion is irrelevant to the information I provided. That information is what "is", not what "should" be.

I have not stated an opinion regarding what I think "should or should not" be different. I'm simply stating the facts as to the total economic impact of smoking (very simplified granted, as a detailed analysis of everything involved would be significantly longer than most people would read and take more time than I'm willing to devote to the subject right now) in response to your earlier statement which I assume is based on less-inclusive data. This sentence specifically "The taxpayers are paying the burden, not the smokers."
 
Smokers may actually have a net positive effect on the overall economy, as mentioned in the CRS report from
this does not sound like fact but rather an opinion
The only fact I know is that all those vet's at the VA, did not contribute enough during their lifetime of paying taxes, to pay for the care they now must receive for a lifetime of of tobacco abuse. So who is left to pay, taxpayers? Just my simple-minded view of how it all works I guess.
 
The GAO, CRS, CDC, National Tax Foundation, Nobel Prize winning economists, etc.
The facts may not support some of the liberal propaganda about the costs of smoking, but that doesn't make the facts false....

Yeah none smokers are just lib hippies trying to take our guns and money!


If smokers do in fact contribute more overall, then why pay the higher insurance premiums? Shouldn't they pay the same as non-smokers since the difference is made up elsewhere. Seems like to me, and the "facts" you have presented they should in fact pay less since in the scheme of things they will cost insurance companies and taxpayers less in the long run. Basically what I gather is they should not even pay into Social Security since they won't live long enough to collect. Am I right?

Since when have Insurance companies not used every excuse and bad math to justify higher premiums and profit?
 
Yeah none smokers are just lib hippies trying to take our guns and money!

The ones who want to restrict an individuals liberty in the name of "protecting them from their own choices" are ;) You know, the ones that want to ban smoking, ban "large capacity soft drinks" etc...

Since when have Insurance companies not used every excuse and bad math to justify higher premiums and profit?

I'd just like to point out that the insurance industry has one of the smallest profit margins of any industry in the country (about 3% iirc from the last time I researched the subject).
(no, I don't and have never worked in that industry)
 
Back
Top Bottom