Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Off Topic' started by ATCclears, Apr 10, 2013.
Smoking Is a ?Preexisting Condition? - Kevin D. Williamson - National Review Online
Rewarding idiots for bad decisions and punishing the rational and healthy - great idea! When I see a moron happily and proudly puffing on a cancer stick I lose all respect. Unfortunately, hot women often smoke, so it has always been difficult to write them off since that takes 2/3rds of the mounting possibilities off the table.
The respect part didn't factor into that equation, so that is not an issue .
It's a good read, the main point being how arbitrary a bureaucratically run 2000 page law will be.
- doubt the hot smoking women are blowing you off only due to their habit ;-)
"Smoking is now a pre-existing condition"
As it should be.
Okay, so let me get this straight so I understand.....
It is okay to take rights and liberties away from people, as long as it does not take away from your rights......sounds familiar.
What about people with a body mass index higher than 3%? BTW I smoke and pay for my own healthcare.
Nope. If one chooses a sports car (choice) they will pay more insurance,gas,maint. Etc. Not taking anything just a cost of choice, It happens.
so, with that said:
Meat eater, PEC
Dairy Lover, PEC
Tobacco of any kind, PEC
And, since we are all born, age, and destine to die, pre existing condition.
makes total sense now.
Now there's realistic logic.
Others should defiantly have to pay for my choices even if dangerous....sound familiar?
BTW, I have a quite expensive smoking habit, I chooses to own a big block Chevy suburban, I expect to pay my fair share to do so, I don't need to place the burden on someone else, I'm a big boy.
I don't expect you to agree with me or vise versa.
FWIW, brains starve for oxygen when buryed in the sand too long.
I never said anyone should pay for my habits. I have a job, pay for my insurance of all kinds, cell phones, gas, bills, etc. always have.
My point is, if you want to complain about how government steps all over rights and liberties, expect that same argument to be used against you in debate.
My head is not buried in the sand, I have a realistic "Devil's Advocate" mindset. IMHO, the same could be said when one's head is buried in their butt too......(not that there is anything wrong with that).
You clearly need a PC lesson.
When stating "one's head is buried in their butt" it must be followed by "not that there's anything wrong with that"
I don't want the feds controlling any health care but that's a different topic IMO. I also didn't complain about anything to be "used against me". And yes sand and butt are interchangeable in this case. I will agree to disagree on the matter so maybe other posts with more constructive points to contribute to the OP will chime in.
OHHHHH yes it is!!!!! :fart2:
PC'd it up, not sure it is going to help though.
Hmm I am almost never wrong but perhaps I am partially wrong on this one . When you add in the obesity thing, etc, I guess it makes sense. Just don't like paying in the pot for people that sabotage their own health. I do believe that a lot of people who are obese would not be that way if it were not for that they are being poisoned with nerve toxins like Aspartame and nasties from wonderful super corps like Montasanto with their GMO garbage. That being the case, a lot of obese people should be classified as victims. It isn't like in 1983 to 2013 everyone just decided to stuff their faces. No, corps found ways to get people to consume more via marketing - yes - but also .... drugs and additives put in food. One of the side affects of Aspartame is increased appetite; that is why fast food places LOVE giving you a cheeseburger and a 49 oz drink. Profits.
Cigs though .. ugh. Even tobacco alone isn't so addictive. It is the EXTRA chemicals they put in cigarettes to legally addict you.
When you have entities messing with you like this, you have to consider the victim angle. Don't confuse that with entitlement, etc.
Don't smoke a joint though - that will destroy your life, possibly kill you on the spot.
I appreciate you candidness and honesty Burt. I fully accept my own choices in life and the results of them. I DO pay a higher premium for insurance because I am a tobacco user. I accept that. My choice, my cost. Obesity should be the same, IMO. I get it. My only point through all of this was don't be a cheerleader for something you may not understand, or agree with in principal. Not you, or anyone in particular, just my opinion.
PEC status is not a good thing. Any health related PEC can and will in some cases prevent a person from getting coverage at all. Be it hereditary, or voluntary in relation to the cause of the PEC. Ask a parent with a cancer ridden child that has to change insurance companies for what ever reason....
Not a good thing at all. PEC classification is in no way a good thing for anyone.....In my opinion.:robot:
Funny you should mention that...
Until one year ago, I spent four years working for a healthcare payer. I can tell you that they did charge more if you were a smoker, and they were working through the process to charge more if you were obese or at risk due to high cholesterol. I say "working through the process" since sometimes people are genetically disposed to a condition such as high cholesterol (e.g. I worked with an Asian gal, 100 pounds soaking wet, and her cholesterol was off the charts such that she had to take medication for it). In time, I expected the additional risk measurements to become the norm.
The article in the National Review surprised me. Here is what I don't know yet - was there always a loophole in Obamacare for this, or did say tobacco lobbyists find a subsequent loophole and they bought off the powers making decisions at a committee level?