# Overweight Tax



## sidepasser (May 10, 2002)

A while back I said that insurance companies were going to look at a "fat tax" for people just like they are doing for people who smoke. Those who smoke have to pay extra for premiums (at my company it is over 30.00 per month per smoker in the family).

While reading the news this morning, it appears that the idea has been discussed and if you read carefully, some employers are already implementing this through higher premiums for not being within the BMI for their height/weight/age.

âUltimately, what may be needed to address the obesity problem are direct taxes on body weight,â Gruber wrote in an essay for the National Institute for Health Care Management in April 2010, just months after helping design ObamaCare with the president in the Oval Office and during the period in which he was under contract as an Obama administration consultant."

*âCurrently, employers may charge up to 20 percent higher health insurance premiums for employees who fail to meet certain health-related standards, such as attaining a healthy BMI.â*

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...adviser-should-tax-fat-people-by-body-weight/

It is coming and I bet within ten years it will become the standard practice just like charging smokers more for insurance is now standard practice for most employer based health plans.


----------



## Ozarks Tom (May 27, 2011)

Taxes have to be assessed by the House, and have you looked at our Congressmen?


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Sounds like good old fashioned capitalism and free enterprise to me.


----------



## no really (Aug 7, 2013)

Just think about the money insurance companies would acquire. There are some studies that say obesity related illnesses are more costly than smoking. As to congress why would they worry their insurance costs are covered.


----------



## 7thswan (Nov 18, 2008)

BMI huh? Every Dr.s office has the ability to determine my Fat to Muscle ratio. I think not.


----------



## sidepasser (May 10, 2002)

I don't worry about congress but think those that are still working and are overweight should be aware that companies are leaning in this direction. It doesn't sound like much at 20-30%, but when you are making 10.00 an hour at a company job, that can be a large amount of money for two people (if married and both exceed the BMI). 

I see this coming as more and more companies attempt to control their health care costs. Our company has installed a gym, subsidizes Weight Watchers, has two cafeterias that are geared more now to healthier food (i.e. several items daily will be less than 500 calories or less than X amount of fat and carbs).
We also have two wellness clinics per year with free counseling for addressing weight related issues such as high blood pressure, diabetes, heart disease, etc. Our PA (physician assistant) is on call to help monitor blood pressure, check blood sugar, etc. and provide information for diabetics such as how to monitor blood sugar, etc.

All of that is to help promote healthier workers that will result in lower premium costs for the company (and the workers). 

Now if they don't see an improvement over a certain time span in care costs related to obesity issues, I am sure that those that don't make changes will see a rise in premium rates. It happened with smokers here..they provided all sorts of free clinics, declared the campus smoke free, etc. Now smokers are being charged a hefty premium for smoking. Many have quit, but there are still a few diehard smokers that just pay up.

I think if people can make a change before they have to pay more, it might be wise to do so.


----------



## unregistered358967 (Jul 17, 2013)

While the BMI is helpful, it's not entirely accurate. Dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DEXA) scanning is better or hydrostatic testing.

I can see this causing a big stink.


----------



## MDKatie (Dec 13, 2010)

I would think charging for high cholesterol, blood sugar, and blood pressure would be more accurate. Overweight people can still have great blood test results.


----------



## AngieM2 (May 10, 2002)

Seems to me if the people were not so tied to their computers (in many companies I've worked for) and work over time and just have to cover for one less person than is needed to get the job done, then more people would have time to get out and have a life that could include moving around more and being less stress eating, etc.

But, I can see what sisterpine is describing, happening. I know last office job, we had health assessments, and web seminars for points. Enough points and you got a slight reduction in your premium portion that you paid.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

It seems fair to me to charge higher premiums to those who put themselves at higher risk.


----------



## Belfrybat (Feb 21, 2003)

When I was with Christian MediShare, we received a 30% reduction in monthly fees if we were within certain parameters. BMI under 30, waist measurement for women under 36" and an A1c (blood sugar test) under 6. So instead of a club, they use an incentive for folks to stay healthy. A minister I know gets rewards from his insurance company if he meets certain goals in weight and exercise. Not direct premium reductions, but other nifty items. Rewarding folks for healthy behavior works.


----------



## Wolf mom (Mar 8, 2005)

And here we go with the exceptions... What do we do about people on meds that increase weight? ie: corticosterids? 

Just like Obamacare, the more exceptions there are, the more others have to shoulder increased costs. And that is you, my skinny friend.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> It seems fair to me to charge higher premiums to those who put themselves at higher risk.


It's a complicated question. It also seems fair to charge more for people who are older, women, and people with preexisting conditions, since those groups are also more expensive to care for. But federal law says they can't do that.

I can see that obesity & smoking are somewhat different because most (not all, in the case of obesity) people can change their ways and become healthier. They should be encouraged to do so, but we also live in a free society where we value making choices for ourselves.

Eating to be trim requires some extent of budgeting in how often and how much we indulge in fun greasy things to eat. But let's face it, Americans were never good at budgeting anything.


----------



## emdeengee (Apr 20, 2010)

It won't be an actual tax as people seem to think but it will translate to higher premiums because of higher risk. That is the insurance game. Lower your risk and lower your cost - quit smoking, drinking, doing drugs, dangerous sports and now lose weight and get physically fit.


----------



## Oggie (May 29, 2003)

The company that I have insurance with through my employer does not charge smokers or other folks a higher rate.

But, we can earn a discount if we don't smoke. And, if an employee can meet four other health-related criteria out of five, he or she can earn an additional discount. Off the top of my head, I think that BMI, blood pressure, cholesterol and blood sugar levels were among those criteria.

That way, the insurance can say that it doesn't charge higher rates to smokers who are fat. They merely reward folks who are smoke-free and fit.


----------



## sidepasser (May 10, 2002)

For the most part, people are not seeing this increase yet, but I predict that employers will begin to assess this aspect and if they see their costs go down, they will adopt it.


----------



## mnn2501 (Apr 2, 2008)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> It seems fair to me to charge higher premiums to those who put themselves at higher risk.


Says a person who is no longer employed.


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

We now have a tax for breathing. They have just about found a way to tax everything.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> It seems fair to me to charge higher premiums to those who put themselves at higher risk.


 I agree those that want to get lower premiums lower the weight. Wish this had been in place long ago and I would not be battling the weight problem now.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

mnn2501 said:


> Says a person who is no longer employed.


Ok, I am curious what my employment status has to do with anything since I have always paid for my own health insurance? (I still do) Fair just seems fair to me. Those in higher risk categories should pay higher premiums than those in a low risk category. :shrug:


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

arabian knight said:


> I agree those that want to get lower premiums lower the weight. Wish this had been in place long ago and I would not be battling the weight problem now.


I have lost almost 10 lbs in the past couple months.... my trick? I was eating 7 cookies for a snack after supper nearly every evening.... I cut that back to 6. For whatever reason my Yvonne gets upset when I mention it to her!


----------



## Oxankle (Jun 20, 2003)

Are they also going to charge motorcycle owners more? How about those who ski? Those who climb mountains? Will they charge more if you are a gun owner? Sky divers?


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

We have a country that is filled with people who want to tax the other person for something. Everyone has done such a good job at it that we now are taxed for everything.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

pancho said:


> We have a country that is filled with people who want to tax the other person for something. Everyone has done such a good job at it that we now are taxed for everything.


So far they havent taxed me for one particular activity.... if they ever do I will be in serious trouble!


----------



## 7thswan (Nov 18, 2008)

Gosh, My insurance is already 10,000 more than it was before commiecare. Now you want to say it's ok to raise it some more.
This is what everyone gets when you let the goverment run roughshod over you.
Climate Change is next. Soon as you all get used to the rampant looting of your wallet, expect the forced vacs. taking our guns, how about that mark of the beast, won't be so bad will it.


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

7thswan said:


> Gosh, My insurance is already 10,000 more than it was before commiecare. Now you want to say it's ok to raise it some more.
> This is what everyone gets when you let the goverment run roughshod over you.
> Climate Change is next. Soon as you all get used to the rampant looting of your wallet, expect the forced vacs. taking our guns, how about that mark of the beast, won't be so bad will it.


I was told I could not afford insurance through the ACA. No one had an answer when I asked them why did they call it the ACA if people couldn't afford it?


----------



## TnAndy (Sep 15, 2005)

pancho said:


> I was told I could not afford insurance through the ACA. No one had an answer when I asked them why did they call it the ACA if people couldn't afford it?



The name of most laws coming out of Congress in the last few years are generally the exact opposite of the the outcome OF the law.

Take the "Patriot" Act for example......nothing to do with patriotism, and everything to do with more govt control OF patriots.


----------



## 7thswan (Nov 18, 2008)

pancho said:


> I was told I could not afford insurance through the ACA. No one had an answer when I asked them why did they call it the ACA if people couldn't afford it?


I do'nt know. I do not have ins thru commiecare. But ours has gone up TO PAY for others. It's going to constantly change anyway, that was written into the bill. Until they distroy private insurance and have single payer, the government will not be happy. Then they can come and take Yvonne's Hubbys 7 cookies right from his hands, kick in his door and kill his dog to do it.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

pancho said:


> I was told I could not afford insurance through the ACA.


Do you have insurance available through an employer? If not then what state do you live in, how old are you, and what's your income level?


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

Nevada said:


> Do you have insurance available through an employer? What state do you live in, how old are you, and what's your income level?


I am 64, do not work, do not make enough to file a tax form.
They did offer insurance to me at $941/month and that wasn't full coverage. Got a letter a few days later canceling their offer.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

pancho said:


> I am 64, do not work, do not make enough to file a tax form.
> They did offer insurance to me at $941/month and that wasn't full coverage. Got a letter a few days later canceling their offer.


I'm 64 also. My health plan is $557/month without subsidy (I actually pay $58). $941 doesn't sound right. If you PM your income level and state I'll look to see exactly what's available for you.


----------



## mnn2501 (Apr 2, 2008)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Ok, I am curious what my employment status has to do with anything since I have always paid for my own health insurance? (I still do) Fair just seems fair to me. Those in higher risk categories should pay higher premiums than those in a low risk category. :shrug:


I believe in one thread you said you were on Medicare - I don't really consider that to be "paying your own insurance"
Perhaps I am wrong though, if so I apologize in advance.

My share of the companies insurance plan is $400 every paycheck (half month)
Frankly I think I'm paying too much already. 

Besides, as of today I have lost 90 lbs in just under 2 years, but am still obese according to the insurance companies ridiculous charts. (Yes I was a really big boy at one point).
Should I get a discount while I'm losing? yeah like that's going to happen --not!


----------



## AngieM2 (May 10, 2002)

While some offers to help are very kind. Be aware and know who you are sending personal information to if you choose to do so.

This forum cannot help you should anything go wrong.


----------



## Wendy (May 10, 2002)

Ahhhhhhhh yes, it's always so easy to lose weight. That thought process usually comes from people that do not have a weight problem. There are a lot of factors that cause obesity & overeating isn't the only one. I also know a lot of people that according to the doctor's tests are considered obese. My brother is considered obese. There is not a bit of fat on him. He works in a sawmill all day everyday & is solid muscle. Those indexes are stupid. That's like saying everyone who is 5'10" tall should all weigh exactly the same amount. People are built different & there is no one size fits all.


----------



## cfuhrer (Jun 11, 2013)

To "tax" obesity reduces it to a simple calories in vs calories out equation.

There are very few people for whom weightloss is only a matter of calories in vs calories out.


----------



## unregistered353870 (Jan 16, 2013)

mmoetc said:


> Sounds like good old fashioned capitalism and free enterprise to me.


Charging higher premiums for obesity, yes. Direct tax on body weight, no.


----------



## unregistered353870 (Jan 16, 2013)

Wendy said:


> I also know a lot of people that according to the doctor's tests are considered obese. My brother is considered obese. There is not a bit of fat on him. He works in a sawmill all day everyday & is solid muscle. Those indexes are stupid. That's like saying everyone who is 5'10" tall should all weigh exactly the same amount. People are built different & there is no one size fits all.


True. The hydrostatic test gives a much more accurate measurement, but it shouldn't be needed if it's that obvious that a doctor can just look at him and mark down on the chart that he's a healthy weight...but maybe doctors' are no longer allowed the discretion to use their own judgment on such things.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

...but ObamaCare was rendered to pass constitutional muster by saying it was a "tax", wasn't it?


----------



## Wanda (Dec 19, 2002)

Just like everyone tells the smokers,''it's just a choice''. Just take off a few pounds and make your friends and the insurance company happy.:thumb:


----------



## beowoulf90 (Jan 13, 2004)

Wow,

I find it funny that no one even brought up the fact that the 0bamacare architect (Grubber the Communist loser) is the one that said this. So we know idea has already been advanced/considered by the Dems, Communists and tyrant wanna be's.

So it is only a matter of time until it is either done directly on obese people or covertly through the insurance company.. Remember I'm talking about a tax, not a cost increase from the insurance company for "risky" behavior..

Smokers already pay more taxes than non-smokers. Most of the cost of a pack of cigarettes is taxes, either outright taxes by Federal, State and Local Governments or VAT taxes added by the Federal Government.. Yet they blame the Rich tobacco companies..

So the same thing will / can happen to obese people.

Yet most will then blame the Rich Insurance companies and never call out their own Government on the taxes. 

Funny how easily people are led by the Government and the complicit media..

I'm sure you've all heard by now that Brian Williams has been lying for years about being in a helicopter the got hit by an RPG.. Gee you then expect me to trust you on other issue you talk about... 

Oh the old liar Dan Rather and Chevy trucks comes to mind from the past..

This shows that the media will lie about the truth and is complicit in pushing a political agenda that results in the Downfall of America and the Constitution..


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

mnn2501 said:


> I believe in one thread you said you were on Medicare - I don't really consider that to be "paying your own insurance"
> Perhaps I am wrong though, if so I apologize in advance.


You are correct, I am indeed on medicare, and I accept your apology, I made payments for many years in advance for said insurance. I also pay another couple hundred a month to "upgrade" my medicare into a more useful insurance via humana. Medicare by itself is very inadequate "insurance".


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> You are correct, I am indeed on medicare, and I accept your apology, I made payments for many years in advance for said insurance. I also pay another couple hundred a month to "upgrade" my medicare into a more useful insurance via humana. Medicare by itself is very inadequate "insurance".


 Yes it is and some pay as high as 300 or more a month Besides what it costs for Medicare. Meds are gotten by a separate policy things like that.


----------



## michael ark (Dec 11, 2013)

I see this a another nail in the private insurances coffin.They are doing all they can right now to make private incompetent to the point that the government has to step in and protect us all. I see this as being highly illegal and against the americans with disabilities act.Some one that is born with a overactive thyroid or in need of a wheelchair Would have a hell of a lawsuit right of the bat.:hammer:


----------



## 7thswan (Nov 18, 2008)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> You are correct, I am indeed on medicare, and I accept your apology, I made payments for many years in advance for said insurance. I also pay another couple hundred a month to "upgrade" my medicare into a more useful insurance via humana. Medicare by itself is very inadequate "insurance".


Same with my Parents. They had Great HC thru dad's union. Then when commiecare was forced on us, the stupid union members voted to make retirees go on medicare. I explained it to my Parnets, and all my idiot lib dad could say is- well Bush was going to do it.:catfight: un no. But hey, last election, I told them to NOT vote for anymore commies.


----------



## beowoulf90 (Jan 13, 2004)

michael ark said:


> I see this a another nail in the private insurances coffin.They are doing all they can right now to make private incompetent to the point that the government has to step in and protect us all. I see this as being highly illegal and against the americans with disabilities act.Some one that is born with a overactive thyroid or in need of a wheelchair Would have a hell of a lawsuit right of the bat.:hammer:


You would be correct.

It was and is always about Control of the people and more power for the Government..
But people won't learn until it slaps them personally in the face..


----------



## anahatalotus (Oct 25, 2012)

Using BMI is pointless. I'm a size two but according to the BMI charts I'm overweight. I'm ripped because I lift weights and probably healthier than someone my size but a normal weight. If anything is used it should be body fat precent and only with dexa machines not clippers or scales. The scales are horribly inaccurate!


----------



## Wanda (Dec 19, 2002)

There are not any exemptions for ''healthy'' smokers , so they will not make them for ''healthy'' fat people.


----------



## unregistered353870 (Jan 16, 2013)

> I find it funny that no one even brought up the fact that the 0bamacare architect (Grubber the Communist loser) is the one that said this.


It was in the OP, pretty clearly quoting Gruber...didn't mention his previous activities, but his name is pretty notorious now.


----------



## unregistered353870 (Jan 16, 2013)

Wanda said:


> There are not any exemptions for ''healthy'' smokers , so they will not make them for ''healthy'' fat people.


It is a bit ridiculous how certain things are so black and white. I am a very healthy smoker. I smoke two to three times a month and have absolutely no smoking-related health problems, but my premiums (assuming I bought insurance) would be raised up by the same metrics as someone who smokes two packs a day and has emphysema and lung cancer in their near future. No gray area...if you've smoked once in the last six months, you're a smoker. That leads me to believe it's not really about healthcare costs, but behavior modification.


----------



## 7thswan (Nov 18, 2008)

I compare this nonsence to the ability on Home insurance being able to use your credit score to determine your Rate for Ins. SCAM.


----------



## michael ark (Dec 11, 2013)

beowoulf90 said:


> You would be correct.
> 
> It was and is always about Control of the people and more power for the Government..
> But people won't learn until it slaps them personally in the face..


Slapped in the face? I feel i have been tied to the whipping post!:buds:
[ame="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FUvxRjYqjEQ"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FUvxRjYqjEQ[/ame]


----------



## beowoulf90 (Jan 13, 2004)

michael ark said:


> Slapped in the face? I feel i have been tied to the whipping post!:buds:
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FUvxRjYqjEQ




True, but it was the politest way for me to say what I truly feel like..

Remember that kind of language isn't allowed here or insinuated...


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

It does not need to be a tax, but I have no problem charging fatty's more for insurance.

Certainly there are medical exceptions, that should be taken into consideration, but most people are obese, because they have little or no desire to be otherwise.

I've played the fatty game for 25 years, with myself and those around me. It's not easy game to win, but it absolutely can be won.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

plowjockey said:


> It does not need to be a tax, but I have no problem charging fatty's more for insurance.
> 
> Certainly there are medical exceptions, that should be taken into consideration, but most people are obese, because they have little or no desire to be otherwise.
> 
> I've played the fatty game for 25 years, with myself and those around me. It's not easy game to win, but it absolutely can be won.




Wow...

Those who do not go to doctors may struggle to lose weight by dieting yet still gain and avoid going as they seem healthily and yet are embarrassed. My mom lived on a diet ...She gained a little every year. I thought she might have been a closet eater that was the only reason I cam up with.

She got so large that my sister told her not to come to her wedding as she was fat and there would be cameras there and it was her wedding and she did not want it ruined buy anyone wondering what the bride would look like in a few years. 

My mom later got hurt at work went to the hospital. 
Test showed she was over weight and malnourished she was nearing 70 at the time.... most of her life she worked out and dieted.

She had a weird illness ...sounded like Manchu once she got the pills she said she could eat like a pig and the weight dropped.....it was nice to see her enjoy foods.

FATTIES IS RUDE


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

kasilofhome said:


> Wow...
> 
> Those who do not go to doctors may struggle to lose weight by dieting yet still gain and avoid going as they seem healthily and yet are embarrassed. My mom lived on a diet ...She gained a little every year. I thought she might have been a closet eater that was the only reason I cam up with.
> 
> ...




You have brought up some very good points that weight gain and loss, is not always a simple process. There are plenty of medical issues that can cause it. there are also plenty of mental issues that encourage obesity. I get that. 

I used the term "fatty", because personally I am sick of the sugar-coating (no pun intended) and the denial, that goes with obesity. Facing it openly and honestly is the only way to successfully combat it. 

The real truth is most people eat to much, they don't know or care how many calories they really consume and they are not interested in putting the proper amount of physical activity to burn off excess calories. 

I personally know people who say they eat right and exercise, but they can't lose weight. I know what all they eat. I see them at the gym. they spend about 10 min an a piece of easy exercise equipment and call it good.

*Under normal circumstance* weight gain is caused by consuming more calories than are burned, through physical activity. 

*Under normal circumstance *Weight loss is achieved by doing the exact opposite.

That is medical fact.


----------



## tamarackreg (Mar 13, 2006)

plowjockey said:


> You have brought up some very good points that weight gain and loss, is not always a simple process. There are plenty of medical issues that can cause it. there are also plenty of mental issues that encourage obesity. I get that.
> 
> I used the term "fatty", because personally I am sick of the sugar-coating (no pun intended) and the denial, that goes with obesity. Facing it openly and honestly is the only way to successfully combat it.
> 
> ...


When I told my doc about loosing 40 lbs a few years ago he congratulated me and asked how I did it. Told him I think about something before I stuff it in my face and got real familiar with my bike(s) - less in, more out, pretty simple. He said he couldn't tell me how many people came in claiming they are eating less and working out but just can't loose weight. He said "I just want to look them in the eye and say "NO YOUR NOT"".


Not sure about how I feel about it all, but at a certain point when I looked at my car insurance bill the tickets and accidents mysteriously stopped happening.


----------



## MO_cows (Aug 14, 2010)

As usual, follow the money. The number of people who smoke has gone down and still dropping. The number of people who are overweight is at an all time high. It would be very, very lucrative to tax the overweight.

ETA: We have already been conditioned to accept "sin taxes" on alcohol and tobacco. People posting here already think it's a great idea to charge more for being overweight. Never mind a person's actual health status, family history and other risk factors.


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

How far are we going to let the govt. control our life? Now they want to tell us what and how much to eat. I think there is quite a few things more important that they could be doing with their time.


----------



## michael ark (Dec 11, 2013)

Here is a thought by someone more eloquent than me.:sing:
Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual.

Thomas Jefferson


Read more at http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/t/thomasjeff136362.html#QEcJzWVsxl3sDJEF.99


----------



## Elizabeth (Jun 4, 2002)

And yet, no one has mentioned the fact that much of the purchased food we eat contains HFCS, preservatives, waste products from other food processing operations, and a host of ingredients which are simply not healthy.

I haven't seen the government go after any of the multi-national food companies, demanding that they start selling HEALTHY food, yet a huge percentage of this country's health care dollars go towards caring for people who have gotten fat, or otherwise unhealthy, from eating the food which they purchase at their local grocery stores.

Seems like a bit of a disconnect exists here- maybe the food companies should be picking up part of the tab for health insurance and health care.

Or, at the very least, they should be required to disclose on food labels and advertising just exactly how unhealthy their products are.


----------



## 7thswan (Nov 18, 2008)

pancho said:


> How far are we going to let the govt. control our life? Now they want to tell us what and how much to eat. I think there is quite a few things more important that they could be doing with their time.


......... never mind, wrong joke


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

Elizabeth said:


> And yet, no one has mentioned the fact that much of the purchased food we eat contains HFCS, preservatives, waste products from other food processing operations, and a host of ingredients which are simply not healthy.
> 
> I haven't seen the government go after any of the multi-national food companies, demanding that they start selling HEALTHY food, yet a huge percentage of this country's health care dollars go towards caring for people who have gotten fat, or otherwise unhealthy, from eating the food which they purchase at their local grocery stores.
> 
> ...


 When the people begin to line the pockets of the politicians like the big companies do they will listen to us. Cash does the talking. I barely can whisper.


----------



## michael ark (Dec 11, 2013)

Until we get rid of the lobbyist we are still under represented or slaves to the system .I dont know that elections will be enough. :hammer:


----------



## MO_cows (Aug 14, 2010)

Elizabeth said:


> And yet, no one has mentioned the fact that much of the purchased food we eat contains HFCS, preservatives, waste products from other food processing operations, and a host of ingredients which are simply not healthy.
> 
> I haven't seen the government go after any of the multi-national food companies, demanding that they start selling HEALTHY food, yet a huge percentage of this country's health care dollars go towards caring for people who have gotten fat, or otherwise unhealthy, from eating the food which they purchase at their local grocery stores.
> 
> ...


It's right there on the label - the ingredients. Some people are too lazy, gullible, pick an excuse, to read them. If people weren't buying the food, they wouldn't be making it.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

MO_cows said:


> It's right there on the label - the ingredients. Some people are too lazy, gullible, pick an excuse, to read them. If people weren't buying the food, they wouldn't be making it.



The other thing people tend to not read on the label is serving size.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

I agree there is no excuse not to read said labels, all the info a person needs is right in front of their eyes.
And it even says what is considered a portion, the Serving Size, and that is what the calorie label is stating.
1/4 cup,,,1/2 cup and so on. It IS right there, no need to have all sorts of info that is not needed, In fact many products are now in both English and Spanish on the label~!

And putting TOO much info on a label, just makes the consumer glossy eyed confused, and they will just NOT read it. Period.


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

"Overweight tax"? I call B.S., and here's why:

I think health insurance companies would love to find ways to charge people higher premiums. Fat people are an easy target because they've already been socialized to be ashamed of their body size. They'll pay up because they're too embarrassed to protest.

But stop and think for a moment: If increased risk justifies higher premiums, why aren't we talking about raising fees on people who ski, climb mountains and ride motorcycles? Their "lifestyles" also make them more likely to need expensive health care! No?

For that matter, thousand of people are injured each year while doing yoga! And no less a personage than Sen. Harry Reid recently suffered facial injuries and broken ribs due to malfunctioning exercise equipment. Should having a gym membership be grounds for higher insurance premiums? Sounds like a good idea to me! :hrm:


----------



## tamarackreg (Mar 13, 2006)

MO_cows said:


> It's right there on the label - the ingredients. Some people are too lazy, gullible, pick an excuse, to read them. If people weren't buying the food, they wouldn't be making it.


The problem is WE, the tax payers who support the systems, both of them, are buying the food.


----------



## sidepasser (May 10, 2002)

willow_girl said:


> "Overweight tax"? I call B.S., and here's why:
> 
> I think health insurance companies would love to find ways to charge people higher premiums. Fat people are an easy target because they've already been socialized to be ashamed of their body size. They'll pay up because they're too embarrassed to protest.
> 
> ...


Actually I paid more for life insurance and also disability insurance because I was a horse trainer - at one time that was the 3rd riskiest profession behind coal mining and deep sea fishing. So for many, many years when I answered Horse trainer as my occupation, I was charged an additional rate due to the hazards of the job.

We can argue all day long about how "wrong" it is to charge overweight people more for insurance. That does not change the fact that it is coming and in some cases it is already here. Which reminds me..I have a "wellness clinic" to attend at the end of this month. That is put on by my company. I have to have: BMI, fasting blood test for diabetes, cholesterol check and if I don't "pass", I have access to a free nutrition counseling to get my act together before the next wellness clinic in the fall. Trust me, that info is being sent to the insurance company who is tracking this information. If I don't get my blood pressure down to a normal rate, I am sure they will tell me all about exercise and diet. Then I may tell them all about my DH who is fighting lung disease and was just told he has to have a lung transplant and how we have spent this last week in and out of the hospital which resulted in my pneumonia getting worse because I could not stop and just die on the couch.

So yes I know all about insurance companies and how they work..but the fact is, as long as we are expecting a company to share our medical expenses and an insurance company to pay for our medical bills, both the company we work for and the ins. company have a vested interest in keeping those costs as low as possible. Even if that means charging me more for insurance because I am not at the correct BMI for my height, age and gender. 

It's the way of things these days. They got the smokers, now they are coming after those that are overweight.


----------



## unregistered353870 (Jan 16, 2013)

willow_girl said:


> "Overweight tax"? I call B.S., and here's why:
> 
> I think health insurance companies would love to find ways to charge people higher premiums. Fat people are an easy target because they've already been socialized to be ashamed of their body size. They'll pay up because they're too embarrassed to protest.
> 
> ...


That all just makes too much sense. As long as we're making sense and charging more for higher risk, how about charging more for pre-existing conditions. After all, it makes sense that a person who already has a condition is at higher risk for needing treatment for that condition than someone who may or may not acquire that condition in the future. Oh wait, healthcare insurance isn't allowed to make sense anymore.


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

Wouldn't being fat be a pre-existing condition?


----------



## Wendy (May 10, 2002)

Speaking of food & reading labels. I sell baked items at our local farmer's market. I hung up a sign that said if you can't pronounce an ingredient or even know what it is, should you really be eating it? My labels have all ingredients listed & people actually know what they are. Don't you ever wonder what exactly keeps that cookie or snack cake good for months?? YUCK!


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

willow_girl said:


> "Overweight tax"? I call B.S., and here's why:
> 
> I think health insurance companies would love to find ways to charge people higher premiums. Fat people are an easy target because they've already been socialized to be ashamed of their body size. They'll pay up because they're too embarrassed to protest.
> 
> ...


Probably because is does not make sense to do so.

I could choose to ski down a hill tomorrow - or not, maybe I'll make a leg someday - or never have a large injury as many skiers never do.

Obese people are prone - every day of their lives, to heart disease, diabetes, joint and limb injury, high blood pressure, high cholesterol, etc .
.
_Sugar coating_ obesity, by comparing the risks involved, to those of accidental injuries, does not diminish those serious long term risks.


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

jtbrandt said:


> That all just makes too much sense. As long as we're making sense and charging more for higher risk, how about charging more for pre-existing conditions. After all, it makes sense that a person who already has a condition is at higher risk for needing treatment for that condition than someone who may or may not acquire that condition in the future. Oh wait, healthcare insurance isn't allowed to make sense anymore.


Until Obamacare, often people with many pre-existing conditions, were denied health insurance coverage - all together.


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

MO_cows said:


> As usual, follow the money. The number of people who smoke has gone down and still dropping. The number of people who are overweight is at an all time high. It would be very, very lucrative to tax the overweight.
> 
> ETA: We have already been conditioned to accept "sin taxes" on alcohol and tobacco. People posting here already think it's a great idea to charge more for being overweight. Never mind a person's actual health status, family history and other risk factors.



Drive the speed limit and you will never get a speeding ticket.

Obesity is about choice, almost all of the time.

If someone does not want to pay a "fat tax", perhaps they could put down the cheetos and get off of the couch.


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

plowjockey said:


> Drive the speed limit and you will never get a speeding ticket.
> 
> Obesity is about choice, almost all of the time.
> 
> If someone does not want to pay a "fat tax", perhaps they could put down the cheetos and get off of the couch.


It would be a good idea to put the cheetos down but I don't like the idea of the govt. making money off people who like to eat what they want instead of what the govt. allows them to eat.


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

> Obese people are prone - every day of their lives, to heart disease, diabetes, joint and limb injury, high blood pressure, high cholesterol, etc .


And everyone I know who has had horses, and has actually ridden them, has been hurt at some point. 

Why aren't we hearing a call for higher premiums for horse owners?


----------



## no really (Aug 7, 2013)

willow_girl said:


> And everyone I know who has had horses, and has actually ridden them, has been hurt at some point.
> 
> Why aren't we hearing a call for higher premiums for horse owners?


It's the numbers, what is the percentage of people considered obese, versus percentage of horse riders.


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

I'd say it's also because fat people are, for the most part, already ashamed of their weight and can be counted on to be easily cowed. 

Motorcycle riders, horse owners, etc., would band together and say, "HAIL NO!"


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

This is a slippery slope. One of the best features of the ACA is that preexisting conditions don't impact premiums. In fact there are only three things that the ACA allows to considered in setting premiums; smoking, age, and where you live.

Getting rid of preexisting conditions is a good thing. In fact with the current state of technology it's critical. We were on the verge of being able to assess health risk on the basis of DNA analysis, and that raised serious moral problems. Some people were not going to be able to to get insurance at all based on their DNA, and many others would pay huge premiums.

Insurance companies would love it if we started adding more exclusions. That would take us back closer to what we had before the ACA. If we allow an overweight exclusion then more will follow. If we start then there will be no end to it. It's a bad road that we shouldn't go down.


----------



## no really (Aug 7, 2013)

We don't have a choice, that is gone!


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Insurance vs health care

Guess what healthcare is more important.


----------



## unregistered353870 (Jan 16, 2013)

plowjockey said:


> Until Obamacare, often people with many pre-existing conditions, were denied health insurance coverage - all together.


Yes, we all know that...and it's precisely why Obamacare won't work at all without a mandate...people will wait until they're sick to buy insurance, raising costs for everyone who is in the "risk pool." But that's the way we're headed. The mandate is effectively on its way out with all the exemptions. Obamacare doesn't work so well with it anyway.

Not allowing insurance companies to charge more for pre-existing conditions is nothing more than shifting the costs of those pre-existing conditions onto people who don't have them.


----------



## unregistered353870 (Jan 16, 2013)

plowjockey said:


> I could choose to ski down a hill tomorrow - or not, maybe I'll make a leg someday - or never have a large injury as many skiers never do.


I could choose to smoke a cigar tomorrow, or not...maybe I'll get lung cancer someday...or never get sick as many smokers never do. I've heard of several that lived to be over 100 and never needed a prescription drug or anything like that.

Yet it's OK to charge smokers more.


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

> Getting rid of preexisting conditions is a good thing.


It's a good thing if you have health problems or are at high risk for developing some. Not such a good thing if you're generally healthy!

Prior to Obamacare, I could have had a catastrophic policy (pays nothing until you hit $10,000, then everything thereafter) for $90 a month, based on my generally good health. 

I could have had a decent HMO with fairly low co-pays and deductibles for $160 a month.

I now have what is essentially a catastrophic policy that pays nothing (except for the mandated free health screenings) up to $6,500 but it costs more than $200 a month. 

Improvement? I'd say not. YMMV.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

willow_girl said:


> It's a good thing if you have health problems or are at high risk for developing some. Not such a good thing if you're generally healthy!
> 
> Prior to Obamacare, I could have had a catastrophic policy (pays nothing until you hit $10,000, then everything thereafter) for $90 a month, based on my generally good health.
> 
> ...


Appes & oranges. ACA insurance includes things that your old insurance didn't include. How much is not having the risk of being cancelled worth? How much is not having annual & lifetime maximums worth? How about how much you'll save with free preventative care?


----------



## no really (Aug 7, 2013)

What is the value of choice?


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Nevada said:


> Appes & oranges. ACA insurance includes things that your old insurance didn't include. How much is not having the risk of being cancelled worth? How much is not having annual & lifetime maximums worth? How about how much you'll save with free preventative care?


Well, even with Obama care I would be paying for the ability to have prostate care......yep, that's great 

Right now I can go to the store and NOT be charged for milk,eggs,or fish even if others want or need them. I like paying for what I select......it's freedom. Regular care and first aid no problem....Remember I am one who PAID MY OWN when I wanted the three rounds of cancer care.....I earn the money by working and valuing my health more than partying and gambling. Some just want to gamble and play and then claim pity me. Really I find it upsetting as you made the choice to gamble with your health and set it up not to take responsibility for it.....all those post about setting yourself up to be debt proof. You made a bad choice for which you have been quite proud of. Choices like that are why America has so much debt.

There is a difference between an emergency or disaster and failing to plan or prep. Waiting to play to set up an emergency fund and take care of one's help is the old fashion, time proven way to increase one life.

Unexpected events communities and charitable people in America tent to step up to the plate to help but some show of responsibility is needed.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Nevada said:


> Some people were not going to be able to to get insurance at all based on their DNA, and many others would pay huge premiums.


So now with obamacare everyone gets to pay huge premiums..... yeah, thats much better! :shrug:


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> So now with obamacare everyone gets to pay huge premiums..... yeah, thats much better! :shrug:


What was the republican plan for people who are born with questionable DNA?


----------



## no really (Aug 7, 2013)

Nevada said:


> What was the republican plan for people who are born with questionable DNA?


Is there a reason that DNA would be available for insurance purposes? Unless the government mandates it.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Nevada said:


> What was the republican plan for people who are born with questionable DNA?


Thats difficult to answer..... since the various republican plans and ideas were never allowed to be heard. I dont recall hearing of any insurance company requiring a dna test prior to issuing insurance. Not just sure where you came up with that one.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

no really said:


> Is there a reason that DNA would be available for insurance purposes? Unless the government mandates it.


When you apply for or accept insurance you agree to make a full disclosure of your medical history and for the insurance company to review all future medical records. I expect DNA to become an important tool for medicine in the future, so we'll see the day when DNA becomes a part of our medical records. Without the ACA is was anyone's guess what DNA risk factors might do to insurance premiums.


----------



## no really (Aug 7, 2013)

Nevada said:


> When you apply for or accept insurance you agree to make a full disclosure of your medical history and for the insurance company to review all future medical records. I expect DNA to become an important tool for medicine in the future, so we'll see the day when DNA becomes a part of our medical records. Without the ACA is was anyone's guess what DNA risk factors might do to insurance premiums.


Guess is right, that is really stretching for any excuse :facepalm:.


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Thats difficult to answer..... since the various republican plans and ideas were never allowed to be heard. I dont recall hearing of any insurance company requiring a dna test prior to issuing insurance. Not just sure where you came up with that one.


That is just a short time until they do require it.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

no really said:


> Guess is right, that is really stretching for any excuse :facepalm:.


It's a bold new world. You'll live to see the day when DNA is a valuable medical tool to predict and treat disease.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Nevada said:


> When you apply for or accept insurance you agree to make a full disclosure of your medical history and for the insurance company to review all future medical records. I expect DNA to become an important tool for medicine in the future, so we'll see the day when DNA becomes a part of our medical records. Without the ACA is was anyone's guess what DNA risk factors might do to insurance premiums.


Assumptions based on acceptance that the constitution does not matter.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

kasilofhome said:


> Assumptions based on acceptance that the constitution does not matter.


Nobody is going to insure you without you signing a release for your medical records. You don't have a constitutional right to privacy in your medical records after you agree to release them.


----------



## no really (Aug 7, 2013)

Nevada said:


> Nobody is going to insure you without you signing a release for your medical records. You don't have a constitutional right to privacy in your medical records after you agree to release them.


Going Galt is starting to make a lot of sense.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

I took personal responsibility and opted out of electronic medical records.
I felt unsecured with such personal papers transferred and available on the web 

I have family history but no DNA taken.

20 years ago DNA was taken for dh and ds to prove paternity. I have never had any DNA take with my permission.

No more importantly.....prove that no one will insure me.
Prove that I want insurance vs medical care

There are drs that are for hire....yep one has to pay them....what a concept.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

As for Medical release.....by law,- as in federal law- such doc have a limited time....think of it as renting a video..One day, one week end or one week.

Normally it comes prefilled for one year. Now legally,I sometimes for cause, had reason to line thru the date and provide my own date adding any limitations I wish and wrote my name and date prior to the fial signing and notarizing.

You s
Seem to have valued the coin and pleasure over rights and freedoms.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

kasilofhome said:


> I took personal responsibility and opted out of electronic medical records.


You can't opt out of electronic medical records (EMR). All medical providers, public & private, have been required to maintain EMR for all their patients for over a year now.

http://www.usfhealthonline.com/news/healthcare/electronic-medical-records-mandate/#.VNfl2Cxwpdg



kasilofhome said:


> No more importantly.....prove that no one will insure me.


They can tell who is at higher risk for cancer, heart disease, diabetes, and other disorders by DNA. You can bet that insurers would have charged more for people at high risk for those disorders if it weren't for the ACA.

If your DNA shows you at high risk you might still have been able to get insurance, but you can be sure that you would have paid more for it.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

The time to opt out past. I made the deadline. It took being actively involved and one paper I had to learn to request from the doctor's office. He then had to locate it. But in 2009 one could opt out.

Fact....not assumptions


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

pancho said:


> It would be a good idea to put the cheetos down but I don't like the idea of the govt. making money off people who like to eat what they want instead of what the govt. allows them to eat.


this is the problem

"it's all about me!" that everybody wants their freedoms, with no concern, about their action's effect on anyone else.

If people didn't rely on medicare/medicaid, or private/group health-insurance - all of which everybody else also pays for, they they should be allow to be as fat and unhealthy as they want.

If they get diabetes or heart problems, etc. raking up huge medical costs, who cares? they are fully paying their own way.

This is almost never the case.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Nevada said:


> You can't opt out of electronic medical records (EMR). All medical providers, public & private, have been required to maintain EMR for all their patients for over a year now.
> 
> http://www.usfhealthonline.com/news/healthcare/electronic-medical-records-mandate/#.VNfl2Cxwpdg
> 
> ...


ANOTHER ASSUMPTION I got cheap insurance a few years after being cancer free for two years


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Nevada said:


> Nobody is going to insure you without you signing a release for your medical records.


I find this rather interesting.... I have had medical insurance from three different sources over the past 40 years or so an have NEVER been asked to sign any release of medical records.


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

jtbrandt said:


> Yes, we all know that...and it's precisely why Obamacare won't work at all without a mandate...people will wait until they're sick to buy insurance, raising costs for everyone who is in the "risk pool." But that's the way we're headed. The mandate is effectively on its way out with all the exemptions. Obamacare doesn't work so well with it anyway.
> 
> Not allowing insurance companies to charge more for pre-existing conditions is nothing more than shifting the costs of those pre-existing conditions onto people who don't have them.


they should charge more.

My point was before Insurance companies often would not even except new clients with certain pre-existing conditions.

With Obamacare, they now have to.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

kasilofhome said:


> ANOTHER ASSUMPTION I got cheap insurance a few years after being cancer free for two years


This sounds right. I was insured when I went through the cancer treatments.... my rates did not go up, nor was there any hint of dropping my policy in spite of all the horror stories I heard that they would. :shrug:


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Having had cancer when I went and got insurance I noted I had had cancer prior I new due to research that the company's could ask for a release up to two years prior. Due to company enrollment periods I refused insurance for a time so that I would be only show only clean med records.

Nevada,I hope that you have checked into having had the option to opt out....years ago because facts are important.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

plowjockey said:


> they should charge more.
> 
> My point was before Insurance companies often would not even except new clients with certain pre-existing conditions.
> 
> With Obamacare, they now have to.


I never encountered these problems.... Years ago BCBS would insure me for anything other than the pre existing condition. (a broken leg) They would not pay for treatment to my leg if I needed it for two years... after that of course it would have been just like it wasnt a pre existing condition.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

I went with bcbs and had no issues what ever. I got limited routine care and a cap for cancer limited to vaginal& uterus. I could have lung cancer and it would have been covered. I also carried disability and catastrophe .....both are darn cheap thru employment ....another reason to work.


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

jtbrandt said:


> I could choose to smoke a cigar tomorrow, or not...maybe I'll get lung cancer someday...or never get sick as many smokers never do. I've heard of several that lived to be over 100 and never needed a prescription drug or anything like that.
> 
> Yet it's OK to charge smokers more.


Lung cancer? Is this the year 1969?

Smoking has been proven to contribute to a plethora of diseases, even minor ones, like asthma, not even counting the effect of second hand smoke, on children and others.

http://www.healthline.com/health/smoking/effects-on-body


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

plowjockey said:


> Lung cancer? Is this the year 1969?
> 
> Smoking has been proven to contribute to a plethora of diseases, even minor ones, like asthma, not even counting the effect of second hand smoke, on children and others.
> 
> http://www.healthline.com/health/smoking/effects-on-body


And insurance companies charge higher rates to smokers..... as they should because smokers have slightly higher rates of lung cancer and heart problems than do nonsmokers.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

kasilofhome said:


> ANOTHER ASSUMPTION I got cheap insurance a few years after being cancer free for two years


Not relevant to the discussion. They hadn't started factoring DNA into premiums.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Nevada said:


> Not relevant to the discussion. They hadn't started factoring DNA into premiums.


DNA is not even relevant to the discussion yet you dragged it in.....got busted that is not factual and the boldly declare it irrelevant. Slick

Now address opting out of electronic medical records. Did you mis speak.. or is that not relevant.


----------



## michael ark (Dec 11, 2013)

I think dna will matter before it's all said and done to get all the predispositions exposed at birth.I think it will eventually go cradle to grave government health care.The predispositions is harder for people with chronic disease that aren't as simple as a cast and time .Here is what i want to know they keep talking about fixing health care but never ask why is everything so dang expensive ?We as a country went from paying for health care with livestock to having to pay with the family farm.Speaking of scary next time you at the doctor look at what version of windows they are running.


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

> Appes & oranges. ACA insurance includes things that your old insurance didn't include. How much is not having the risk of being cancelled worth?


Not much, as I'm generally healthy, so much so that I have gone without insurance for years at a time with no problem.


> How much is not having annual & lifetime maximums worth?


Ditto the above.



> How about how much you'll save with free preventative care?


Since I'm healthy, most of the free preventative screenings don't apply to my situation. And now that my insurance has a $6,500 deductible, there isn't much sense in having screenings done if I don't have insurance that will pay to treat any conditions revealed by the screenings! It would be a waste of time, IMO.

But I'll probably use the free annual physical as a vehicle to get my painkiller prescription refilled without having to pay a co-pay for an office call. Since my doc charges uninsured patients $75, I guess Obamacare will save me $75 this year, while costing me $336 out-of-pocket and the taxpayers an additional $2,200. Good deal? You be the judge.

Of course, there is always the possibility I'll have a heart attack or be hit by a truck (which is why we carry insurance). But in the 30 years of my adult life thus far, there has seldom been a year when my healthcare expenditures have topped $100, and only two years in which they were over $1,000.


----------



## unregistered353870 (Jan 16, 2013)

plowjockey said:


> they should charge more.
> 
> My point was before Insurance companies often would not even except new clients with certain pre-existing conditions.
> 
> With Obamacare, they now have to.


Yeah, they have to accept them but they can't charge more...so they just charge everybody more.


----------



## unregistered353870 (Jan 16, 2013)

plowjockey said:


> Lung cancer? Is this the year 1969?
> 
> Smoking has been proven to contribute to a plethora of diseases, even minor ones, like asthma, not even counting the effect of second hand smoke, on children and others.
> 
> http://www.healthline.com/health/smoking/effects-on-body


I said lung cancer because you said broken leg...I thought we were going for more serious conditions. A skier can also injure themselves in many ways other than a broken leg...that was true even in 1969...and people still get lung cancer from smoking in 2015.

But all the diseases smoking can contribute to are completely irrelevant if the smoker doesn't get any of them. I've been a smoker for almost 60 years and I'm healthy as a horse...but I only smoke the equivalent of two or three packs a year...doesn't matter, it's a binary thing...for healthcare insurance purposes, you're either a smoker or you're not.

Second hand smoke has absolutely nothing to do with what the insurance company charges me for my insurance. Nobody breathes my second hand smoke anyway. "But what about the children?!" Such a ridiculous way to go.


----------



## michael ark (Dec 11, 2013)

Willow girl everyone is generally healthy till their not.Then you have problems finding affordable care without some kind of government meddling.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

jtbrandt said:


> But all the diseases smoking can contribute to are completely irrelevant if the smoker doesn't get any of them.


Not from the insurance companies' point of view. Smoking danger is irrelevant to you if you don't have serious health problems from it, but the statistical probability was still there.

I suppose the same could be said for a professional race car driver who never got into an accident. But if he tried to get insurance coverage you can bet the insurance company would take his occupation into consideration.


----------



## unregistered353870 (Jan 16, 2013)

Nevada said:


> Not from the insurance companies' point of view. Smoking danger is irrelevant to you if you don't have serious health problems from it, but the statistical probability was still there.


The probability varies depending on HOW MUCH a person smokes...but that's beside the point. I have no problem with insurance companies charging smokers more. They should. Smokers cost more...not me, but most smokers do.

My problem is with the difference in how smokers and fat people are treated by the law. That difference is NOT based on statistics. If I've smoked ONCE in the last six months, they can charge me more. But a 500 pound behemoth of a man can eat donuts every day and never exercise and that doesn't affect his premium. I have no doubt the fat person is statistically more likely to cost the insurance company money than a guy like me, yet he gets a pass and I don't.

But I don't have healthcare insurance, so I don't care that much. The whole situation just makes it clear that there's something else behind it than statistics, which is really the only fair basis for such things.


----------



## Convoy (Dec 2, 2012)

The problem I see with using BMI index is that it is not 100% accurate. For example with me I put all my weight first on my stomach and with my last job I was underweight (basically no fat one my face/legs and arms) but still had a 32" waist. This coupled with large amount of muscles in my legs and shoulders by BMI I was perfect weight. Now I am only slightly overweight (most people wouldn't consider it even that) and by BMI I would be unhealthily overweight with my waist being 35" but is thrown off by how my body stores fat as well as builds muscles (wide shoulders) since it is calculated from measurements of the body.

Another example is by the BMI scale all bodybuilders are severely overweight... This is why the military has laxer standards when it comes to waist measurements since for people like me their standard of 32" waist is underweight and their doctors factor that in.


----------



## michael ark (Dec 11, 2013)

This is how i see it .If people let the government decide what foods they eat and what medicines they take...(Quotation)

Quotation: "If people let the government decide what foods they eat and what medicines they take, their bodies will soon be in as sorry a state as are the souls of those who live under tyranny."

Thomas jefferson


----------



## beowoulf90 (Jan 13, 2004)

michael ark said:


> Until we get rid of the lobbyist we are still under represented or slaves to the system .I dont know that elections will be enough. :hammer:


There is where I have to disagree..

We can all do something, just by simply not buying their products..

I know it's not easy to do sometimes, but when you can buy local, buy fresh, buy the non-brand name.

Yes I'm also well aware that some makers of Brand name stuff also make the non brand stuff. But you are giving them less profit if it is the same stuff for less..

But alas it seems that most people won't do the above. Oh they will complain yada, yada, yada.. But they won't inconvenience themselves or will say their kids only like McD's etc..
It seems they all need the latest iPhone or gear, or buy it on credit etc..


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

michael ark said:


> Willow girl everyone is generally healthy till their not.Then you have problems finding affordable care without some kind of government meddling.


Shouldn't that be my problem (if I didn't choose to buy insurance while healthy) and not the problem of society at large?

If I acted irresponsibly (by not buying insurance) why should society have to bail me out?


----------



## MO_cows (Aug 14, 2010)

plowjockey said:


> Lung cancer? Is this the year 1969?
> 
> Smoking has been proven to contribute to a plethora of diseases, even minor ones, like asthma, not even counting the effect of second hand smoke, on children and others.
> 
> http://www.healthline.com/health/smoking/effects-on-body


Oh, come on now, couldn't you find one that was even more exaggerated than that? 

I'm not trying to convince anyone that smoking is better for your health than not smoking, but the side effects have been so exaggerated to the public it's ridiculous. And that link is just such a propaganda piece.

They have to keep demonizing smokers to keep collecting the "sin tax" on all those tobacco products that are still perfectly legal to be sold. It's been very lucrative to punish tobacco users! And if the statistics don't bear out the dire warning labels, just cook the books. I have seen this more than once upon death of a smoker. The cause of death, without any autopsy performed, is going to be smoking related, you can bet on it. Never mind that their symptoms as they declined into death were of kidney failure, out of control diabetes, bladder cancer, other things not related to smoking.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

willow_girl said:


> If I acted irresponsibly (by not buying insurance) why should society have to bail me out?


Because it's federal law that you be treated.


----------



## unregistered353870 (Jan 16, 2013)

Nevada said:


> Because it's federal law that you be treated.


So it should be the law because it is the law...the circular logic makes me dizzy.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

jtbrandt said:


> So it should be the law because it is the law...the circular logic makes me dizzy.


Careful. It was Ronald Reagan, the high priest of conservatism, who signed it into law.


----------



## frogmammy (Dec 8, 2004)

If there is a "fat tax" to support ANYTHING, the Gov will have their fingers in the pie. Once they get a taste of the pie, they're going to want to KEEP getting it. Then they will tax you for OTHER things, like high blood pressure, not wearing shoes ALL the time, the color of your eyes. Studies have proven people with blue eyes see better in the dark...will this mean that you can't drive after dark if you have brown eyes, unless you pay a "eye" tax?

Mon


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

willow_girl said:


> Shouldn't that be my problem (if I didn't choose to buy insurance while healthy) and not the problem of society at large?
> 
> If I acted irresponsibly (by not buying insurance) why should society have to bail me out?


 Sure people can be turned away. I have personal friends that have been turned away because the hospital did not take the insurance they had.
The husband had dropped off his wife pushed her in on a wheelchair to get registered and he went back out and packed the car. 
By the time he got back his wife had been ROLLED BACK OUT of the hospital because THEY WERE TURNED DOWN. Yes most hospitals do have to, but there ARE around 10% That don't have to. No law covers everything 100% No Law.


----------



## unregistered353870 (Jan 16, 2013)

Nevada said:


> Careful. It was Ronald Reagan, the high priest of conservatism, who signed it into law.


How did I know you would say that? I bet myself a million dollars you would...now I'm rich! You're SOOOOO predictable.

Guess what...I don't care. Reagan is not a god...and not even a high priest to me...I'm not religious about politics...or anything, for that matter. The fact that Reagan signed something doesn't make it the best idea ever, or even necessarily a good one.

Anyway, all that is beside the point...you still haven't answered willow girl's question that you attempted to divert from with your circular logic. Try again.



willow_girl said:


> If I acted irresponsibly (by not buying insurance) why should society have to bail me out?


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

MO_cows said:


> Oh, come on now, couldn't you find one that was even more exaggerated than that?
> 
> I'm not trying to convince anyone that smoking is better for your health than not smoking, but the side effects have been so exaggerated to the public it's ridiculous. And that link is just such a propaganda piece.
> 
> They have to keep demonizing smokers to keep collecting the "sin tax" on all those tobacco products that are still perfectly legal to be sold. It's been very lucrative to punish tobacco users! And if the statistics don't bear out the dire warning labels, just cook the books. I have seen this more than once upon death of a smoker. The cause of death, without any autopsy performed, is going to be smoking related, you can bet on it. Never mind that their symptoms as they declined into death were of kidney failure, out of control diabetes, bladder cancer, other things not related to smoking.


Anything I could post, would be and exaggeration to you, since you have already made up your mind that, that the fight against cigarettes is all a huge hoax and that they do not post any significant health risks.

The 150,000 (80% smokers) that are estimated to die this year, from lung cancer, actually die from something else, as smoking did not cause their lung cancer.

Smoking is either healthy, or unhealthy, can't be both.


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I never encountered these problems.... Years ago BCBS would insure me for anything other than the pre existing condition. (a broken leg) They would not pay for treatment to my leg if I needed it for two years... after that of course it would have been just like it wasnt a pre existing condition.


I'm talking about real pre-exsiting medical conditions.

MIL had uterine cancer (it was removed), 10 years later cancer free, no insurance company would take her.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

plowjockey said:


> Anything I could post, would be and exaggeration to you, since you have already made up your mind that, that the fight against cigarettes is all a huge hoax and that they do not post any significant health risks.
> 
> The 150,000 (80% smokers) that are estimated to die this year, from lung cancer, actually die from something else, as smoking did not cause their lung cancer.
> 
> Smoking is either healthy, or unhealthy, can't be both.


FYI
EVERY HUMAN WILL DIE.----even organic,non gluten,vegans, non smoking,vaccinated, liberal or communists who love Obama.

Death naturally happens at some time after life.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

plowjockey said:


> I'm talking about real pre-exsiting medical conditions.
> 
> MIL had uterine cancer (it was removed), 10 years later cancer free, no insurance company would take her.


Your mother should have turned to BCBS. I got insurance with two clean years. Fact and it was cheap.


----------



## MO_cows (Aug 14, 2010)

plowjockey said:


> Anything I could post, would be and exaggeration to you, since you have already made up your mind that, that the fight against cigarettes is all a huge hoax and that they do not post any significant health risks.
> 
> The 150,000 (80% smokers) that are estimated to die this year, from lung cancer, actually die from something else, as smoking did not cause their lung cancer.
> 
> Smoking is either healthy, or unhealthy, can't be both.


The degree to which tobacco is unhealthy varies greatly from person to person. Depending on how heavy a person smokes. What brand they smoke, what additives are in it. If the rest of their lifestyle is unhealthy, such as a bad diet and being sedentary. What else their lungs are exposed to. And, the biggee, genetics. Some people are simply more susceptible than others. 

I went to the funeral of a smoker recently. He was in his 80s. Darn if he wouldn't have smoked he wouldn't have been cut down in his prime like that??????


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

kasilofhome said:


> FYI
> EVERY HUMAN WILL DIE.----even organic,non gluten,vegans, non smoking,vaccinated, liberal or communists who love Obama.
> 
> Death naturally happens at some time after life.


So what does that suggest? You think doctors, nurses and paramedics are wasting their time?


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

I am, as clear as I can be, stating

Everyone dies
I accept that I will die
I no longer wish for any care but first aid ...no more cancer care ever again,
If I have a stroke ..no care, heart attack..no CPR.
It is not the government to mandate I get care,treatment etc.

I am not government property. Government can not stop death nor create life.
It is my body on loan from my creator. 

My son is raised, I carry no debt I do not live my life to enrich a government.

You stated that government...a law requires treatment...truthfully where and how do they stake standing in my health choices.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Yes, there are times such as the 17 old forced against her wishes and acceptance of her parent to undergo cancer treatment...and you complain about waterboarding. That girl , no more than I am is actively seeking out death but have accepted it as a reality to life.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

kasilofhome said:


> I am, as clear as I can be, stating
> 
> Everyone dies
> I accept that I will die
> ...


OK, that's your choice. But how does that relate to this thread?



kasilofhome said:


> You stated that government...a law requires treatment...truthfully where and how do they stake standing in my health choices.


The law does not require treatment. What the law requires is that hospitals that accept federal funding have to provide emergency treatment to anyone who requests it, regardless of ability to pay. But the law also allows competent people to refuse medical care.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Nevada said:


> Because it's federal law that you be treated.


Where did you state that I, fully competent can refuse care.....I can show where the government IS forcing care on unwilling people and at the same time allowing others to commit suicide.

I am against government in my health. It is why I did opt out of electronic medical records. Have you yet check up that there was a period to opt out.


----------



## beowoulf90 (Jan 13, 2004)

Since the Feds have now taken control of our healthcare, we know that it will cost more and be taxed. They will do it either blatantly or hide the taxes in the costs..

If you don't think so, then why havent' they banned smoking yet?

Oh wait, I know the answer..

http://knowledgecenter.csg.org/kc/content/state-cigarette-taxes-2013

Open the Download the Brief in PDF and you will see what your State raked in in tobacco taxes.. PA raked in $1,118.96 *(in Millions)*. So that equates to over a billion in Tobacco tax revenue for 2013..
That's not counting the Federal taxes..

So now the Federal Government has the Health care system in their mitts, you can bet the costs will increase as these greedy _______ (pick your own term) realize they can rake in millions and billions from the people.. Oh and most will never know it or even care that they are being ripped off...

Oh and don't ever think that they will do away with tobacco, not as long as they rake in the cash.. How else are they going to fund their next trip to some exotic location and live the high life in retirement...


----------



## bowdonkey (Oct 6, 2007)

Wow, I had no idea tobacco taxes generated so much revenue. To think, men have sat on their haunches and dreamed up these lucrative taxing schemes. They and their parents should be deported at the very least. And that is just tobacco. I'm getting to dislike polticians and bureaucrats even more. I would not want to be sitting in the old folks home and have only a few memories of devising schemes to deprive people of their labors as a past life to reflect on.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Now,for fun ask where did the money go.....where it was intended but rather ......spent.....really pet projects designed to fill the pockets of big political friends to buy the votes of the weak mined dancing with the stars crowd. To get re-elected to stay in the position of power to be needed by the lobbyists to gain more person perks and power.

ALERT TERM LIMTS PREVENT THIS


----------



## unregistered353870 (Jan 16, 2013)

bowdonkey said:


> Wow, I had no idea tobacco taxes generated so much revenue. To think, men have sat on their haunches and dreamed up these lucrative taxing schemes. They and their parents should be deported at the very least. And that is just tobacco. I'm getting to dislike polticians and bureaucrats even more. I would not want to be sitting in the old folks home and have only a few memories of devising schemes to deprive people of their labors as a past life to reflect on.


This is precisely the reason marijuana will be legalized nationwide, probably in the next 20 years. The politicians are starting to look like dogs slobbering over a steak just out of reach, thinking of all the potential tax revenue they could get their hands on.


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

jtbrandt said:


> This is precisely the reason marijuana will be legalized nationwide, probably in the next 20 years. The politicians are starting to look like dogs slobbering over a steak just out of reach, thinking of all the potential tax revenue they could get their hands on.


It will certainly be a tax, most won't mind paying.


----------



## unregistered353870 (Jan 16, 2013)

plowjockey said:


> It will certainly be a tax, most won't mind paying.


At first....


----------



## beowoulf90 (Jan 13, 2004)

bowdonkey said:


> Wow, I had no idea tobacco taxes generated so much revenue. To think, men have sat on their haunches and dreamed up these lucrative taxing schemes. They and their parents should be deported at the very least. And that is just tobacco. I'm getting to dislike polticians and bureaucrats even more. I would not want to be sitting in the old folks home and have only a few memories of devising schemes to deprive people of their labors as a past life to reflect on.



Remember one thing..

The tax revenues I posted were State only, not Federal..
So can you imagine what the Federal Government rakes in?


----------



## bowdonkey (Oct 6, 2007)

beowoulf90 said:


> Remember one thing..
> 
> The tax revenues I posted were State only, not Federal..
> So can you imagine what the Federal Government rakes in?


I missed that, I assumed it was both. The numbers were so high I just assumed it was both. I wonder what MN did with it's $412.55 million. That is a crazy amount and with only a $1.26 per pack tax. Next door they have a $2.52 a pack tax for a annual "earning" of $598 million. Sin tax they call it, I call it legalized theft. And I've never smoked, but hope to start now that I'm up in age.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

You think that is bad start finding out how much tax is added to a gallon of gasoline~!
I know that in WI we are the 7th highest in gas taxes. We pay 33 cents a gallon in taxes..

What I can't figure is how they calculate tobacco taxes.
If I buy a small can of 'chew' it is about the same in price as a pack of smokes.
But if a buy a Tub of chew which has about 10 cans of 'chew' in it. there is so little tax that that tub is 25 bucks. Now multiply by 10 those 10 single cans and you are up around 45 bucks~!
Doesn't make sense. But I know for a fact that I will continue to buy Tubs of 'chew' instead of individual cans~!
And that SAME Tub of 'chew, that same brand as I buy, can be bought On Line for 10 Bucks~!
But WI you can not order tobacco products online.~!


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

When people think about taxes they usually thing about income tax and such. Just think all of the other taxes the govt. puts on us. Then there is the licenses and permits. If we would insist on honest politicians our country would be in great shape. Instead we elect the politician who promises to take money from some one else and give part of it to us.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

arabian knight said:


> You think that is bad start finding out how much tax is added to a gallon of gasoline~!
> I know that in WI we are the 7th highest in gas taxes. We pay 33 cents a gallon in taxes..


A per gallon surcharge is not a good way to collect road use taxes. It used to be, but not now.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Smoke tax bin Juneau Alaska.....5 dollars a pack...with the hope of some to go to seven......a pack....


----------



## haley1 (Aug 15, 2012)

arabian knight said:


> You think that is bad start finding out how much tax is added to a gallon of gasoline~!
> I know that in WI we are the 7th highest in gas taxes. We pay 33 cents a gallon in taxes..
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

haley1 said:


> arabian knight said:
> 
> 
> > You think that is bad start finding out how much tax is added to a gallon of gasoline~!
> ...


----------



## unregistered353870 (Jan 16, 2013)

Nevada, what do you have in mind? A per mile tax, or something else?

I like road use taxes because they charge people in rough proportion to how much they use the roads and how much wear and tear they put on the roads. Heavier vehicles use more fuel, so they pay more taxes. Obviously, electric-only cars are getting a pass in most (if not all) places right now, but they're so light they don't wear the road much anyway in comparison to all the heavy oil-burners. I'd be OK with them being charged annually based on an odometer check.

Also, road use taxes need to be used only for road maintenance. Some states just toss that money in the general fund and let their roads go to crap.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

jtbrandt said:


> Nevada, what do you have in mind? A per mile tax, or something else?


I don't have anything in mind. I just recognize that a per gallon tax model is no longer going to work.


----------



## michael ark (Dec 11, 2013)

jtbrandt said:


> At first....


They are trying to kill their cash cow already with to high a tax.
http://www.mintpressnews.com/high-taxes-send-marijuana-users-back-to-black-market/188051/


----------



## unregistered353870 (Jan 16, 2013)

Nevada said:


> I don't have anything in mind. I just recognize that a per gallon tax model is no longer going to work.


If they double it, it would raise just as much as ten years ago. Why wouldn't that work? Most people are still using liquid fuel and will for the foreseeable future.

I'm not saying they should double it...just trying to understand the logic.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

jtbrandt said:


> If they double it, it would raise just as much as ten years ago. Why wouldn't that work?
> 
> I'm not saying they should double it...just trying to understand the logic.


It won't work because the trend towards hybrid and electric cars will continue to lower consumption of liquid fuels, until the day comes when there will be virtually no gasoline or Diesel at all being used. If you double the per gallon tax now then you'll just have to double it again, and then again. Eventually gasoline & Diesel consumers will be paying for roads while most road users will be paying nothing because they'll be driving electric cars.

The tax model could stay about the same if we could find a way to tax electric charging, but if people will be charging their cars with home power we'll need to find another way to pay for roads.


----------



## unregistered353870 (Jan 16, 2013)

Good explanation, but I don't think it's headed that way nearly as rapidly as you seem to think. Nearly all "vehicular locomotion" in the U.S. is still powered by liquid fuels, and I don't see that changing much in the next decade or so.

I do see that things will probably have to change, though. A per mile tax adjusted to the weight of the vehicle might be reasonable, but I know there would be a lot of resistance from people complaining about Big Brother tracking them.


----------

