Am I an insane conspiracy nut ...healthcare

[pipoman]

I have had access to affordable group insurance for a few years now. Benefits renewal is this month. My wife and I very seldom are ill and have never met our deductible. We smoke cigarettes and apparently our insurance is going up $1,500 per year.

My first reaction was, 'are they going to raise rates on the fat people too?'...well of coarse not...

The conspiracy I speak of...apparently raising rates on smokers has some case law behind it. Combined with a health care bill with a requirement to maintain insurance. This sounds of insurance/government working for different reasons to the same conclusion. The insurance companies rating up smokers in group insurance, thus creating more profit. The government allowing tobacco to be taxed or priced out of existence...for the public good of coarse. Then to replace the lost revenue, pot will be legalized with zillions of dollars of taxation and easy money as the motivator. The insurance companies will pee everyone periodically and if you been tokin' you pay out the ass for your insurance. Then all the other risk groups will be raised 10 times beyond the actuarial risk factor...everybody wins in the end!! It is just that as far as I know this is the only condition ever put on group insurance which required the risk group within the group to be assessed higher rates based on some activity aside from those related to job duties. Will the next group of higher risk people be the obese, or recreational motorcyclists, or bicyclists, or couch potatoes...

Reminds me of this old poem:

First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a communist;
Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a socialist;
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a trade unionist;
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew;
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak out for me.--Martin Niemöller (1892–1984)

For the record, I have not been following the health care debate as closely as I should be. I haven't been following the health care threads here on DU either.

[Warpy]

1. Health insurance should not be able to limit risk

by refusing to cover anyone genetically predisposed to illness, anyone suffering from chronic illness, or any person engaging in legal behavior.

None of us over the age of infancy has a perfect body or a perfect life and most of us didn't have either of those then.

It's high time they all come to terms with that. If they can't, then they need to be forced out of business in favor of public health insurance.

Smoking cessation programs should always be covered as a part of comprehensive preventive health care. However, we need to recognize they don't always work.

[pipoman]

3. Exactly

I thought that was the idea of group insurance. I know of 3 obese employees 2 who have diabetes and the 3rd who is off right now for a knee replacement surgery. I feel that this policy is counter to the idea of group insurance. I don't want to sound like a whiner but $1500 per year may make a difference between some people being able to maintain insurance or not. There are several single mothers and others who say they can't afford to keep their insurance now. I find it hard to believe that the actuarial proof is there, that smokers as a class have enough more illness in our group to justify this dramatic increase...especially when compared to other risk groups.

[Warpy]

9. I saw very few nonsmokers under the age of 75

who needed coronary bypass, and that's over 25 years. Smoking makes all those illnesses you're genetically predisposed to show up a lot earlier.

The actuarial proof is there, that smokers in their 40s and 50s are generally a lot sicker than nonsmokers.

However, it's a legal behavior, as are living on an unhealthy diet and being noncompliant with medical treatment like high blood pressure medication. The fact remains that none of us is perfect and insurance companies need to take us as we are, all of us, and stop singling us out for our flaws in order to extract more money and refuse payment.

[LeftishBrit]

5. I agree!

[sofa king]

7. I don't think those folks should be "insured" at all.

Just give 'em the damned treatment they need and let the rest of us God-fearing Christian Nationalists figure out how to do what's right by them.

"Insurance" is and always has been an elaborate shell game designed to part more money from you over time than you would have spent managing your own health care.

[Mind_your_head]

2. Please note that your title questions health INSURANCE (which is what some of us have)

When what you are REALLY talking about/eluding to is health CARE (which is what none of us 'really' have)...even those rich folks, once they lose their $$$, it won't be long before they find themselves in the same 'toilet-chamber' as the rest of us AMERICAN CITIZENS.

[geek tragedy]

4. Then stop smoking. Smoking is a choice.

Don't expect those of us smart enough to refrain from sucking down cancer sticks to subsidize your bad decision.

[LeftishBrit]

6. And so are dangerous sports, overeating, working in a dangerous job, all kinds of things...

Just going into a public place during flu season, etc. Where does it end?

Health providers should go *only* on the basis of need and medical prognosis, not evaluating other people's decisions and whether they 'deserve' care. Contrary to the stories spread by right-wing media, this is in fact the case in countries like mine with 'socialized medicine'.

I think that people should stop, or never start, smoking (I have never smoked); but I'm not going to begrudge them the use of the NHS if they did start smoking and failed to break the addiction.

[Winterblues]

10. Should we be forced to wear helmets if we ride motorcycles or seat belts?

:shrug: I am fairly certain you would not want to stop those laws

[LeftishBrit]

11. Yes, it should be the law; but your health care provision should not depend on it

[pipoman]

8. I agree with Brit

There are a million choices people make which raise their actuarial risk...they will soon be analyzing and micro managing your choices...not to worry about precedent as long as it doesn't effect you, huh?

[Kalyke]

12. It's never been proven to cause cancer.

Is it at the scene of the crime? Most definitely.
Is there proof of a direct link? Nope. Nada. Zilch.

In fact, new studies coming out show that, while the percentage of Americans who smoke is decreasing, the number of lung cancer cases is increasing, leading researchers to believe that, hey... you know what? It might just be genetics, asbestos exposure, gender, HIV status, vitamin deficiency, diet, pollution, and even just plain old being lazy.

http://www.journaloftheoretics.com/Editorials/Vol-1/e1-4.htm

You know where this doctor got his information? The WHO (not the band, but the World Health Organization).

Oh - here's another article:

http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/195601/smoking

Now, how much cancer and diabetes-causing high fructose corn syrup is in the bread you had on your sandwich at lunch. Stop eating bread. It's a choice.

Or how much cancer-causing laziness did you participate in this week? Did you get your heart-rate up every day or at least four times a week? Laziness is a choice.

Are you male? Well, that's not exactly a choice (although it can be), but being male means you're more likely to get... wait for it.. LUNG CANCER.

How about you not preach smoking abstinence until your glass plates, exercise bike and gender is perfect?

[geek tragedy]

13. LMAO. The tobacco industry's lobbyists must have

some free time on their hands.

[pipoman]

14. Nor does burnt hamburgers or saccharin