$mokers pay the price (company fines employees $1200/year)

[Newsjock]

Source: South Florida Sun-Sentinel

By Michael Mayo
South Florida Sun-Sentinel

So much for the old stereotype of a fedora-wearing reporter pounding out copy on deadline, cigarette dangling from his mouth. Or the days of sportswriter Oscar Madison chomping on his cheap stogie.

Starting next year, employees of my company will have to pay a $100 per month fee (that’s $1,200 per year) if they smoke. Or if anyone in their family who gets health insurance from the company smokes.

... I don’t smoke, and neither does my wife or 22-month-old daughter, but I was completely shocked when I got the letter yesterday from Tribune Company (corporate parent of the South Florida Sun-Sentinel) outlining the changes to our 2008 health plans.

Read more: http://weblogs.sun-sentinel.com/news/columnists/mayo/blog/2007/10/mokers_pay_the_price.html

[jojo54]

1. It seems to be the up & coming trend.

Weyco started in '05 with random testing after alerting it's employees that if they tested positive, they would be fired. That included smoking OFF company property too. http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/08/business/08smoking.html?ex=1265518800&en=7a18b3b34e6011e3&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland

I'm a smoker and I have tried to quit several times (that new prescription stuff made me nauseous). I really want to stop because I want to see my grand kids grow up, but it's hard to break an addiction. And duh, I just remembered DU has a smoking cessation group!!

[Le Taz Hot]

111. For you and all the other DU smokers who want to quit

Just passing on some experience here. I quit after smoking for 35 years by using the patch (not the clear one but the big square band-aid looking one). I cut off a straw to make it the size of a cigarette and "smoked" the straw to help with the hand-to-mouth puffing thing. Six months after not having a cigarette I started getting cravings again and my doctor put me on Wellbutrin for about 6 months. It worked miracles.

Just for the record, I must have tried to quit 20 or 30 times. Remember, all it takes is ONCE for it to work. Keep trying -- it will eventually "take."

[Warpy]

2. Either smoking is a legal activity or it isn't

Sorry, but I think this stinks worse than the smoking does. What's the next tax, the one on overweight people? The one on people who grab lunch at a fast food place? How about a hefty tax on all the employees who lost parents to either cancer or heart disease?

Smoking is getting to be a very expensive addiction on its own and once non smokers are protected by forcing it out of enclosed spaces, there should be no additional penalty. It's its own punishment, IMO.

[RamboLiberal]

4. Overweight - Clarian Health is already doing

In 2009 the company will start reducing pay for employees in its health plan by $10 per paycheck if their BMI — a measurement of body fat through a height and weight ratio — is in the obese range of more than 29.9. The deduction will be $5 per check if they don’t meet required cholesterol, blood pressure or blood glucose measurements. Workers will be required to complete an annual health risk assessment and can appeal to have their fees dropped if they show improvement.

“We want more people to participate so that they can take control of their health,” Wide said.

Some workers and employee advocates say companies are intruding in workers’ private lives.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20625381/

[TexasBushwhacker]

10. I'm obese, and I don't have a problem with this

For one, they are giving ample warning. The deductions won't start until 2009. Also, they aren't setting an unrealstic standard. They goal isn't to be thin, it's to be NOT obese. The only thing I would change is that I would make it a reward for employees who meet the health guidelines rather than punish those who don't. Rewards are better motivators than punishments.

Personally, I might have a bit of a problem with the cholesterol, blood pressure and blood glucose issue. Cholesterol lowering drugs like Lipitor have their own health risks. What if a person who has high cholesterol (or high BP or blood glucose) does everything they can, including taking drugs, and their labs still fall outside the acceptible guidelines? The guidelines have to be fair and appropriate.

[Thor_MN]

109. BMI is a crock of shit. An attempt to "Simplify" a calculation.

It proposes that only height and weight are enough to determine if someone is overweight, ignoring that people are three dimensional. Many professional athletes come up as obese on this stupid measure.

[JeanGrey]

42. Oh yes the "fat" police are coming next.

Count on it. Then it will be the "genetic" police. If your DNA shows predisposition to say, heart disease, you're fucked. Excuse my french.

[saigon68]

46. Yes the sheep will be Fucked

Don't apologize--- the Capitalist rulers need to make more money off the serfs

[JeanGrey]

116. Yup. There's no doubt about that!!

[KansDem]

64. And after that, the "language" police!

Say "fuck" and pay $5! ;)

[JeanGrey]

117. Why not? They have to have money somehow.

[Toots]

88. Employers do not have to provide Health Insurance either

I suppose they could just opt out of the Company Health Insurance Plan instead of paying the fine but why should their unhealthy habits cost all the rest of us? Smoking is a very real reason our Health Insurance Costs are so high.. It is preventable...

[Warpy]

95. Our health costs are that high because insurance companies

squander so much money on "administrative overhead," mostly due to figure out ways to deny coverage, deny care, or deny payment for all or part of care given while a policy is in force.

The health cost of smoking generally doesn't hit until Medicare years.

However, it's crossed my mind that the smoker's surtax at these companies might not be so much about insurance premiums, but more about lost productivity because they're all out on the parking lot trying to suck nicotine into their lungs every half hour or so.

[superconnected]

96. So true!

[harpboy_ak]

104. Why should MY insurance premiums be higher because of YOU

Sorry, the company is RIGHT. There is no reason non-smokers should pay extra for the health problems caused by YOUR addiction to tobacco!

Quitting smoking was one of the hardest things I've ever done, but I did it because I wanted to be able to take long bicycle tours, and I knew that if I continued smoking my endurance, which was already decreasing, would continue downward if I kept smoking.

Fortunately, I was able to use the (then prescription) patch to help with the physical addiction, along with a better diet and more exercise, and a drinking a lot of extra water for several months. It DOES work, especially if you have a quitting buddy or a friend who will support you through all the crankiness and physical withdrawal symptoms.

So stop whining and quit. I'll bet your employer's insurance will pay for a cessation program, and probably subsidize your exercise program. JUST DO IT.

[Bake]

105. Then let's examine YOUR lifestyle, habits, diet, etc.

Really. Why should MY premiums be higher because of YOU?

Bake

[lumpy]

118. Hear hear, yey verily

Why should I have to pay for STDS because people are not using safe sex ? Why should I have to pay more because people don't wash their hands after going to the john (major cause of transmitted germs)? Why should I have to pay because the drunk down the street is always getting into fights and having to go to the emergency room ? Why should I have to pay because my neighbor has to take the kid to the doctor because he fell doen and scraped his knee ?

[SyntaxError]

107. That seems like the "I don't have kids, so why should I help pay for schools" type of argument.

[Warpy]

112. Why should MINE be higher because of YOUR family

history of heart disease or cancer? Why should MY premiums reflect the fact that other people got sick while I didn't?

Illness is not a consumer decision. That's why insurance ideally covers all of us in order to defray the cost to those unlucky few who get sick in a given year.

Please learn how insurance works. Either we keep smoking legal or we don't. Since we've already tried all sort of prohibition of other substances and it hasn't worked and has cost us more than those substances ever did, maybe, just maybe, it's time to change that Puritan mindset about them.

[AdvancedProgress]

3. Let's not forget...

Insurance companies already charge smokers more than non-smokers.

Smoke if ya got em.

[madrchsod]

5. first thing any nurse or doctor asks...do you smoke?

i quit smoking in 1982 and the damage still shows up in my left lung.

[sinkingfeeling]

6. Wow, can't wait to have my own company. I will charge anyone that attends any of

my selected list of christian churches a $100 a month. If they wear a cross or a stupid flag pin, I'll fine them $1000! And if I hear, "America, freedom, or fighting to keep us free", they will be immediately fired.

[L0oniX]

7. I hope this happens with all companys. We are all paying more for health care because of them.

Smokers are asscarrots!

[jus_the_facts]

13. So are people who believe that *smokers* are THE cause of rising health care costs....

....not just asscarrots but complete imbeciles too....lest we forget about ASBESTOS alone that has killed and still kills lots of COMPANY EMPLOYEES...much less all the other environmental/industrial DISEASE. :eyes:

on edit...here's a link to a whole TOWN and their decendents that is living/dying because of a COMPANY...this is just ONE...there are MILLIONS of others too from different types of industrial pollution..that will keep killing for generations...if there'll be anyone left at all to smoke a cigarette. :rant:

http://www.pbs.org/pov/pov2007/libbymontana/about.html

Libby, Montana" is also the story of an ideal betrayed in a way that crosses political lines and raises alarming questions about the role of corporate power in American politics and the environmental pollution that extracts its highest costs from ordinary citizens. In Libby, 70 years of strip-mining an ore called "vermiculite" and marketed as the wonder material "Zonolite" exposed workers, their families and thousands of residents to a toxic form of asbestos, creating what the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has called the worst case of industrial poisoning of a whole community in American history. That this poisoning continued for more than 30 years after W. R. Grace knew of the dangers — as charged in criminal indictments going to trial this fall — is made patent by the film even as the company raises a curious no-denial defense. But don't weep only for Libby; an estimated 35 million homes in the U.S. contain Zonolite insulation.

For the citizens of Libby, mining vermiculite provided decades of good jobs and national attention as the source of 80 percent of the world's vermiculite production. The mineral was first extracted and developed into the multi-use material Zonolite by a local mining engineer in 1919. In 1963, industrial giant W. R. Grace acquired the Zonolite Company, and the mining went into high gear, as did the marketing of Zonolite as a wonder material, especially for insulation. Yet within two years of acquiring the mine, Grace's internal memos show the company discussing the mine dust's extreme toxicity — information never given to employees. As far back as the mid-1950s, the Montana State Board of Health had warned of the dangers of asbestos dust and listed "tremolite" (a form of asbestos that was naturally occurring in the vermiculite ore) as one of the most dangerous class of asbestos fibers. Tremolite, in fact, is considerably more toxic to human health than the more common "chrysotile" asbestos (the commercial form of asbestos).

[Name removed]

89. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[L0oniX]

90. !

[mark414]

14. that is a lie and a damn lie

we pay more for health care because who have a broken system that places profits above people and is allowed to do so by laws passed by the very people who are supposed to be representing us

[Tiberius]

15. Asscarrots?

Let's be careful here. There are many, many other categories of people who I think are bigger idiots.

For one - people who don't wear their seatbelt. At least a smoke gives you some enjoyment. There is no statistically valid reason for not wearing your seatbelt - your odds of surviving (or getting out unscathed) from an accident are FAR, FAR better when you wear your seatbelt.

Okay, how about riding a motorcycle without a helmet? Your odds are ENORMOUSLY better of surviving a crash (or walking away) if you wear your helmet.

Alright, let's keep going - heavy drinkers.
People who don't exercise.
People who don't eat right.
People who have a lot of speeding tickets.
People who have a history of certain genetic diseases in their family.
People who live in bad neighborhoods.
People who engage in other "risky" behaviors outside work...

All of the above items make it statistically more likely that you will cost your health plan more money.

Does it scare you that a corporation, as a condition of employment, could have so much power over what you do outside of work? It should.

[The2ndWheel]

21. I'd say get used to it

Both corporations and governments having more power over what anyone does at all times. It's about maximizing future productivity to absolute efficiency. It's scary, but we really only have ourselves to blame.

I do agree though about asscarrots. I might have to do something just to be called an asscarrot.

[jus_the_facts]

23. You forgot people who work for COMPANIES who knowingly expose their employees to pollution....

http://www.pbs.org/pov/pov2007/libbymontana/about.html

Libby, Montana" is also the story of an ideal betrayed in a way that crosses political lines and raises alarming questions about the role of corporate power in American politics and the environmental pollution that extracts its highest costs from ordinary citizens. In Libby, 70 years of strip-mining an ore called "vermiculite" and marketed as the wonder material "Zonolite" exposed workers, their families and thousands of residents to a toxic form of asbestos, creating what the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has called the worst case of industrial poisoning of a whole community in American history. That this poisoning continued for more than 30 years after W. R. Grace knew of the dangers — as charged in criminal indictments going to trial this fall — is made patent by the film even as the company raises a curious no-denial defense. But don't weep only for Libby; an estimated 35 million homes in the U.S. contain Zonolite insulation.

For the citizens of Libby, mining vermiculite provided decades of good jobs and national attention as the source of 80 percent of the world's vermiculite production. The mineral was first extracted and developed into the multi-use material Zonolite by a local mining engineer in 1919. In 1963, industrial giant W. R. Grace acquired the Zonolite Company, and the mining went into high gear, as did the marketing of Zonolite as a wonder material, especially for insulation. Yet within two years of acquiring the mine, Grace's internal memos show the company discussing the mine dust's extreme toxicity — information never given to employees. As far back as the mid-1950s, the Montana State Board of Health had warned of the dangers of asbestos dust and listed "tremolite" (a form of asbestos that was naturally occurring in the vermiculite ore) as one of the most dangerous class of asbestos fibers. Tremolite, in fact, is considerably more toxic to human health than the more common "chrysotile" asbestos (the commercial form of asbestos).

[Chovexani]

41. We're paying more for health care because our fucking system is broken

[JeanGrey]

43. And what about those people with lung cancer

who didn't smoke and weren't around smoke? Should we kill them, too? Because we ARE as no money at all is being thrown at lung cancer in comparison to breast cancer. Do we ask a woman with breast cancer "do you smoke"? What about heart disease? Should we throw away everyone with heart disease who doesn't exercise twice a week, or who smokes or DID smoke, or who is overweight? Where will the line be drawn? Think we can't find something about YOU?

[sinkingfeeling]

48. Really, my health care costs (drugs, doctors, hospitals,etc) for the last 35 years has been $0.

I smoke about a pack and a half a day. Sick days taken in the last 5 years - 0. I pay higher amounts for both medical and life insurance, so stop lumping all people who smoke as the bad guys.

[54anickel]

49. Wow, that's the same BS I hear from the local homophobes as their "defense" for being against gay

marriage. Health care costs will go up because of AIDS, dontcha know. :eyes:

Cigarettes are still legal (and obviously still profitable) to my knowledge. IMO it's the cigarette manufacturers that are the asscarrots here.

Insurance companies seem to want to charge higher and higher premiums while reducing their odds of ever having to payout. Very few are willing to pay for any sort of preventative care, a few are beginning to cover some limited smoking cessation or weightloss programs. Hey, I'm all for making a living but let's be honest here, some of those profits are becoming obsene.

[L0oniX]

92. Your welcome to smoke yourself to death for all I care

You problem smoke around your children too ...huh.

[54anickel]

93. Huh? Problem smoke or did you mean probably? That would be a no and no either way...

I don't smoke and I don't have children. Though I do subsidize the dental and health insurance for those that do have children where I work.

[liberal renegade]

98. and you are a used douchebag!

[lumpy]

115. We are also paying more health care because :

children are receiving better health care, use of expensive technological diagnosing machines, obscene cost of hospitalization, etc etc etc.

[Trillo]

8. Time for 24-hour payment for 8-hours of work.

To be fair and just, because the employee is smoking at home, perhaps the company should be required to pay for 24-hours of labor a day, because it's trying to control off-the-clock legal behavior.

If an employee gets minimum wage, how can it be legal for the employing company to charge any fees (other than witholdings going to government) that subtracts so that actual pay is less than minimum-wage.

OTOH, if the employee is high-level management, say the CEO of a Fortune 500, then does the fact that his or her disposable income is of a sufficient level that CEO doesn't care about paying the fee, but that the fee for minimum-wage employees may mean they can't pay all their bills in months they must pay the smoker's fee, amount to unfair discrimination?

It seems to me that this will create smoke free minimum-wage workplaces, but then why should a legal activity have the cost of unemployment?

Just imagine if, say, the prohibition was that all people with dark skin got charged extra to work. Bet that would get some outrage.

---

Perhaps the fatal mistake in this was when smokers submitted to authoritarian laws that required smokers to go outside. While they seemed considerate of other non-smokers, and therefore reasonable, perhaps their true intent was to create the submissive behavior of the authoritairian/submission push and pull paradigm, thereby encouraging the authoritarians to push the line of unreasonableness some more.

What would happen if an employer charged an employee their entire net pay each and every pay period. Why not? Variants on the theme have historically been practiced.

[LisaM]

9. Are they going to test them for high-fructose corn syrup diets?

Since there is some evidence that HFCS contributes to diabetes?

[TexasBushwhacker]

12. When will they make that shit illegal anyway? n/t

[guitar man]

60. my 21 month old daughter

wound up in pretty bad shape due to high fructose corn syrup. She had a pretty severe gastrointestinal condition crop up and it took a while to figure it out, but when the doctor told us to omit anything with HFCS from her diet, she started getting better. That shit is poison! :grr:

[KansDem]

66. I'm with you on this one!

I've tried avoiding that crap for 27 years. Swore off soft drinks in January 1980, but HFCS is in everything!!! Try to avoid it in all my food by shopping at organic and natural food stores, but who knows what's in the food you eat in restaurants!

[Daphne08]

11. Who will they go after next? n/t

[Nederland]

16. Smokers should pay the price

Let's face it, smoking is a choice. It also happens to be a choice that vastly increases a persons health care costs. So the question is, who shouild pay for those extra costs? The smoker him/herself or society as a whole?

This change seems perfectly fair to me.

[mark414]

18. that also happens to be completely false

[Nederland]

19. Which part?

The fact that smoking creates increased health care costs is extremely well documented.

http://www.berkeley.edu/news/berkeleyan/1998/0916/smoking.html

[mark414]

20. the inflated costs part

smokers make up a small percentage of the population. overweight people make up half the population.


who does more to increase costs?


ultimately, the answer is greedy insurance companies, that's who.

[Nederland]

22. So you concede the point

Smokers do increase costs, you are just miffed over the fact that overweight people increase costs even more?

[mark414]

24. no, neither do

it's the insurance companies

i'm just asking you, if you claim that smokers raise costs, should fat people also be taxed?

[Nederland]

25. Depends

The jury is still out on the degree to which obesity is genetic.

The general rule of thumb I'd apply is this: if you freely choose to engage in an activity that increases health care costs, you should pay for those additional costs, not other people. So people with diabetes or other genetically caused problems should not have to pay extra, given that they didn't make a choice that created the problem.

[mark414]

26. umm...

so all of a sudden half of america has a genetic problem? what a crock! it has nothing to do with the fact that people don't exercise and eat fast food and poor diets all the time?

here's a bold idea: america is fat because america is lazy....fact!

should people who go skiing or mountain climbing or skateboarding pay extra? that's a risky activity. what about people who don't exercise? people who only eat fast food?


or do you want a bunch of large companies to be able to dictate what people can and cannot do, which is ultimately what this boils down to?

[Nederland]

31. Like I said

...the jury is still out on obesity. I'm not wedded to either claim, so I don;t really care either way.

[mark414]

32. what about everything else though?

and no, the jury is not still out on obesity. for a small amount of people it is genetic, for most it's not. that's a lie and a cop out.

should all optional risky activity be subject to a tax? should your job or insurance company have a right to dictate what you do with your personal life?

[Nederland]

33. Yes

People should be responsible for their actions. Call me crazy, but that's what I believe.

[sinkingfeeling]

50. Excuse me, but do you have children or parents who are still living?

[Nederland]

53. Both (nt)

[sinkingfeeling]

79. Just would like to point out that both children and elderly people use medically services at a

higher rate than middle aged adults. So, maybe your family is driving up medical costs.

[Nederland]

81. Yes, my family does drive up costs

And you know what? I PAY more for health insurance because of it.

[lumpy]

120. Okay, my parents are deceased and my children are

grown so to quote: "why should I have to pay for your family's health care ?" Well, to be truthfull I have never griped about having to pay for anyone's healthcare. How do we know the causes for the necessity of your family using the health care system ?

[ProudDad]

65. Here's the truth

USAmerica is fat because of the corporate capitalist masters...

There's more quick profit to be made placing fast food joints in poor neighborhoods and NO markets where people can purchase affordable, healthy food.

There's more quick profit to be made putting a bunch of chemicals in a box and calling it "processed food" than building an infrastructure that supplies healthy food to the population.

There's more quick profit in high fructose corn syrup (for ADM and Cargil, that is) than in providing good wholesome food to the masses.

Follow the money...


Please don't blame poor folks, who are proportionally more obese, for conditions they cannot control.


As for the lazy meme -- some of the hardest working people I've ever seen push their shopping carts along the streets on their recycling runs -- they work a HELL of a lot harder than corporate executives...

--------------------

But the OP was about a Health Insurance issue -- smokers ARE engaging in the riskiest activity that anyone can reasonably engage in -- 400,000+ DEAD PER YEAR from smoking related illness. If you believe in capitalism then they should pay for their sins.

But, if you really want to do something about the health INSURANCE scam:

HR676 - Universal Single-Payer is the way to go

http://www.house.gov/conyers/news_hr676.htm

Brief Summary of HR 676: “The United States National Health Insurance Act,”
Or “Expanded & Improved Medicare For All”

"Of all the forms of inequality,
injustice in health care is the most shocking and inhumane."
Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

· The United States National Health Insurance Act establishes an American national health insurance program. The bill would create a publicly financed, privately delivered health care system that uses the already existing Medicare program by expanding and improving it to all U.S. residents, and all residents living in U.S. territories. The goal of the legislation is to ensure that all Americans will have access, guaranteed by law, to the highest quality and most cost effective health care services regardless of their employment, income, or health status.
· With over 45-75 million uninsured Americans, and another 50 million who are under- insured, the time has come to change our inefficient and costly fragmented non health care system.

Who is Eligible

· Every person living in or visiting the United States and the U.S. Territories would receive a United States National Health Insurance Card and ID number once they enroll at the appropriate location. Social Security numbers may not be used when assigning ID cards.

Health Care Services Covered

· This program will cover all medically necessary services, including primary care, in patient care, outpatient care, emergency care, prescription drugs, durable medical equipment, long term care, mental health services, dentistry, eye care, chiropractic, and substance abuse treatment. Patients have their choice of physicians, providers, hospitals, clinics and practices. No co-pays or deductibles are permitted under this act.

Conversion To A Non-Profit Health Care System

· Private health insurers shall be prohibited under this act from selling coverage that duplicates the benefits of the USNHI program. Exceptions to this rule include coverage for cosmetic surgery, and other medically unnecessary treatments. Those who are displaced as the result of the transition to a non- profit health care system are the first to be hired and retrained under this act.

Cost Containment Provisions/ Reimbursement

· The National USNHI program will set reimbursement rates annually for physicians, allow for "global budgets" (annual lump sums for operating expenses) for health care providers; and negotiate prescription drug prices. The national office will provide an annual lump sum allotment to each existing Medicare region; each region will administer the program.

· The conversion to a not-for-profit health care system will take place over a 15 year period. U.S. treasury bonds will be sold to compensate investor-owned providers for the actual appraised value of converted facilities used in the delivery of care; payment will not be made for loss of business profits. Health insurance companies could be sub-contracted out to handle reimbursements.

Proposed Funding For USNHI Program:

· Maintaining current federal and state funding of existing health care programs. A modest payroll tax on all employers of 3.3%. A 5% health tax on the top 5% of income earners. A small tax on stock and bond transfers. Closing corporate tax loop-holes, repealing the Bush tax cut.

[muriel_volestrangler]

87. I presume you're aware that skiers and mountain climbers

do pay extra for travel insurance, and mountain climbing can increase your life insurance premiums too.

[eowyn_of_rohan]

35. what about role of genes in addiction?

Starting smoking is a choice. Continuing is something way different. Some people cannot seem to quit despite a deep desire to do so and repeated efforts. Seems to me that heavily taxing people who are ill with an addiction is about as cruel as taxing those who are dependant on medication.
AND WHAT A CASH COW for corrupt gov't. and insurance companies!

[Chovexani]

44. I love how people are blaming smokers instead of insurance companies

That's a good point. I smoke very infrequently, (cloves, socially, because I think regular cigarettes taste like ass), and am not addicted. I'm the exception.

It seems to me that if smokers are "taxed", then so should people who drink, under this flawed logic.

It's perfect though, get us to fight about stupid shit like this instead of questioning the whole health care ponzi scheme in the first place.

[dflprincess]

39. There is evidence that a predisposition to addiction - including nicotine addiction - is genetic

n/t

[Nederland]

62. Fair enough

Like I've said repeatedly, all I'm suggestion is that people be responsible for the result of their own actions. If it turns out that smoking isn't actually a choice and that people have no control over that aspect, then they shouldn't have to pay more. You'd have to make that case before I believe it though...

[eowyn_of_rohan]

74. Do you think some people shouldn't be allowed to breed?

If someone knows they have a genetic predisposition to certain diseases/afflictions/conditions, et al, then they intentionally have children, and pass their flawed genes along, one of their offspring gets sick, and becomes a burden for people like you, then should the parents pay more?

[Nederland]

80. Nope

In the long run the vast majority of people will end up making a net positive contribution to society regardless of any genetic predispositions.

[Caretha]

110. Wrong

I am familiar with families that have the gene for Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy, a disease that affects the male offspring, and were advised NOT to have more children. Some of those families replied "but we/I/ or my husband want more children", so they did and those male children also had Duchenne. Life expectancy is a few short extremely expensive medical years that our government subsidizes. Most boys die between the ages of 12 to 17.

These children are just that, only children, and they require 24/7 around the clock care, and do not live long enough or are they physically nor mentally able to make a "net positive contribution to society".

[ProudDad]

55. I prefer the British Method

everyone is covered by the National Health System and doctors are rewarded for getting their patients to stop or do something positive about unhealthy activities or conditions like smoking and obesity.

Best of both worlds.

But in Calvinist USAmerika -- ain't gonna happen... People have been conditioned to be too fucking institutionally selfish...

[Nederland]

63. I like that alternative

but I agree, somehow in the US it wouldn't fly...

[ProudDad]

67. But HR676 WOULD if people knew about it

and the myths against Universal Single Payer were exposed for the bullshit they are...

Single-Payer Myths; Single-Payer Facts

Facts about National Health Insurance (NHI) You Might Not Know

The health care delivery system remains private. As opposed to a national health service, where the government employs doctors, in a national health insurance system, the government is billed, but doctors remain in private
practice.

A national health insurance program could save approximately $150 billion on paperwork alone. Because of the administrative complexities in our current system, over 25% of every health care dollar goes to marketing, billing, utilization review, and other forms of waste. A single-payer system could reduce administrative costs greatly.

Most businesses would save money. Because a single-payer system is more efficient than our current system, health care costs are less, and therefore, businesses save money. In Canada, the three major auto manufacturers (Ford, GM, and Daimler-Chrysler) have all publicly endorsed Canada’s single-payer health system from a business and financial standpoint. In the United States, Ford pays more for its workers health insurance than it does for the steel to make its cars.

Under NHI, your insurance doesn’t depend on your job. Whether you’re a student, professor, or working part-time raising children, you’re provided with care. Not only does this lead to a healthier population, but it’s also beneficial from an economic standpoint: workers are less-tied to their employers, and those that dislike their current positions can find new work (where they would be happier and most likely more productive and efficient).

Myths about National Health Insurance (NHI)

The government would dictate how physicians practice medicine.
In countries with a national health insurance system, physicians are rarely questioned about their medical practices (and usually only in cases of expected fraud). Compare it to today’s system, where doctors routinely have to ask an insurance company permission to perform procedures, prescribe certain medications, or run certain tests to help their patients.

Waits for services would be extremely long.
Again, in countries with NHI, urgent care is always provided immediately. Other countries do experience some waits for elective procedures (like cataract removal), but maintaining the US’s same level of health expenditures (twice as much as the next-highest country), waits would be much shorter or even non-existent.

People will overutilize the system.
Most estimates do indicate that there would be some increased utilization of the system (mostly from the 42 million people that are currently uninsured and therefore not receiving adequate health care), however the staggering savings from a single-payer system would easily compensate for this. (And remember, doctors still control most health care utilization. Patients don’t receive prescriptions or tests because they want them; they receive them because their doctors have deemed them appropriate.)

Government programs are wasteful and inefficient.
Some are better than others, just as some businesses are better than others. Just to name a few of the most successful and helpful: the National Institutes of Health, the Centers for Disease Control, and Social Security. Even consider Medicare, the government program for the elderly; its overhead is approximately 3%, while in private insurance companies, overhead and profits add up to 15-25%.

[eowyn_of_rohan]

71. My British relatives HATE their National Health System

Fine concept but it is not working. The quality of care is as bad as our own HMOs these days.

[ProudDad]

72. And in which class are they?

I know the upper classes hate the National Health for the same reasons the upper classes here hate Social Security...

How many relatives is that? Is it a reliable sample size of varying classes and economic groupings? How many poor people in your sample?

Anecdotes can "prove" anything...


------
I do know that the Toryies and "New" labour have been systematically underfunding the system...

[eowyn_of_rohan]

75. The ones I have heard complaints from would NOT be considered upper class

Farmers, laborers, and white-collar middle class; some working now, and some retirees...
All the problems people are having here, in regard to deteriorating quality of health care with HMOs, are happening in the UK, too with their National Health System. Absurdly long waits for appointments and treatment, surgical errors (one had the wrong leg operated on), little time or effort spent on properly diagnosing patients' problems, which end up being MS or cancer, left untreated because of Dr.s negligence, et al.

[ProudDad]

76. However, unlike here in the good ole' U.S. of A.

at least they have access...

None of what you're saying is not a standard feature of USAmerikan, for-profit health care (unless your a rich USAmerikan - Hell, even then -- they nearly killed my relatively affluent USAmerikan mother when they stroked her out after an angiogram)...

The problem is one of underfunding in Great Britain, not a systemic one.

The problem in the good ole' U.S. of (selfish) A. is not underfunding it's systemic -- built into the profit-motive and the mean-spirited nature of the USAmerikan economic/social system...

In USAmerika, Health Care Professionals are not allowed to practice medicine as much as they are forced to maintain shareholder equity for the health insurance mafia and the for-profit hospital chains...

[devilgrrl]

28. Being a fat pig is a choice too.

Go jog behind a bus.

[ShortnFiery]

29. "Let's face it, smoking is a choice." By extrapolation, so is being overweight.

Watch out, something WE ALL DO (lifestyle) is a vice and will be taxed if we mosey down this tobacco road. ;)

[Nederland]

34. Yup

People should be responsible for the choices and decisions they make in life. Why is that notion so controversial?

[jus_the_facts]

47. Yeah that's right....and if that ideology were applied evenly to everyone....

...in all circumstances...there would be no controversy...and justice would always be served....that will NEVER HAPPEN...eons of history have proved this to be fact. :think:

[NashVegas]

91. Because of Pooled Risks

The assumption is that everyone has some form of risk that contributes.

If skiers and mountain climbers are paying more for basic health insurance - that's bullshit, too.

You can't guarantee that a well-eating, physically active person (Jim Fixx) won't drop dead young anymore than you can guarantee that a cigarette smoker will get cancers.

[Demit]

36. Drinking heavily is a choice. Why should I pay for other people's liver transplants?

[Nederland]

54. No, you shouldn't

[pitohui]

97. people who drink heavily will not receive liver transplants so your post is a lie EOM

m

[Midwestern Democrat]

103. Larry Hagman? Mickey Mantle? NT

[ProudDad]

101. Hell, I'm past child bearing age,

why should I pay for some other's kid's health care?...

I don't call the cops, why should I pay to protect your fucking house?

My house isn't on fire, why the fuck should I pay to put your house fire out?


:sarcasm:

[lumpy]

114. Sounds like one of those comments re. education like:

" i don't have children, why should I pay for public school for ther peoples kids". " my kids are raised, I paid my taxes, why should I have to pay for other people's kids".

[Demit]

37. Having children is a choice. Why should I pay for other people's children's schooling?

[Nederland]

56. In the long run, children are an asset

Their tax revenues will pay for your Social Security.

[Scout]

94. all the money we would save if they were never born....

will pay for my social security....

[ProudDad]

68. BINGO!!!!

Got him with that one!!!

[Nederland]

84. Really?

Did you read my reply?

[Demit]

38. Driving is a choice. Why should I pay for people's auto accident injuries, if they're at fault?

[Nederland]

57. You shouldn't

The person at fault should pay for the accident.

[ProudDad]

73. It's very rare that there's

an "accident" for which both parties aren't "at fault"...

That's why State No-Fault pools were created (and destroyed by the for-profit insurance industry)...

[Nederland]

83. True

And I understand that there are many cases where fault and responsibility are difficult to determine. In those cases alternatives like the No-Fault pools you mentioned make sense. However, to bring the subject back to the one at hand, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to determine who is to blame when a guy who has been smoking for 40 years gets lung cancer.

[JeanGrey]

119. But they don't which is why we are FORCED to pay

for other's mistakes by being forced to have car insurance.

[JeanGrey]

45. Really? Personal Choice. Okay. It's a personal choice to

have sex, isn't it? When you are left with child and no money we should let you starve, right, because you used your "personal choice". It's so nice to meet someone who is so perfect that they never make a 'personal choice' that causes society a problem. ROTFLMAO

[Nederland]

59. Having a child is a choice

Isn't that what being pro-choice is all about, so you don;t have to be in a position where you are paying for a child you can't afford?

[ProudDad]

77. Not always -- in fact, I'd guess it's rare (n/t)

[Nederland]

82. What?

To my knowledge, abortion and birth control are legal (for now) and available in all 50 states. How then does a person have a child "by accident"?

[ProudDad]

85. The number one cause is the sex drive...

aided and abetted by ignorance...

followed closely on by laziness...

[Nederland]

86. Yes

And your point is what?

[ProudDad]

100. Many people have accidents...

Maybe most...

[Nederland]

108. Pregnacy yes, children no

Yes, people get pregnant by accident, but people do not have children by accident.

Isn't that obvious? Having a child is a nine month process. Its not as if a couple has sex, and over a nine month period doesn't realize what is happening to the women until the child physically starts coming out of her body and they say "Oh my God! How did this happen? We didn't want this! This was an accident!"

[JeanGrey]

113. No. Because people have children that they cannot afford.

But we cannot punish the child for the actions of the parent - at least we SHOULDN'T.

[mark414]

17. are they going to charge people who engage in extreme sports?

what about people who drive fast? fat people? people who live next to large polluting plants and factories? people who don't eat enough fruits and vegetables?

this is fucking insane

[guitar man]

61. how about

people who ride motorcycles? I ride mine to work just about every day.

[Name removed]

27. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[hogwyld]

30. Why stop there?

We can tax lots of stuff like an obesity tax on all fast food, or most restaurants. We can tax people for unsafe sex, driving anywhere, BBQ's, most of the processed food in the chain grocery stores, any produce that is not certified organic, any meat of the same organic origins. Going out in the sun in anything less than SPF 50, with long sleeves and hats. Hooray for the nanny state!

[JeanGrey]

40. Won't those assholes be surprised when they find out

that one of the fastest growing groups of people with lung cancer is non-smokers. Morons.

[devilgrrl]

51. But but but but but but but that's because of second-hand smoke!!!!

:sarcasm:

[ProudDad]

52. HR676 - Single Payer

If you want shit like this to stop -- get Universal Single-Payer enacted and signed...

http://www.house.gov/conyers/news_hr676.htm

Brief Summary of HR 676: “The United States National Health Insurance Act,”
Or “Expanded & Improved Medicare For All”

"Of all the forms of inequality,
injustice in health care is the most shocking and inhumane."
Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

· The United States National Health Insurance Act establishes an American national health insurance program. The bill would create a publicly financed, privately delivered health care system that uses the already existing Medicare program by expanding and improving it to all U.S. residents, and all residents living in U.S. territories. The goal of the legislation is to ensure that all Americans will have access, guaranteed by law, to the highest quality and most cost effective health care services regardless of their employment, income, or health status.
· With over 45-75 million uninsured Americans, and another 50 million who are under- insured, the time has come to change our inefficient and costly fragmented non health care system.

Who is Eligible

· Every person living in or visiting the United States and the U.S. Territories would receive a United States National Health Insurance Card and ID number once they enroll at the appropriate location. Social Security numbers may not be used when assigning ID cards.

Health Care Services Covered

· This program will cover all medically necessary services, including primary care, in patient care, outpatient care, emergency care, prescription drugs, durable medical equipment, long term care, mental health services, dentistry, eye care, chiropractic, and substance abuse treatment. Patients have their choice of physicians, providers, hospitals, clinics and practices. No co-pays or deductibles are permitted under this act.

Conversion To A Non-Profit Health Care System

· Private health insurers shall be prohibited under this act from selling coverage that duplicates the benefits of the USNHI program. Exceptions to this rule include coverage for cosmetic surgery, and other medically unnecessary treatments. Those who are displaced as the result of the transition to a non- profit health care system are the first to be hired and retrained under this act.

Cost Containment Provisions/ Reimbursement

· The National USNHI program will set reimbursement rates annually for physicians, allow for "global budgets" (annual lump sums for operating expenses) for health care providers; and negotiate prescription drug prices. The national office will provide an annual lump sum allotment to each existing Medicare region; each region will administer the program.

· The conversion to a not-for-profit health care system will take place over a 15 year period. U.S. treasury bonds will be sold to compensate investor-owned providers for the actual appraised value of converted facilities used in the delivery of care; payment will not be made for loss of business profits. Health insurance companies could be sub-contracted out to handle reimbursements.

Proposed Funding For USNHI Program:

· Maintaining current federal and state funding of existing health care programs. A modest payroll tax on all employers of 3.3%. A 5% health tax on the top 5% of income earners. A small tax on stock and bond transfers. Closing corporate tax loop-holes, repealing the Bush tax cut.

[toopers]

58. Welcome to Universal or one-payer health care . . .

I imagine we all will have to pay different rates based on our vices.

[ProudDad]

70. No, you wouldn't...not with single-payer

any more than one would have to pay a higher rate because of genetic predispositions...

Single-Payer = from each according to their means - to each according to their need...

------------

As I said above, the incentives can be built into the payment rates for physicians and health care providers. If they promote healthier lifestyles and practice more preventative medicine they make more money...just like in Great Britain.

The way to promote health is to reward positive behavior not to penalize/criminalize bad behavior.

------------

If the health insurance mafia stays in charge we will all have to soon contribute DNA samples to the insurance companies and our rates, and whether we will be allowed to be insured, will be set by what genetic markers we have...

Oh, golly, we're already (nearly?) there...

------------

It would require a change from the "ME" society -- the blame the victim society -- the "I've got MINE, Jack so fuck you (and by the way...YOU pay for your own genetic predispositions -- you should have chosen your parents better!)" society

to

A "WE" society.

A community of humane beings on the same journey together from birth to death.





=============

To gauge where we are, what was your reaction to my last statement? If it was "what a Pollyanna, Peter Pan, unrealistic bit of New Age crap that was." -- you're part of the problem, not the solution...

[lligrd]

102. Exactly! nt

[KansDem]

69. Does this include pipes and cigars?

Now see here, mug! Nyaaa...
I've been giving this the double "o," see?
And I think this stinks, see?

[ProudDad]

78. Yep, doesn't include these though...

[liberal renegade]

99. Somebody give me a smoke.....

[olddad56]

106. where does the money go?

Does it go into a pool that can be used for the benefit of the employees. Like a program to help people quit smoking? Or does it just go into the CEO's pocket?

[Xithras]

121. They're just marketing it wrong.

It's all in how you sell it. First, the company should implement a $105 a month increase in health care costs. Give it a month, let people complain, and then "compromise". Offer a $100 a month discount to non-smokers, and a $5 a month discount to those who sign up for the "tattle on your lying co-worker" program.

Same effective resolution (smokers end up paying $100 more a month), but without the horrible publicity.

As I've stated before, I own a company with numerous employees. Potential employees are advised that we are a no-smoking office, smoking is not allowed ANYWHERE on the property (you're standing on the sidewalk by the street if you want to smoke), and my no-smoke-break policy is strictly enforced.

I used to smoke, and for some reason developed a sensitivity to second hand smoke after I quit. I find the odor highly offensive, and don't really care if it makes smokers uncomfortable. I'd rather they worked somewhere else. It's a nasty, vile habit.