Following that kind of logic, why not just get rid of insurance completely so the people who use the system don't pay anything?

Interesting comments to be sure.

Thank you one and all.

But when tobacco, the first profit item of this country is banned and all of not only Me, but the thousands are put on the streets, who pays for them? We do.

Ow, everyone says that tobacco is the cause for so many things. What about all of the other things that are not listed here?

Booze Taxes, Yes, I am familiar with that from owning a Booze Joint and they wanted to raise taxes yearly.

But, we have to love the Legislatures as they love to drink and do not want to screw that up.

I just love the rightous who want to be so PC just like the other A W in the world!:mad:

Why don't you get off of your asses and try to try to run a real business instead of kissing Corp. rears.

Thank you! Try to really be important.;)

That conclusion doesn't follow my logic at all.

Restated:

Insurance is nothing more than pooling risk among many people. Therefore, those in the pool with the greatest risk should pay more.

I don't see a problem here . . .

Hmmm... I think heavy smokers will likely pay whatever to smoke to a certain extent. They're addicted. Yea it might curb some younger people smoking (possibly) but I don't think it will have a huge impact.

If people really do smoke less at least that's some long-term savings that the country makes paying medical bills for people who have lung disease or whatever that developed because of smoking.

Maybe they should put a huge tax on fast food too so Americans might be more prone to eating better.... and then we wouldn't be the fattest country in the world and there might be less cases of heart disease or diabetes or whatever that results from being really overweight.

Smoking is a disgusting habit anyway.

It doesn't say that this money is going to pay for their higher insurance premiums. In fact, it doesn't say that they HAVE higher insurance premiums. It doesn't say that the insurance companies they use are lowering their premiums due to this program. Those are all good questions about the plan though.

I'm also not convinced that these are the highest risk employees. I would guess that elderly employees are higher risk for insurance use. Also, I would think something like cancer would be the most expensive thing, both in terms of time off and expense of treatment. I think pregnancy would be up there too. Maybe women of child bearing age who aren't on birth control should also pay more? I know that some of the researchers do cost analysis for certain illnesses too. I'll try to remember to ask them about it at work on Monday.

Ironically, I cost the system the most money when I lost 65 pounds in 5 months (because it was due to a chronic illness) so, in my personal situation, I would have gotten to pay less when I was the most sick.

You said that co-pays don't count, but the purpose of them, when they were implemented, is to discourage overuse/abuse of the system. The thinking was that people wouldn't rush to the doctor so fast or be willing to be on as many medications if they had to pay a portion of them.

Have you seen the movie Gataca(sp?)? That's what this reminds me of...