Federal Tobacco Tax.

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by AGDee

This one goes even further. It's an employer who is charging employees if they are obese, smokers, diabetic or have high cholesterol or hypertension. Check it out:

http://biz.yahoo.com/bizwk/070802/au...&.pf=inusrance

I can understand charging smokers more because there is some life choice there but the others cannot always be controlled...

So? Even if we accept that they cannot be controlled (which I'm not sure is the case for obesity, and may be arguable for hypertension), these people cost more to insure and miss more time at work on the whole.

This means something has to give, and if they are more expensive to insure, their employer has every right to force them to pay the additional cost.

These people aren't "victims" - this is common sense and sound business.

[AGDee]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

So? Even if we accept that they cannot be controlled (which I'm not sure is the case for obesity, and may be arguable for hypertension), these people cost more to insure and miss more time at work on the whole.

This means something has to give, and if they are more expensive to insure, their employer has every right to force them to pay the additional cost.

These people aren't "victims" - this is common sense and sound business.

So, where does it end? Is there anybody on this planet who doesn't have some health problem at some point in their life? Is someone with high cholesterol more expensive to insure than someone with all the other diseases in the world?

What about the logistics of this? Do you run blood tests and check blood pressure every pay period? How many times do you have to have a high reading to get fined? What if you typically have great blood pressure but just had a very stressful event happen and you have a one time reading of a high blood pressure? How in the world do you figure all this out? Aren't these people already paying by paying more co-pays for prescriptions and doctor visits?

When do we get to the point that everybody has to have genetic testing to make sure they aren't predisposed to illness because employers don't want to pay for their health insurance? Who would be employable then??? Where do you draw the line on this concept?

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by AGDee

So, where does it end? Is there anybody on this planet who doesn't have some health problem at some point in their life? Is someone with high cholesterol more expensive to insure than someone with all the other diseases in the world?

No, but people with "other diseases" often . . . pay more!

If you have AIDS and switch employers, see how quickly you're placed onto their insurance - or see what rates you get when you go outside your employer if you've had even something like plantar warts removed.

This is just employers catching onto what the insurers have done for decades - and that's how it should be.

Insurance is nothing more than pooling risk among a large group - and if you make up more of that "risk pool" why on Earth shouldn't you pay more? For that reason, who cares "where it ends"? It SHOULDN'T end!

Originally Posted by AGDee

What about the logistics of this? Do you run blood tests and check blood pressure every pay period? How many times do you have to have a high reading to get fined? What if you typically have great blood pressure but just had a very stressful event happen and you have a one time reading of a high blood pressure? How in the world do you figure all this out? Aren't these people already paying by paying more co-pays for prescriptions and doctor visits?

Co-pays are a small to negligible amount (depending on the type of visit), and don't account for the increased risk you carry . . .past that, all of these are logistical elements that the company can work out on its own, and don't seem particularly invasive to me.

Originally Posted by AGDee

When do we get to the point that everybody has to have genetic testing to make sure they aren't predisposed to illness because employers don't want to pay for their health insurance? Who would be employable then??? Where do you draw the line on this concept?

Why is this so scary? If you're predisposed to, say, MS, shouldn't that affect what you pay in? If it doesn't, aren't you charging the healthy people more?

I think you're being needlessly alarmist - especially since if people do indeed find this offensive or invasive, then market forces will handle whether employers do this sort of thing.

If you're a healthy individual and you're paying the same as an obese smoker with a tendency toward long-term, expensive, debilitating illness, you are getting screwed by the system, right?

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by Soliloquy

God forbid the government taxes alcohol! Alcohol is more likely to injure someone else then tobacco is.

Ummm . . . the government does tax alcohol.

Originally Posted by Soliloquy

I would rather see more rules in place to prevent drunks from behaving violently or possibly murdering someone by getting behind the wheel, then extreme taxes on smokers. Obviously hard time isn't effectively controlling people's will to drink and drive.

Well, last I heard, one couldn't be criminally charged with smoking and driving. In many places, drunk driving that results in death is being prosecuted as murder.

You're right that hard time isn't deterring some people, but I'm not sure what "rules" would be more effective than the threat of prison. Not higher taxes, certainly.

[AGDee]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

No, but people with "other diseases" often . . . pay more!

If you have AIDS and switch employers, see how quickly you're placed onto their insurance - or see what rates you get when you go outside your employer if you've had even something like plantar warts removed.

This is just employers catching onto what the insurers have done for decades - and that's how it should be.

Insurance is nothing more than pooling risk among a large group - and if you make up more of that "risk pool" why on Earth shouldn't you pay more? For that reason, who cares "where it ends"? It SHOULDN'T end!



Co-pays are a small to negligible amount (depending on the type of visit), and don't account for the increased risk you carry . . .past that, all of these are logistical elements that the company can work out on its own, and don't seem particularly invasive to me.



Why is this so scary? If you're predisposed to, say, MS, shouldn't that affect what you pay in? If it doesn't, aren't you charging the healthy people more?

I think you're being needlessly alarmist - especially since if people do indeed find this offensive or invasive, then market forces will handle whether employers do this sort of thing.

If you're a healthy individual and you're paying the same as an obese smoker with a tendency toward long-term, expensive, debilitating illness, you are getting screwed by the system, right?

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

[Tom Earp]

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!

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.

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by AGDee

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

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 . . .

[AGDee]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

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 . . .

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...