Federal Tobacco Tax.

[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 . . .

[texas*princess]

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.

[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...