medicaid why are they so upset at the notion that they (who as a group use far more health care dollars than nonsmokers) might have to subsidize childrens health care??
Personally if we could just separate smokers onto their own medical insurance plan I would be happy as a lark.
2007-10-03 09:01:12 · 17 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
That's a bit too right-wing for my tastes. Health insurance is meant to share risks, and it's already too balkanized with various actuarial categories. The upshot of that is that though the costs of one policy may be less than those of another, overall, the cost of policies rises, not to mention that so many people get priced out of the market altogether, wind up as non-paying patients, and have the costs of their increased care (from delays in treatment, making them sicker when they do finally seek care) that the costs get shifted back to the general public anyway.
2007-10-03 09:18:44 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
46 million Americans who smoke. That is even fewer than you claim to be uninsured. If you really want to vilify a a segment of people take those that drink. They cause more death and incur more medical attention than any other segment.
As to the smokers using more health care dollars you need to put up some proof.
2007-10-03 09:12:20 · answer #2 · answered by Locutus1of1 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I as a non-diabetic am tired of subsidizing the cost of health care for diabetics. I have paid more in to health insurance than I have gotten out. I think we should tax what ever group you belong to that I don't.
2007-10-03 09:13:08 · answer #3 · answered by davidmi711 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Smokers already pay more in premiums than non smokers.
Smokers also are predominately part the population below poverty.
The new welfare health care plan would have covered the middle class that can easily afford health care on their own.
2007-10-03 09:07:54 · answer #4 · answered by sprcpt 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Sure. And then we could add taxes on fast food that is over and above the recommended daily amt of fat to subsidize future obesity claims. And, if you drink more than 1.7 drinks of alcohol a day - we could have a tax for that . . . . if you don't work-out at least 3 days a week for at least 30 minutes - we could have a tax for that . . .
2007-10-03 09:07:32 · answer #5 · answered by KRR 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Actually smokers subsidize a great deal of their OWN healthcare through taxes paid on the product
2007-10-03 09:06:06 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋
I pay for my own health care and paid for my own childs health care as well. I dont feel I should have to subsidize any one elses health care, whether they are a smoker, drinker or obese because of their own choices.
2007-10-03 09:06:35 · answer #7 · answered by mnwomen 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
This, my friend, opens the door to many more restrictions. What about people who got an infection because of a piercing? No one says you had to get a piercing. What about people who drink alcohol, people who paint houses as a living, people who are in constant contact with chlorine, people who have lots of allergies, etc.
2016-05-20 00:17:14 · answer #8 · answered by ? 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
OK, and the diet-induced diabetics can have their own too. One for the fatties. An alcoholic policy too. Seperate policy for those who chose a career with chemicals. Keep going we'll have to all pay our own way.
2007-10-03 09:06:34 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
And another for the fat people that eat McDonald's and Burger King every day. Another for those who eat too much red meat. Another for those who do not exercise enough. Another for those who drink too much. Another for those who drive recklessly. . . where does it end?
The government will tax everything that is unpopular or dangerous if you let them continue down this slippery slope.
2007-10-03 09:08:42 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋