Should smokers be denied access to healthcare??

This problem is glaringly easy to solve, seeing as how the government is involved. Let's make the possession and distribution of tobacco illegal! Then we can quadruple the ATF. Then we can build enough more prisons to house another 80 million otherwise law-abiding citizens. Then they can never vote, get a job, or have the right to protect themselves. That will also generate a new class of contraband criminal and we can triple current levels of law enforcement at all levels. There, you have it. Problem solved!!!

Yep! It's a win-win deal for the new Uncle Sam and his corporate cohorts. Not too great for the rest of us though!

Good luck getting the tobacco lobby to agree with criminalizing tobacco.

And what do you do with the "frequent flyers" who drink too much alcohol or use artificial sweetners or consume sweetened beverages, eat too much fat or too much protein or not enough vegetables or get too much exercise or not enough exercise or ...

Any thing that is unhealthy you shouldn't be able to buy if you're on gov't health care. That's what's coming.

Oh goody. Can't wait to be told what I can eat and drink. Will they tell me when I have to go to bed too?

Will they tell me when I have to go to bed too?

No, but they will probably tell you who you can sleep with.

You certainly can penalize some health care clients without penalizing others.

Those that are overweight are the most costly of all, and should definitely have to live without health care until they make up their minds to live healthier lives.

Ah...... Finally the one for no healthcare, no unemployment payments, no social care at all......

If they'd rather die, then they had better do it and decrease the surplus population.

I think this will be your quote soon ttfw.

That is the problem with the obese, they NEVER die fast enough to save us any money.

They are usually among the unemployed so they are already double dipping at the public trough.

Most smokers had to work most of their lives just to pay for their addiction, add that to the taxes on cigarettes and they are pretty much paying for their health care.

We need to put a tax on food, at least everything except green leafy vegetables.

You have arrived haven't you. Wow.

Just curious, was he a Vet?

Who determines what lifestyles are covered? I would say it's more of what political party do you belong to. I already see states with Republican governors being denied help from the Federal government for emergency disaster assistence, like LA and TX. Do you think that once they can determine who is liberal and who is conservative, that they won't start denying healthcare to those that don't "think the correct way"? I know I sound paranoid. Maybe I am. Or maybe I'm on to something.

I already see states with Republican governors being denied help from the Federal government for emergency disaster assistence, like LA and TX.

Got something to back that up?

No, she doesn't cause its not true. This is the second post of hers here that is full of typical tea party lies.

Do the moderators eliminate my links? Because they save just fine and when I come back the links are gone. What's up with that?

I can't imagine moderators eliminate your links; as far as I know they have no "factuality meter" which determines which links can be posted.

The costs of the health-care system are out of control. It's a human outrage!! The real compensated value of services is criminal. They entire system would still be overpaid at twenty cents on the current dollar!!! The real disease is the insatiable greed of the entire industry, and government complicity in the crime!

Like those insurance agents Obama has you paying to or get railed by the IRS?

Healthcare costs would go way down if we had TORT reform. And premiums would go way down if we had competition over state lines. Gee, all of the politicians say they want to reduce cost, but have not done the two things that would very quickly reduce costs.

Don't know where you live, Deb, but in North Carolina suing for medical malpractice is almost impossible; an independent physician must be willing to swear, from the records available to the patient, that malpractice exists before a suit can even be brought. TORT reform relative to medical costs is a handy "go to" but it's mostly bull.

Competition across state lines prevents STATES from controlling the insurance programs sold within the state; it seriously violates states rights, although it would help insurance company profits while making junk insurance more readily available to all.

James, should beer drinkers or fast food junkies be excluded too?

You state that this man has COPD and was caused by his smoking habit, and that is an automatic diagnosis once you tell your doctor that you smoke but the fact remains that COPD incidence (not death rate) has not decline since the smoking population has declined. This is an unexplained phenomenon that the medical and anti-tobacco groups don't want to talk about. Radon gas exposure is the #2 cause of lung cancer is the USA, but since the statistics of lung cancer and tobacco had been tainted since the advent of tobacco lawsuits, real science was relegated to second place. Have you seen any doctor prescribe radon test of the patient dwelling to exclude radon as the cause of COPD? I bet you haven't. It's just easier to blame it on tobacco or second hand smoke if the patient is not a smoker.

I recommend my friends to go to http://www.epa.gov/radon/zonemap.html and if you are on a zone 1, do an inexpensive radon test in your home. Radon is estimated to cause many thousands of deaths each year since air containing radon gas may cause lung cancer and many other diseases. In fact, the Surgeon General has warned that radon is the second leading cause of lung cancer in the United States today.

It is more than a coincidence that children asthma rate increased since 1980, the decade after we started to seal our homes and buildings from outside air to increase the performance of A/C and heating systems. In fact there is overwhelming data that suggest that homes that are sealed to increase the R value become "sick buildings" if measures are not taken to introduce fresh air back into the homes. By pursuing to be "greener" we have created another hazard to human life.

IMO no one should be excluded from health care on the basis of being in a risk group.

I got it James. Tobacco is just the start of an endless trend to outlaw common things under the false pretence of our "security". This country has gone from "the land of the free" to "the land of the taxed and regulated".

Deb: Three posts. Three right wing lies. You are batting a thousand. Tort reform will have no impact on health insurance premiums. There has been reform in many states, and their premiums have not changed. Here, read here and educate yourself. http://washingtonindependent.com/55535/tort-reform-unlikely-to-cut-health-care-costs

Actually, many premiums have changed due to Obamacare, here in California three different major insurers have all gone up in price and reduced coverage, one is BlueCross/Blueshield, the one I have. Thanks for making things even worse BO.

The other two are ones my friends have and I haven't heard a tail from someone I know that has it better, only worse and they are now preparing for even more cuts in 2012 and 2014 with higher premiums. Yeah, it worked for insurance agencies only to make more money.

I really wish it were otherwise. Obama will go down as the fool who destroyed middle America.

Don't know where you live, Deb, but in North Carolina suing for medical malpractice is almost impossible; an independent physician must be willing to swear, from the records available to the patient, that malpractice exists before a suit can even be brought. TORT reform relative to medical costs is a handy "go to" but it's mostly bull.

Competition across state lines prevents STATES from controlling the insurance programs sold within the state; it seriously violates states rights, although it would help insurance company profits while making junk insurance more readily available to all.

Kate - anecdotal evidence is not data. Talk to some doctors. I have, in fact quite a few. They all say they could lower their fees if they didn't have to pay for a multi-million dollar liability policy. They do this because of all the frivolous lawsuits. I'm not talking about legitimate lawsuits. Some doctors do inflict harm and should be sued and/or have their license taken away. But they all have to protect themselves against the frivolous lawsuits that cost them millions. With TORT reform we could have loser pays and other reforms to bring this abuse in check and doctors could carry less insurance and not have to practice "defensive medicine", which also jacks up the price of healthcare. Do you realize how many unecessary tests doctors perform "just in case", so they don't get sued? Do more REAL research and a lot less reading left wing sites.

I don't see how competition in selling between state lines is bad. Yes you might have some junk insurance companies, like you do in the auto and home insurance fields, but those get weeded out for poor service and lousy benefits. You wind up with good competition and lower premiums. I shop all over the place for my auto insurance and get the best price and the best service I can. Many of those insurance companies are not based in my state. The same would work for health insurance. Greedy companies that don't offer good service or a good product will eventually go out of business. Since we sell pretty much everything else across state lines how does selling health insurance across state lines violate state's rights?

Yes you might have some junk insurance companies, like you do in the auto and home insurance fields, but those get weeded out for poor service and lousy benefits.

If only. Junk insurance, which already defines a hefty portion of the health policies availble to many (typically poorly paid) workers, does not get weeded out due to poor service/benefits UNLESS a state insurance commission bans a particular type of policy or company. The companies which "provide" these policies do it so they can say they offer benefits; they don't care if the policies are crap because they have no financial investment. (They may even, in some situations, have financial gains in return for offering the junk for their workers to purchase.)

You really don't know what you're talking about. Talking points <> education.

anecdotal evidence is not data. Talk to some doctors. I have, in fact quite a few

Now that is freaking hilarious. What do you think talking to a few doctors is but anecdotal evidence?

anecdotal evidence is not data. Talk to some doctors. I have, in fact quite a few

Now that is freaking hilarious. What do you think talking to a few doctors is but anecdotal evidence?

:^)

tony, thank you for the radon link you provided. i looked it up and I am in an "orange" zone. I have kids, so I am thinking a radon test may be in order to insure their best health.

Deb, we have tort reform in California. Guess what? It ain't working! Not only that, but many states already have tort reform so on a national level there isn't much left to save. And when real malpractice does happen, the victims just don't get the justice they deserve, and I know of many examples of this.

Sir76, I think HomeDepot has a radon test kit for sale very cheap (under $10). It's the sensible thing to do if you are on the orange zone.

so you think making cigarettes illegal is an option...or should be done????

Car accidents? Life time disabilities from car accidents? Should we make cars illegal? What about people who fall off ladders? This could become a big list! Skate boards, boating accidents... oh God, bicycles!!

Why not get rid of the list all together?

Car accidents? Life time disabilities from car accidents? Should we make cars illegal? What about people who fall off ladders? This could become a big list! Skate boards, boating accidents... oh God, bicycles!!

Cigarettes are inherently harmful. You cannot make the case that they are in any way beneficial. All of your other examples, you can. Used as designed and directed, cars, ladders, boats and even skateboards are beneficial. Cigarettes, not so much.

Now, if a car company produces a defective, deadly product...they are liable for the accidents. Are they not?

So, I say again, let the tobacco companies pay for this man's healthcare.

Beneficial aspects of cigarettes/tobacco:

http://www.forces.org/evidence/evid/therap.htm

It's interesting that people who are worried about tobacco being made illegal are often the very same people who were okay with marijuana, cocaine, etc. being made illegal. If it's nanny gov't and an intrusion to ban cigarettes, how is banning any other substance made from not an intrusion?

And no, I won't accept the arguments about driving while under the influence, b/c we have that with alcohol and nobody wants to ban that!

if an individual chooses to smoke..that makes it his responsibility

tell that to someone who developed an addiction when the tobacco companies were running ad claiming doctors recommended their brand.

@badchess

Show me which one of those studies shows beneficial effects from smoking cigarettes that outweigh the increased incidence of cancer, heart disease and emphysema.

And if there is benefit to, say, those who suffer from Parkinson's, isolate the beneficial chemicals and create a treatment from that. Don't give us the poison that comes from big tobacco and tell us it is good for us.

Depends on how much you smoke.

You simply asked "You cannot make the case that they are in any way beneficial"

As in almost all things, there are negatives and positives in cigarette smoking.

So you are going to tell me that something that costs me more than benefits me is beneficial?

I would imagine the benefits of smoking in those studies are also tied to "how much you smoke." So if your benefit increases only as your risk increases (for lack of any data suggesting otherwise), how is that a benefit?

Hey, Craig. Let's get the government make all of our social decisions! Why didn't I think of that? What have I been "Not Thinking?" Don't you think toothpicks are too pointy on the ends?

Or perhaps a robbery suspect shot by police? Should we let them die in the street as well?

Probably not an entirely bad idea.

Or perhaps a robbery suspect shot by police? Should we let them die in the street as well?

Probably not an entirely bad idea.

So much for innocent until proven guilty, I guess.

Innocent suspects never happen, right? Police never make mistakes.

I guess I should have added a "sarc"

we are already starting to make certain foods illegal.

Which foods(with link please)?

Links would be great, but I'm not going to do your homework for you.

The state's (as opposed to the Federal government) power to regulate for the general: health, welfare and safety of the populace is a well entrenched concept stemming deep from the common law with roots going back so far that we see things like kosher foods (which is basically just a religious health code). Nevertheless the infancy of public health did exist in 1776 and in the colonial governments and became a movement unto itself in the 19th century (without really even knowing what the vectors involved were, they were more directed generally at 'filth'). So to say that 'we're on our way' - to be frank - we've been there.

The Federal government began its involvement in the regulation of food once Texas steer could make their way to Chicago and be railroaded to New York. Once that happened, the Federal government got in on the act; well before the Great Depression, I might add.

Links would be great, but I'm not going to do your homework for you.

Actually trm2008, you are asking James to do your homework for you. If I want to check out what someone says is true, I look it up, I don't ask them to look it up for me. Be responsible for your own knowledge.

James I do agree with your point of outlawing foods.... my fat butt is next under the bus then:)

.

.

.

sorry about the many tags.... this system lies about what is posting....

No worries. Them taxes add a little more zest than I mean to my comments. I saw what you said about food above, and you are right no one should think for a moment that it can't happen.

They already do. This person probably is on the government plan though.

Perhaps a set dollar amount for total lifetime care at the government's expense?

Alternate solution: Give the providers the right to pursue a claim against Indian Casinos.

Give the providers the right to pursue a claim against churches (since they are "God's representatives" and "God" invented tobacco). :)

Lets go right to the top, and sue the US government for years of subsiding tobacco.

Heck, Al Gore is loaded, lets grab some of his cash. Since Al Gore said crowed "I've hoed it. I've dug in it. I've sprayed it, I've chopped it, I've shredded it, spiked it, put it in the barn and stripped it and sold it."

clearly he too is to blame for this guys addiction.

From a conservative point of view, smokers cut twenty years from their lives, and many are not homeless, and do work, and pay taxes and SSI, so if they do smoke, they save the system money in the long run.

I think that if you add in the far reaching medical costs to the whole system as a result of smoking they are certianly not saving any money in the long run.

I almost believe that most people that smoke, not all, but most, don't spend as much on health care than someone that doesn';t.

There are lots of people that don't get themselves looked at. Their just happy to have a butt, and drink a beer, that being the highlight of their day.

Don't forget, there are fifty million without insurance.

I smoke and have not been to a doctor in over 15 years.

tesla, avoid them at all cost! Doctors, I mean.

See one of them, next thing ya know they've got ya swallowin all kindsa pills, tellin ya yer fallin apart, even if you feel great! lol.

One thing everyone seems to forget. We ALL have the last appointment, ya know what I mean?

No ones gettin out alive. Living to that ripe old age of Alzheimer's don't look THAT good to me.

I smoke and have not been to a doctor in over 35 years. Not that I care about setting any record. I don't include dentists or eye doctors.

I hear ya bore-head. One has a better chance of dying at the hands of a medical professional than crossing a busy street blindfolded.

Someone with mental health problems and bad lifestyle choices?

I dare say his costs would be the same.

It is not as if you can get crazy people to voluntarily show up for regular doctor visits, or expect them to voluntarily make wise lifestyle decisions.

Absolutely.

And the money wasted on ER visits and expensive tests which medicare (and private insurance) may require to document what is already well-established, real education could be done to decrease the negative behaviours which contribute to poor health.

But vested interests object to real solutions. Sadly.

james - I'm a former smoker. Addiction or not, quitting is possible; not easy, but doable. Even more valuable, though, is keeping people from starting smoking. How many smokers do you know who began smoking as adults? Be assured it is a small percentage.

In my experience, "brainwashing" is the term anti-knowledge proponents apply to education. Next I expect to see "elitist" thrown out.

There are environments which encourage unhealthy behaviors and there are those which encourage healthy behaviors. Education is the tool that transforms the former into the latter. Some unhealthy behaviors take generations to eliminate, but all can be eliminated over time with the right resources.

Matt, so is the government going to force the man to go to the doctor? He refuses to go to his appts, he refuses to use his treatment correctly. What does it matter if it's Universal healthcare of not? Unless you're going to have the "health police" pick him up and make him go. Would we also need a "police nurse" to make sure he takes his treatments at night and doesn't smoke? Universal Healthcare is a nice dream, but in the real world, with real people, it never has and never will work.

it should be taught that cigarettes are addictive and bad for you...then thats it.

it should be left up to the individual to decide

Should be the same with marijuana, for example, but it's not.

Strange world.

bonos, so's crossing the street, working in power plants, and a bunch of other stuff!

it never has and never will work.

Bull. It works where it is implemented. It works in Europe, Canada and many other democratic nations.

A system that does not provide coverage to 40 million people does not work. Suggesting that the fact that we have some of the best doctors and hospitals in the world makes our system best is entirely missing the point in evaluating a health care system. The fact that there are people who can buy the best cars, does not mean than anyone here can buy the best car. People with money come here to get care because our system provides care based on what you can afford, not what care is needed. I am sure that many of the procedures that people from other countries come here to get; procedures they pay for themselves, are not available to our uninsured and our underinsured. You may consider a system that provides cadillac care to those who can afford cadillacs, but that is the failure of the system.

The only freedom that is lost is the freedom to be irresponsible; to not have the ability to have health care; to allow others to pay for it. Freedom to freeload is apparently what you want.

RIght. Anyone who disagrees with you just doesn't get it. That is the definition of arrogance. Of course, you top it off with a reference to the most worthless political philosophy, Libertarianism. And it is a theory because no nation has ever been stupid enough to adopt as a governing philosophy.

Right. I was talking about fascism and communism cause those are the only types of government that exist. We have more freedom now than at any time in our history. Libertarianism would lead to loss of freedom, to the slavery you complain of.

Should be the same with marijuana, for example, but it's not.

Well I'll be damned! I actually agree with bonos on something. :D

Uh no GatorsRdumb, it doesn't.

Is it not against the CoH to attack a person by treating their user name the way an elementary-school bully would treat a person's name?

Deb - you really don't win any points for acting mean and childish.

DEB 658853 knows absolutely nothing about Canada's health system. As half of my entire family is Canadian, I tell you otherwise. My great grandmother lived to 106 and all her daughters lived into their late 90's, all with life-long, top quality medical care. It's the US side of my family that drops dead in their 60's and 70's. Almost none of my US relatives smoke and few drink. My great-granny smoked and drank beer until she was 96.

Nice try, DEB.

This is not a stupid question, for it brings up this question Did the person lie and stated they didn't smoke, in reality they do smoke. Now ask the question again, knowing they lied. For myself, it becomes a very hard question to answer, knowing someone lied. I simply don't know what I would do, if put in that situation. If a person was honest, when asked if they smoke, Yes. if they lied, I don't know

This is more to do with being honest, as opposed to being dis honest

That's my point james. Where does one draw the line? It becomes a constantly moving target, impossible to hit.

@Edward, I'm not entirely sure I understand your post. Even if a person has stopped smoking and says "I'm a non-smoker", he/she isn't lying but the years of damage have been done, so then the question would become, how long must a person be a non-smoker to "qualify" for healthcare. One year? Five years? Ten years? Ever? Never? And then what about other damaging life style choices? Do you eat cheeseburgers? Do you exercise every day for 2 hours or do you sit on your couch and watch TV? Do you drink alcohol? How much is too much? Do you climb the stairs or ride the elevator? There is no end to this once it starts.

yea, esp. the ones that go around collapsing articles for no apparent reason...this article is about smokers...it is a poll...A B C D E F G H...You know the rest? right...next.

Well that hasn't happened yet, obviously.

Switch to decaf.

Instant hot death has a large co-pay.