Obamacare was supposed to be about providing “affordable” health insurance for all. But now, smokers and the obese may face penalties, perhaps even as high as 50%! From the story:
Despite opposition from more than 50 health groups, the Finance Committee approved an amendment Wednesday allowing employers to increase premiums by up to 50 percent for people who engage in unhealthy behaviors. That means smokers, obese individuals and others may face higher premiums if they do not participate in wellness programs.
Sen. John Ensign (R-Nev.) and Sen. Tom Carper (D-Del.) described their amendment as a common-sense measure aimed at providing a financial incentive for people to change unhealthy behaviors. But opponents – which included four Democratic senators and groups such as the American Cancer Society, American Heart Association and the AFL-CIO – said it allows insurers and self-insured businesses to continue to base coverage decisions on pre-existing conditions, which the underlying bill would prohibit.
Note that so-called conservatives support this penalty, which goes to show that the desire to control isn’t limited to the Left. More to the point, if we want to deter “unhealthy lifestyles,” we should also penalize people with multiple sexual partners, as the health care costs associated with promiscuity is also significant–and comes much faster than it does for smoking or over eating. But that won’t happen because sexual openness is culturally embraced, while the fat and the those who smell of tobacco are politically incorrect.
Also pay attention to this: Nationalized health care equals increasing government control over personal behavior. In the end, everything we do affects health care costs in some way, meaning that almost everything we do could one day become the subject of bureaucratic management.
October 1st, 2009 | 9:52 pm
I am actually glad that they raised the premiums for the obese. I think that the employer should include physician approved weight loss center as they can be very expensive out-of-pocket. I for one would love if my insurance paid for my weight-loss expenses. I’m tired of paying such high prices. It would be nice if Flexible Spending was included in this as well.
October 1st, 2009 | 10:47 pm
Yea. And I think the insurance should pay for my red wine, which I hear is good for the heart!
October 1st, 2009 | 11:44 pm
Smokers, overeaters……and why not sun worshipers, alcoholic beverage drinkers (boozers), middle aged men in high stress jobs, children who run with scissors???? This leaves it wide open to raise your rates for just about any behavior and is convenient for the government to raise your rates.
Affordable health care, what a line of bull.
October 2nd, 2009 | 3:46 am
what I eat and how much I weigh is none of the government’s, my employer’s or your business, Susan.
October 2nd, 2009 | 8:54 am
Why are you complaining about something that insurance carriers do every day of the week? Try getting a standard rate (not a group rate) if you’re a smoker or morbidly obese. Or do you believe that “rating” is only inappropriate if a government entity does it?
October 2nd, 2009 | 11:13 am
HW,
Here’s the major difference; one is voluntary, the other is mandatory. You can always seek out another insurance provider, or support from other areas for treatment like charities, religious organizations, family, etc… The insurance company can’t imprison you for not doing business with them.
If the government is dictating who pays what and what people can do, you have to do it or you get fined or imprisoned. Now, charging the morbidly obese may not seem like a great injustice, but you’d be opening up the process to political pressures. Wesley already made the point about promiscuity. Say a study comes out showing that registered Democrats in general don’t live healthy lives in comparison to registered Republicans. If the Secretary of the DHHS is a staunch Republican, what’s to stop him from charging a Democrat a higher rate? My point there is outlandish, but do you see some of the danger when you put these decisions into hands with the backing of force and law, especially years down the road? It seems like a small distinction but it really makes all the difference in the world.
So, in my mind, “rating” is especially inappropriate when the government is doing it, for the simple reason that it’s not the government’s responsibility to govern our daily lives by levying fines for legal behavior like choosing what I eat for dinner. You have to think this before writing these laws: “Today it’s obesity, what will it be tomorrow?”
October 2nd, 2009 | 11:28 am
As someone who has struggled with obesity all his life (mid-40s now), the present bash-the-obese mentality disturbs me, especially the exaggerated claims that the obese cost the health care system so much more, so we must punish them somehow. It is an extension of the notion that we need to bump off the elderly, the handicapped, and those with expensive medical conditions because of the medical burden they present to everyone else as well. The difference is of degree, not kind.
Wesley’s point about promiscuity is highly accurate. Sexually transmitted diseases are rampant today, and just as one example, a recent study found that just about half of all young black women have genital herpes. Those diseases, unwanted pregnancies, and children born to single mothers all have extraordinarily high costs to the medical system and society, but no one wants to touch that issue.
Where I’ve worked, men such as myself with weight problems actually were among those who called in sick the least. We were there every day when others weren’t, and in a field such as corrections, that makes a difference. The biggest users and abusers of sick leave and disability were single mothers; they constantly called in.
(Also, any employer and any doctor will tell you that women of all shapes and sizes call in and visit the doctor far more than, say, an obese man (which, of course, could be one of the causes of problems for those men), and women are far more likely to go out on disability at great expense to the rest of us—often claiming such spurious reasons as “fibromyalgia”.)
When it comes to burdens on the health system, we must look at promiscuity as a primary expense for another reason. Rampant promiscuity—meaning dozens or more of boyfriends—among young women has been uncommon in Western culture until very recently. Now we have (for example) the hookup culture, especially in college. The consequences are graver for women due to simple biology.
Such exposure to multiple partners’ bodily fluids has to have an effect on immune systems, and I think this might explain the incredible number of immune system-related problems among today’s children: food allergies, asthma, diabetes, etc. I also suspect that autism will eventually be shown to have an immune system trigger. Childhood diabetes is showing up in skinny children as much as in obese children, and no one seems to know why. Suppose my hunch is right?
It has been known in medical circles for many years that children born to prostitutes who did not use protection or birth control tend to have more and more serious medical problems than other children. And to judge from anecdotal and other evidence, it seems that most children with autism or other serious behavioral or medical problems are being raised by single (never-married) mothers. There would seem to be some link.
If we intend to judge the obese and their purported cost to the system, then we must also judge the promiscuous, male and female.
We must also judge those who abuse drugs, as I suspect that exposure to meth in particular is probably also a factor in the explosion of childhood disorders that used to be rare. This would mean Pop’s meth lab as well as Mom’s smoking the stuff while pregnant.
If you intend to slam the obese, you must also be prepared to slam others who engage in risky behaviors. And that includes your own.
October 2nd, 2009 | 11:30 am
When I went for my annual checkup this year, I did something I never did before. When given the pre-physical questionnaire, I did not answer (actually, I lied) regarding questions about whether I smoked in the past, how much, how long, etc. I also did not include information about family health history. (I can always tell my doctor if it’s necessary). I’ve decided not to record in any way, information that can be used against me in the future.
October 4th, 2009 | 10:07 pm
JustChris writes:
“in my mind, “rating” is especially inappropriate when the government is doing it, for the simple reason that it’s not the government’s responsibility to govern our daily lives by levying fines for legal behavior like choosing what I eat for dinner.”
But the government is elected by, and derives its authority from, the rest of us — from, in that most irritating phrase common to politicians and media pundits, “the American people.” Why should we not have the right to determine what we consider responsible and irresponsible behavior, and from there, given that we can’t help everyone, determine who we want to help first and foremost?
October 5th, 2009 | 9:27 am
Ken: But it’s OK if a private corporation does it? Is that your point? And it’s OK if the private corporation can deny you insurance altogether because of your lifestyle? I suppose that’s OK too?
I admire your trust in America’s business community.
October 5th, 2009 | 12:43 pm
HistoryWriter, when I got life insurance they asked me if I smoked, and even a few cigars a year triggered a price increase. I don’t have a problem with that.
I don’t equate behavior with pre-existing conditions, many of which can’t be traced to behavior anyhow. I think the fairest way all around is to require people to have health insurance, and to set the premium price the same for people with PEC’s and without.
October 6th, 2009 | 2:07 pm
[...] REALITY-CHECK ON Obamacare: Dem Senator Says It Is Incomprehensible; Obamacare: Punishing Smokers and the Obese With Much Higher Premiums; Obamacare: Senate Panel Votes on Abortion and Illegal Aliens Shellgame Illuminates the Future; So.. Complicated.. Baucus [...]
November 21st, 2009 | 1:18 pm
This country was founded on a rebellion on taxes on all things “Tea”. We the people at the time decided this was unacceptable. Now!!! We are all too willing to let one group take the blame for whatever suits our pocket book. What’s next………..?
What determines the higher costs?
The fact of the matter is Insurance companies dislike paying out when the time arrives. This is really not different for a smoker or a non smoker.
The conclusion, which is always, portrayed “the smoker’s cost is always higher.”
Having worked in research for numerous years smoking is not the only culprit for the higher incidentals. We all eat food that has enough different chemicals in it to create your own chemical plant. Better yet your body contains enough bad chemicals to increase the level of predisposition to higher incidentals.
Perhaps we should charge more if you live in a large city. You are with certainty exposed to a higher level of chemical compounds than the average population living in rural areas. That means higher cancer rates, greater genetic malformations and so on.
Better yet let’s do a worldwide genetic profiling on the human DNA, so we can determine who and when you will be predisposed to a certain illness and charge them a larger premium starting at birth. Lets go further lets charge them way back from the beginning of their lineage.
Really this is the most fair and equitable.
Maybe we should be doing what our fore fathers did and voice our opinions and hopefully we shall be heard.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact