[Villages PL]

Under Affordable Care Act, obesity will be a disease. It will be a pre-existing condition so it will not carry a higher premium or penalty.

But smoking will not be a disease, it will be considered a lifestyle choice. As such, it will carry a huge penalty. A $9,000 insurance premium for a 64 year old non-smoker would rise to somewhere between $10,900. and 13,600 for a 64 year old smoker. That's a large penalty.

Their mindset: If you're addicted/habituated to cigarettes, you can just stop. It's a lifestyle choice. But if you're addicted/habituated to high calorie processed foods, you need medical help. You can't just stop by yourself.

Why the difference? It seems to me they are both lifestyle choices and, therefore, both should carry a penalty.

[rubicon]

I may be wrong but I had long ago taken a skeptical outlook toward so called experts. The decision to make obesity disease has more of a political dynamic.

Whether it be smoking cigarettes or dope, drinking, etc while I agree there is a physical dependency the fact remains that when a person gets serious they can stop. This has been proven time and time again. all experts have done is given people an excuse to continue their bad behavior. Frankly I am tired of it. I quit smoking in 1973. I made a conscious effort to avoid drugs and not to be promiscuous . I avoided all of this bad behavior because I did not want to be dependent on anything nor did I want to risk the side effects, etc. So Ï have an addiction" does not square with me

[Lark7]

As an ex-smoker, I somewhat agree that pushing away the calories and quitting smoking are similar. Both are addictions and both are difficult to address. Sometimes, I think the reluctance to view obesity, as a lifestyle choice, is that we have to look at ourselves in the mirror. Some will say that, for some, obesity is genetic; and yes, some will have lung cancer who have never smoked. Maybe, obesity cessation classes should be held next door to the smoking cessation classes. Admittedly, both are bummers for our healthcare costs.

[gomoho]

Wow - wonder if this will affect medicare recipients???

[ilovetv]

Like a sedentary lifestyle has nothing to do with obesity.....and smoking.

As joblessness and the unemployment compensation rolls rise, so do the numbers of people on food stamps AND who are sedentary.

How about helping and incentivizing people to get jobs so they don't have the TIME to sit and prepare big meals and snacks, and sit around smoking because they are simply idle????

[Lark7]

Originally Posted by gomoho

Wow - wonder if this will affect medicare recipients???

If the purpose of the penalty is to incent better health, then I think that the penalty should apply to Medicare - seems that the govt should care about the health of all citizens. Otherwise, the penalty applied to just one sector of the population is nothing more than a revenue source.

[kimball]

Originally Posted by Villages PL

Under Obamacare, obesity will be a disease. It will be a pre-existing condition so it will not carry a higher premium or penalty.

But smoking will not be a disease, it will be considered a lifestyle choice. As such, it will carry a huge penalty. A $9,000 insurance premium for a 64 year old non-smoker would rise to somewhere between $10,900. and 13,600 for a 64 year old smoker. That's a large penalty.

Their mindset: If you're addicted/habituated to cigarettes, you can just stop. It's a lifestyle choice. But if you're addicted/habituated to high calorie processed foods, you need medical help. You can't just stop by yourself.

Why the difference? It seems to me they are both lifestyle choices and, therefore, both should carry a penalty.

Think, don't politicize.

McDonalds French Fries don't have a label that say's they can kill you. Cigarettes do!

[Villages PL]

Originally Posted by kimball

Think, don't politicize.

McDonalds French Fries don't have a label that say's they can kill you. Cigarettes do!

I'm thinking but I don't understand your thinking. Do you think I did something to make this political? That was not my intention.

McDonalds French Fries: Do you think they should have a warning label? Or perhaps you mean that people should know better? Sometimes good communication requires more than one or two sentences for those of us who can't read minds.

[Villages PL]

Originally Posted by AutoBike

Both groups typically die sooner, so I guess they would burden the Affordable Care Act system less. So, maybe their rates should be lower since they aren't around as long as those that live a longer, but more medical-dependent life.
Logic cuts both ways.

Okay, you promise they won't be around too long?

[KeepingItReal]

:Quote:
Originally Posted by AutoBike View Post
Both groups typically die sooner, so I guess they would burden the Affordable Care Act system less. So, maybe their rates should be lower since they aren't around as long as those that live a longer, but more medical-dependent life.
Logic cuts both ways.

Originally Posted by Villages PL

Okay, you promise they won't be around too long?

Funny how this thread keeps getting brought back from the dead. This is a very cruel statement to make about any group of people.

There are many other lifestyles that greatly contribute to increased health care costs and yet the only two that get get mentioned are smokers and the obese. Seems a little narrow minded to pick out these two and ignore the rest. It is easy to be critical of others while not bothering to look at our own faults first. Maybe upon reaching a certain age everyone should just be denied health care since that would really save a lot on health care costs. BTW how old did you say you are?

[Villages PL]

Originally Posted by KeepingItReal

Quote:
Originally Posted by AutoBike View Post
Both groups typically die sooner, so I guess they would burden the Affordable Care Act system less. So, maybe their rates should be lower since they aren't around as long as those that live a longer, but more medical-dependent life.
Logic cuts both ways.

First of all, I wasn't the one who brought up the issue of burdening the Affordable Care Act. If you read my opining post you will see that.

Funny how this thread keeps getting brought back from the dead. This is a very cruel statement to make about any group of people.

It was intended to reflect back on the person who suggested that they would die sooner anyway. I think he was kidding and I was giving the same back to him. Nothing cruel happened....I didn't kill anyone.

There are many other lifestyles that greatly contribute to increased health care costs and yet the only two that get get mentioned are smokers and the obese. Seems a little narrow minded to pick out these two and ignore the rest. It is easy to be critical of others while not bothering to look at our own faults first. Maybe at a certain age everyone should just be denied health care since that would really save a lot on health care costs

The reason only those two were mentioned is because there was an article in the newspaper about the smoking penalty. That made me think of comparing it with something else that might also be a lifestyle choice. Again, if you will read my opening post you will see that it was not my intention to look at everything with the intention of curbing all health care costs.

When someone comes along and changes the subject, don't fall for it and think that it is the subject. When in doubt, you can always go back and read the opening post.