Got a great idea from CVS/huffpost this morn.

Nobody that matters wrote: No, you should be happy to contribute to the welfare of those less fortunate.

Well, we know you and the rest of the Randroid/sociopaths aren't...

LadyJazzer wrote:

Nobody that matters wrote: No, you should be happy to contribute to the welfare of those less fortunate.

Well, we know you and the rest of the Randroid/sociopaths aren't...

I'm happy to give to those that really need it, and I do that on a regular basis.

LadyJazzer wrote:

chickaree wrote: Personally, I don't have an issue with people who choose unhealthy lifestyles paying higher premiums. Why should I subsidize the smoker, the 300lb couch potato or the liver destroying binge drinker? I choose to maintain a healthy lifestyle. Should zi be penalized for that?

Are you sitting down?...I don't either.... And that's the way it's been for decades... Why should I pay for your choosing to smoke?, binge-drink?

Isn't that pretty much assured to happen when there is a "group plan" for health insurance? If everyone has health insurance provided for them, either by taxation or regulation, then aren't you being forced to subsidize smokers and those who go to McDonald's 5x a day to eat? But oh yes, employer provided health insurance has been encouraged over the individual insurance policy ever since the days of FDR. That way your premium is based on the risk of the collective, not individually. By collectively mandating that health insurance be provided, subsidized and its absence taxed, you most certainly did advocate for subsidizing those unhealthy types with your insurance premiums.

LadyJazzer wrote: You can't thank me for that , any more than you can thank me for number of restaurants that want to cut their employee's hours, and screw them over, to "send a message" that they don't like ObamaCare. I just add those businesses and chains to my list of places I no longer do business with.

Oh, and CVS hasn't said that they would fire people that don't measure up...They said there "would be consequences", (presumably imposing some sort of premium penalty on them.) But hey, you guys have never let FACTS get in the way of a good outrage...Why start now?

You don't like what CVS is doing?...Don't shop there.

I like places that are gun-free zones, and I let the owners know that I appreciate it. I vote with my pocketbook...The same way you guys do. You don't like it, I'm quite sure you will add them to the list of places you don't business with.

Next outrage-of-the-day____?

If you push PASSIONATELY for something and it happens and it has unintended consequences, you have no responsibility?

Anyone willing to stay on topic? This has nothing to do with people paying their share, that is what happens when we have no regulations.

This is about ANY employer being able to use ANY piece of information that MAY indicate that you MAY be an increased health expense and potentially NOT HIRE you due to this. This is not just smokers paying more for insurance and potentially not getting jobs, this is child bearing women because they cost a shit ton, old people because they cost a shit ton, people with kids because they cost a shit ton, disabled people and even other groups if associations are made. Let's say Lesbians are found to have a statistically higher health expense and this gets published somewhere, Lesbians will get hired less. You could easily fall into any group.

I am just suggesting people had enough issues getting jobs, this will only make those that were less appealing to employ - which includes ALL the groups I mentioned and more - even less appealing. These people had an uphill battle to begin with, and now, as an employer, the govt told me to hire them even less, they told me with money to look for reasons not to hire them, to not even give them a chance, to potentially discount their other skills or education, they literally bribe me to behave in such a way as to avoid these folks. As I avoid these folks, I will hire folks that had no issues getting jobs anyway, but that is who I hire all the time.

That is why I brought this up, because employers have yet another reason to discriminate against groups that already got the shaft. Keep in mind that you cannot really regulate this away with equal rights crap, employers can just lie as to why in the heart they wanted to terminate someone - and you all freaking steal pens. One way to surely never get unemployment insurance pay outs is to never get the job in the first place because you were fat or your kid seemed kinda slow.

Again this ain't gonna hurt me, it going to hurt people in other classes in our classless society, the employee class or perhaps I should say wannabe employee class. All the do gooder regulations only keep the poor down and people like me up, thank you for making it even harder for other people to make it, thanks for wiping out the competition and saving all markets for the biggest players - now by law, that you for giving me something to write about. The coolest part is when these folks cannot get good jobs and just make a few bucks here and there, that will get fined away because they did not buy the insurance out of their own pocket. Again, glad I don't just have one customer (aka a boss).

LadyJazzer wrote: Are you sitting down?...I don't either.... And that's the way it's been for decades... Why should I pay for your choosing to smoke?, binge-drink?

You do pay for that... all the time... how many people are on SSI, unemployment, disability, welfare and so on because of making conscience unhealthy life choices... it's nice to see you coming around to a Ayn Rand sort of view.

(This is so typical of progressives... they eventually ideologically paint themselves into a corner they can't get themselves out of... when you see the world through the lenses of moral relativism... somethings got to give at some point... shaky foundations do crumble).

LadyJazzer wrote:

Nobody that matters wrote: No, you should be happy to contribute to the welfare of those less fortunate.

Well, we know you and the rest of the Randroid/sociopaths aren't...

Once again you say absolutes when it isn't
That simple. Social Security Disability is a fine program for people who physically can't work but when more people have gone on the disability rolls than have found long term jobs with the program you know something is fishy. Sidenote about health insurance vs. Car insurance. Strange that one is so expensive if you don't buy in a group and the other is almost never sold in a group plan.

Not that I'm taking a position on it, but if it makes sense for insurance companies to charge extra for smokers, the overweight, etc. then shouldn't it also make sense for Medicare to do something similar?

I was thinking maybe Medicare should charge extra for the smokers and overweight too. It would help reduce costs. But now that I think of it, smokers and overweight people should probably pay less for Medicare (not that I'm an actuary) because they will on average be on Medicare for a much shorter time (die earlier). So by the time you get on Medicare, I guess the healthy people should pay more? lol

Hey, just thinking this through and trying to be fair...

Since "Alcohol Misuse Screening", "Obesity Counseling", "Tobacco Cessation Counseling", (among many others), are now included as covered items in annual wellness & prevention exams under Medicare (thanks to ObamaCare), I'd say that those are already being dealt with.

Well, those are included under Obamacare for non-Medicare ("regular") health insurance too. So I guess they are being dealt with there as well? Not sure what the point is.

There wasn't a point other than your comments about "if it makes sense for insurance companies to charge extra for smokers, the overweight, etc. then shouldn't it also make sense for Medicare to do something similar?".....I was just responding with an answer.