Obamacare: Smoking Is A Pre-Existing Condition

In DC, smoking is considered a pre-existing condition. So the state insurance plan there can't charge higher rates for smokers. But Colorado's version does permit smokers to be charged more. Which do you think it should be? I know it is supposed to be a tough addiction to quit, but I never had trouble giving it up, so I am more willing to penalize smokers, especially because I think it could help smokers quit.

But Obama smokes. Seems that he cut himself some slack.

Once again a source would be nice, my understanding is that in Obamacare they can't deny you insurance for a preexisting condition, but they can charge a higher rate for smokers. So even if you are right that DC will keep rates the same for smokers, and I have no way of knowing that, that isn't an Obamacare issue, that is a local issue. Your title is misleading.

So, what is your source archer?

Read my post Arlen, i said it was my understanding, that, for those who have English as a second language means that it is an opinion formed from all I have heard on the subject. I'm sure Fred appreciates your attempt to defect attention away from his post where once again a fact is presented by Fred with no source at all.

And other posters do not have the ability to form an opinion from all that they have heard on a subject? Only you have that ability? How arrogant!

FredHayek wrote: In DC, smoking is considered a pre-existing condition. So the state insurance plan there can't charge higher rates for smokers. But Colorado's version does permit smokers to be charged more. Which do you think it should be? I know it is supposed to be a tough addiction to quit, but I never had trouble giving it up, so I am more willing to penalize smokers, especially because I think it could help smokers quit.

Personally I do not care what your source is. I am more interested in your point of view. I find it very Bloombugish. If you had a hard time quiting would it still be alright. You know what, I have never had trouble with heights. I think there should be a fear of heights tax. After all it is easy for me.

Actually I admire your willingness to state your feelings, but what would Hayek have said? I agree with your position but think the way you got there is what Nanny Bloomburg would do. I'll bet he does not drink soda.

Arlen wrote: And other posters do not have the ability to form an opinion from all that they have heard on a subject? Only you have that ability? How arrogant!

Read Arlen, read........Fred framed his post as fact, nothing in it says it is Fred's opinion, or that it is what Fred understands to be true, or it is what Fred thinks.....it is stated as fact. Most posters know that if you state a fact other posters would like a source for that fact.......stating an opinion, or what you believe to be true, or what you think about a subject is clearly opinion and not fact, no source required. Maybe you need another cup of coffee to wake up your brain this morning.

archer, we just get tired of you trying to stop a discussion by injecting your tired old saw "source, please?". It is nothing more than snobbery.

Arlen wrote: archer, we just get tired of you trying to stop a discussion by injecting your tired old saw "source, please?". It is nothing more than snobbery.

The solution to that is simple....if you state a fact, then give a source, or state it as opinion....it's common courtesy.