Who'da thunk it????

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

Gay men can't donate blood because there is still leftover fear from the AIDS/HIV pandemic that originated in gay communities.

How are you about health care being determined by fear?

You still can't see what can happen? The government will use this for social engineering, it needs no basis in fact. The first one is easy...smokers. But do we really CARE if smoking is bad for you? I don't. I mean I care if it is bad for ME, so I quit. For someone else? I am pro-choice...aren't you? Should these choices be punished by the government? In the name of "healthcare"?

You want to legalize drugs and accept the healthcare costs of treating people...so do I. Why not accept the healthcare costs of treating smokers? Are we showing favoritism in addictions now?

Why not throw out care for alcoholics?

Certainly obese people should be punished, or type 2 diabetics at least. Why not? Aren't these behaviors we want to discourage?

[SMR 368]

Gay men can't donate blood because there is still leftover fear from the AIDS/HIV pandemic that originated in gay communities.

because there are a sh*t ton of homophobes in this country.

also, progress and education takes time. i'm 34 and i clearly remember my mom running through our back yard to hose my little brother and i down with insect repellant because we could catch the aids from mosquito bites.

It isn't just not homosexuals, but women who have had sex with a man who has had sex with another man, and those who have had sexual contact with someone from I think West Africa along with a million other disqualifying criteria.

I know this is going to sound harsh, but for myself, I'd rather not have a blood donation from someone in a higher risk group. Heck, my mother can't even donate blood because of how long she had spent in England!

So if we've established that there is an institutionalized belief in the medical community that homosexuals are at a higher risk for certain diseases, why is it such a leap to expect that they would have higher insurance premiums? It's the same reason you can charge smokers more.

And just for reference, a cdc report showed that 49% of those diagnosed with HIV in the US in 2005 were men who have sex with men. It isn't just blind homophobia that believes homosexuals have a higher risk of certain diseases. CDC Report

[decocker 7,198]

You want to legalize drugs and accept the healthcare costs of treating people...so do I. Why not accept the healthcare costs of treating smokers? Are we showing favoritism in addictions now?

Why not throw out care for alcoholics?

Certainly obese people should be punished, or type 2 diabetics at least. Why not? Aren't these behaviors we want to discourage?

now the issue is that we aren't paying for smoker's health care? that's not what i read in the article. seems you're changing the story. healthcare's role should be treating the addiction, whatever it is - not facilitating it.

and OF COURSE we should place importance on addictions! an addicted person is not well and needs specialized health care to get better.

why does it have to be about punishment? treatment for illness is not punishment!

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

i don't know why in the world anyone would be up in arms about it costing more to smoke. smoking is just flat out stupid and the more people who quit because it's too expensive, the better. this whole 'slippery slope' nonsense is ill crafted spin.

i quit smoking when they got up to five bucks a pack. one of the best decisions i ever made, i hope as many people as possible make the same choice.

It's not just the government either. My employer has intoduced a steep health insurance surcharge for tobacco users this year. It's a substantial surcharge that would simply double the cost of smoking for someone that smokes half a pack a day. I know a number of people at work that have quit.

[decocker 7,198]

And just for reference, a cdc report showed that 49% of those diagnosed with HIV in the US in 2005 were men who have sex with men. It isn't just blind homophobia that believes homosexuals have a higher risk of certain diseases. CDC Report

and that is why aids prevention and education is important. and don't forget about intravenous drug users - in that instance clean needle programs and addiction treatment is important.

being a female - i am at a higher risk to develop breast cancer, what's your point?

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

My comments are about the "healthcare plan" being used to social engineer our society.

Corporations are doing this. Surcharges for smokers, discounts and incentives for healthy lifestyles, etc. They do this because they know that certain behaviors cause increased health care costs and result in lost productivity. So they do what they can to drive down cost and improve productivity.

[JensJrny2Ray 367]

So if we've established that there is an institutionalized belief in the medical community that homosexuals are at a higher risk for certain diseases, why is it such a leap to expect that they would have higher insurance premiums? It's the same reason you can charge smokers more.

And just for reference, a cdc report showed that 49% of those diagnosed with HIV in the US in 2005 were men who have sex with men. It isn't just blind homophobia that believes homosexuals have a higher risk of certain diseases. CDC Report

So should we charge black people more because they are more susceptible to diabetes?

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

But do we really CARE if smoking is bad for you? I don't. I mean I care if it is bad for ME, so I quit. For someone else? I am pro-choice...aren't you? Should these choices be punished by the government? In the name of "healthcare"?

In the name of cost. An ever increasing number of corporations that offer health insurance to their employees do the very same thing. They charge smokers more than non-smokers. Makes perfect sense to me - you chose to be in a higher risk group, so you pay for having made that choice.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

So should we charge black people more because they are more susceptible to diabetes?

One chooses to smoke. One does not choose what color one's skin is.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

How come homosexuals can't donate blood?

That is changing.

ETA: I thought that passed, but evidently, is still in the process.

As blood donations decline, U.S. ban on gay donors is examined

http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2012/10/tainted-why-gay-men-still-cant-donate-blood/262722/

Edited January 25, 2013 by The Patriot

[Teddy B 17,252]

In the name of cost. An ever increasing number of corporations that offer health insurance to their employees do the very same thing. They charge smokers more than non-smokers. Makes perfect sense to me - you chose to be in a higher risk group, so you pay for having made that choice.

This is really not much different than auto insurance companies levying surcharges and higher rates for bad drivers. Why should everyone have to pay for someone elses reckless driving habits, or in this case reckless health habits with smoking?

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

This is really not much different than auto insurance companies levying surcharges and higher rates for bad drivers. Why should everyone have to pay for someone elses reckless driving habits, or in this case reckless health habits with smoking?

Exactly.

[Penny Lane 8,159]

This is really not much different than auto insurance companies levying surcharges and higher rates for bad drivers. Why should everyone have to pay for someone elses reckless driving habits, or in this case reckless health habits with smoking?

Finally, a car comparison that's actually logical!

In the name of cost. An ever increasing number of corporations that offer health insurance to their employees do the very same thing. They charge smokers more than non-smokers. Makes perfect sense to me - you chose to be in a higher risk group, so you pay for having made that choice.

Yep, my company does this. Rightfully so.

[Teddy B 17,252]

Finally, a car comparison that's actually logical!

Whew!!

[scotinmass 588]

http://news.yahoo.com/penalty-could-keep-smokers-health-overhaul-205840155.html

So much for "universal healthcare"

First tax the ####### out of cigarettes (to pay for healthcare) then deny the benfits to the people paying the tax!

So healthcare will be another social engineering program which is WHY so many people opposed it to begin with. We do not use our tax code to raise revenue, but rather to influence behavior (which we forget how to use when it comes to employers hiring illegal aliens) and now our healthcare will not be for healthcare.

And before you lay that whiny "Smokers cost more" BULLSH*T on me, smokers die sooner and do not tend to drain the system with long term illnesses they way the rest of us non-smokers do. The average person spends HALF their total lifetime healthcare expense in the last two years of their life, non-smokers live longer and delay it and do not contribute as much before they die.

But regardless how you feel about smokers...they will do this to other groups also...obese, diabetics, homosexuals, alcoholics, homeless people...OH, how about gunowners?! Oh yeah, there's a good one (Mr. Big Dog and the Traitor already thought of it)

But we can see where this is going and it is a big reason a lot of people say KEEP THE GOVERNMENT OUT OF IT