Obamacare-Smokers and the obese face penalties

[Karee 4,191]

Sure it is, both statements are silly. Mine was on purpose, was yours?

That's a good thing that he's living up North. I'm thinking I'll move myself and the wife up there around the time we turn 64. That way we'll avoid the manadtory death sentence at 65. I hear Miramichi is beautiful, but the fishing industry has fallen over the years.

I think what is silly is the government wanting people to live longer, yet not having a plan to pay for this longer life.

[Teddy B 17,252]

I think what is silly is the government wanting people to live longer, yet not having a plan to pay for this longer life.

Are you implying that living a longer healthier life is more expensive than living a shorter, disease riddled life?

[SMR 368]

So what's the definition of obese? If it's just BMI, then there is a huge problem as BMI is not a good indicator of health. Body-fat measurements are better predictors of health but an accurate body-fat measurement requires expensive equipment. Anything less has accuracy worse than 5 percentage points.

[Karee 4,191]

Are you implying that living a longer healthier life is more expensive than living a shorter, disease riddled life?

Based on Social Security disbursements, yes that's what I'm claiming.

[Teddy B 17,252]

Based on Social Security disbursements, yes that's what I'm claiming.

I would think that medical costs would play a role, yes/no?

[Karee 4,191]

I would think that medical costs would play a role, yes/no?

As far as I'm aware, medical costs have no bearing on your monthly social security disbursement.

[Teddy B 17,252]

As far as I'm aware, medical costs have no bearing on your monthly social security disbursement.

Oh, ok. I thought you were attempting to say that it would cost the gov't more money overall to keep people healthy and living longer, than it would to let them live a disease riddled life with astronomical healthcare costs. Because it sure looked like that's where you were headed. When you said this:

I think what is silly is the government wanting people to live longer, yet not having a plan to pay for this longer life.

Thank you for clarifying.

[james&olya 1,121]

Getting this accepted by the population at large all depends on packaging. Do NOT call it a penalty for smoking or being fat. Make it a discount for being a non-smoker and having a healthy weight. This should be embraced enthusiastically by republicans as this places responsibility back onto the individual and avoids making the responsible pay for the poor choices made by the irresponsible!

It may be a problem, though, if smokers and the obese demand a higher social security benefit per month to reflect their statistically expected shorter duration for getting benefits. If enough people quit smoking and over-eating due to incentives in Obamacare it will lead to funding shortfalls for Social Security that much sooner and more severe.

Edited January 29, 2013 by james&olya

[Karee 4,191]

It may be a problem, though, if smokers and the obese demand a higher social security benefit per month to reflect their statistically expected shorter duration for getting benefits. If enough people quit smoking and over-eating due to incentives in Obamacare it will lead to funding shortfalls for Social Security that much sooner and more severe.

That was the point I was trying to make. I guess I didn't do a very good job.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

So I'm sure NO ONE here would have a problem with Big Insurance charing an extra $20,000 for people who have "Pre-Existing Conditions" now that they are forced to be covered overall.

[james&olya 1,121]

So I'm sure NO ONE here would have a problem with Big Insurance charing an extra $20,000 for people who have "Pre-Existing Conditions" now that they are forced to be covered overall.

"Pre-existing Condition" is not the same as pre-existing and ongoing voluntary behaviors!

[Obama 2012 1,714]

"Pre-existing Condition" is not the same as pre-existing and ongoing voluntary behaviors!

In the business world, they are one in the same. Both = lost $$$

[james&olya 1,121]

That was the point I was trying to make. I guess I didn't do a very good job.

Social Security funding short-falls could easily be remedied by removing the cap on contributions. It would make me pay significantly more in every year but if it preserves this very basic element of our 'safety net' than I am in favor!

[james&olya 1,121]

In the business world, they are one in the same. Both = lost $$$

In the insurance world they are in the business of taking your premium dollars and then finding any excuse possible to give the money to their CEO and investors rather than return it to you when you need it. It may be "lost $$$" to them but looking at it from the point of view of the ordinary consumer it is the opposite!

[Karee 4,191]

Social Security funding short-falls could easily be remedied by removing the cap on contributions. It would make me pay significantly more in every year but if it preserves this very basic element of our 'safety net' than I am in favor!

I've always wondered why that cap is there in the first place.