How Is Obamacare Working Out for You?

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

Making young, healthy people and healthy people in general pay more than their fair share is what is keeping this afloat. Especially when young healthy people are no longer able to purchase inexpensive, catastrophic policies that were completely adequate w/o being subjected to the 1% and growing fine imposed for not having what the government considers proper insurance.

Completely adequate until they get leukemia or cancer or Crohn's Disease and then the government has to pay for them because no health insurance company wants customers with chronic illness. My formerly healthy, non-smoking mother died of breast cancer at 35, Dell. If my father had not had health insurance through his job her death would have bankrupted us.

Yes, people who don't use insurance having insurance is what makes insurance work. That's why insurance companies don't want to insure people in flood zones and the government has to do it.

The problem is that we view health care as an insurance product at all. But as the defeat of Prop 45 showed, health insurance companies see great value in keeping the status quo as unchanged as possible, and they'll spend a lot of money to that end.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

Completely adequate until they get leukemia or cancer or Crohn's Disease and then the government has to pay for them because no health insurance company wants customers with chronic illness. My formerly healthy, non-smoking mother died of breast cancer at 35, Dell. If my father had not had health insurance through his job her death would have bankrupted us.

Yes, people who don't use insurance having insurance is what makes insurance work. That's why insurance companies don't want to insure people in flood zones and the government has to do it.

The problem is that we view health care as an insurance product at all. But as the defeat of Prop 45 showed, health insurance companies see great value in keeping the status quo as unchanged as possible, and they'll spend a lot of money to that end.

as for flood insurance....yeah, that's separate so that the majority of us who don't choose to live in flood zones don't have to help pay for those that do.

people like to compare health to other insurance, but it's really not comparable.
one can choose not to drive a car, or to not drive drunk, they can be good drivers so they get good rates.
health is a crap shoot for the most part. non smokers get lung cancer, people who eat well get diabetes, or crohns, or colon cancer, etc.
as long as health insurance is handled for profit, it's going to remain a mess.

when one is a bad driver with multiple violations, one has to buy high risk auto insurance which is costly. obviously health insurance can't be handled the same way.

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by Danzig

health is a crap shoot for the most part. non smokers get lung cancer, people who eat well get diabetes, or crohns, or colon cancer, etc.
as long as health insurance is handled for profit, it's going to remain a mess.

This is utter BS but not surprising considering the source.

Cigarette smoking is the number one risk factor for lung cancer. In the United States, cigarette smoking is linked to about 90% of lung cancers. Using other tobacco products such as cigars or pipes also increases the risk for lung cancer. Tobacco smoke is a toxic mix of more than 7,000 chemicals. Many are poisons. At least 70 are known to cause cancer in people or animals.

http://www.cdc.gov/cancer/lung/basic...sk_factors.htm

•Obesity-related conditions include heart disease, stroke, type 2 diabetes and certain types of cancer, some of the leading causes of preventable death. [Read guidelinesExternal Web Site Icon]
•The estimated annual medical cost of obesity in the U.S. was $147 billion in 2008 U.S. dollars; the medical costs for people who are obese were $1,429 higher than those of normal weight. [Read summaryExternal Web Site Icon]

http://www.cdc.gov/obesity/data/adult.html

However, unlike obesity smokers billow 2nd hand smoke and if one is regularly exposed to it either at work or home it increases the chances of lung cancer by 20%-30%. And don't get me started on exercise or the lack of it by many who are too lazy to do even basic calisthenics.

Obese people should be paying at least $1,429 per year more (plus whatever the increase since that number is outdated by 6 years) than those who are not and smokers should be paying for 90% of the costs associated with lung cancer.

We need to stop looking for the nanny and start looking in the mirror.
I and many others don't smoke, are not obese and exercise daily yet we are unfairly mandated to supplement obese, lazy, smokers.

Just as at risk drivers pay more for automobile insurance so should the at risk health insured especially considering they did it to themselves.

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

This is utter BS but not surprising considering the source.


http://www.cdc.gov/cancer/lung/basic...sk_factors.htm


http://www.cdc.gov/obesity/data/adult.html

However, unlike obesity smokers billow 2nd hand smoke and if one is regularly exposed to it either at work or home it increases the chances of lung cancer by 20%-30%. And don't get me started on exercise or the lack of it by many who are too lazy to do even basic calisthenics.

Obese people should be paying at least $1,429 per year more (plus whatever the increase since that number is outdated by 6 years) than those who are not and smokers should be paying for 90% of the costs associated with lung cancer.

We need to stop looking for the nanny and start looking in the mirror.
I and many others don't smoke, are not obese and exercise daily yet we are unfairly mandated to supplement obese, lazy, smokers.

Just as at risk drivers pay more for automobile insurance so should the at risk health insured especially considering they did it to themselves.

My aunt, who never weighed more than 105 pounds, had gestational diabetes by the end of her life, Dell. IT'S HEREDITARY. Her parents, my grandparents, were thin (especially my grandfather, who was a 6 foot tall rail) and THEY BOTH HAD TYPE TWO DIABETES. Please tell me how that was their fault?

Please explain to me how my mother, who had both of her kids before the age of 30 and breast fed both of us for an extended time, gave herself breast cancer. Because that's what you do to reduce your risk- have kids before 30 and breast feed. In fact, the first two specialists she saw didn't believe her, because she was in such a low-risk group. They made fun of her alleged hypochondria ("You nurses are all the same") and sent her on her way.

And actually, according to this study, the obese and smokers are cheaper than health nuts:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/05/he...8884.html?_r=0

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

My aunt, who never weighed more than 105 pounds, had gestational diabetes by the end of her life, Dell. IT'S HEREDITARY. Her parents, my grandparents, were thin (especially my grandfather, who was a 6 foot tall rail) and THEY BOTH HAD TYPE TWO DIABETES. Please tell me how that was their fault?

Please explain to me how my mother, who had both of her kids before the age of 30 and breast fed both of us for an extended time, gave herself breast cancer. Because that's what you do to reduce your risk- have kids before 30 and breast feed. In fact, the first two specialists she saw didn't believe her, because she was in such a low-risk group. They made fun of her alleged hypochondria ("You nurses are all the same") and sent her on her way.

And actually, according to this study, the obese and smokers are cheaper than health nuts:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/05/he...8884.html?_r=0

that's awful.
reminds me of stories i've heard about guys who get breast cancer-people think that there's no way guys can get that. hello, men have breast tissue, of course they can get breast cancer.

knowing some conditions people are born with, and deal with in their lives, if they had to pay according to their risk...they'd be beyond bankrupt. how would that make sense, to rate like that?

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by Danzig

that's awful.
reminds me of stories i've heard about guys who get breast cancer-people think that there's no way guys can get that. hello, men have breast tissue, of course they can get breast cancer.

knowing some conditions people are born with, and deal with in their lives, if they had to pay according to their risk...they'd be beyond bankrupt. how would that make sense, to rate like that?

Yeah, a former roommate's boyfriend's dad (how's that for a how-I-know-them chain?) was a breast cancer survivor.

They're better about it now than they were 30 years ago, in terms of understanding young women can get it, too. But back in 1979, when she found a lump, forget it. No one was talking about it.

I remember two neighbor girls wanted to take up a collection to help us with medical costs and my mother had to tell them no, because my dad was too uncomfortable about the whole neighborhood knowing she was sick. Ah, the good old days*, when even the word "cancer" had to whispered...

*not actually good

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

My aunt, who never weighed more than 105 pounds, had gestational diabetes by the end of her life, Dell. IT'S HEREDITARY. Her parents, my grandparents, were thin (especially my grandfather, who was a 6 foot tall rail) and THEY BOTH HAD TYPE TWO DIABETES. Please tell me how that was their fault?

Please explain to me how my mother, who had both of her kids before the age of 30 and breast fed both of us for an extended time, gave herself breast cancer. Because that's what you do to reduce your risk- have kids before 30 and breast feed. In fact, the first two specialists she saw didn't believe her, because she was in such a low-risk group. They made fun of her alleged hypochondria ("You nurses are all the same") and sent her on her way.

And actually, according to this study, the obese and smokers are cheaper than health nuts:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/05/he...8884.html?_r=0

Well than she and your grandfather would not have paid a premium as they were not obese and or smokers. Get it? Only those tipping the scale and or testing positive for smoking would be subject to the added premium.

Your study though is telling.

On average, healthy people lived 84 years. Smokers lived about 77 years and obese people lived about 80 years. Smokers and obese people tended to have more heart disease than the healthy people.

Cancer incidence, except for lung cancer, was the same in all three groups. Obese people had the most diabetes, and healthy people had the most strokes. Ultimately, the thin and healthy group cost the most, about $417,000, from age 20 on.

The cost of care for obese people was $371,000, and for smokers, about $326,000.

The results counter the common perception that preventing obesity will save health systems worldwide millions of dollars.

Only I haven't heard any complaints from you about Michelle O demanding healthy lunches, especially to kids whose family have no resources to pay for insurance. If only we could get everyone to chain smoke and get to 400lbs.

Also why in the hell are you worried about measles vaccinations? Imagine the savings to the system visa vi a measles epidemic? Especially since it would rid us of 'unhealthy' children eating up health costs?

How about extending the late term abortion limit to children under say 8, as surely they are incapable of sustaining life on there own. And for God's sake stop treating diseases like leukemia and AIDS.

Bingo bongo!

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

Well than she and your grandfather would not have paid a premium as they were not obese and or smokers. Get it? Only those tipping the scale and or testing positive for smoking would be subject to the added premium.

Your study though is telling.



Only I haven't heard any complaints from you about Michelle O demanding healthy lunches, especially to kids whose family have no resources to pay for insurance. If only we could get everyone to chain smoke and get to 400lbs.

Also why in the hell are you worried about measles vaccinations? Imagine the savings to the system visa vi a measles epidemic? Especially since it would rid us of 'unhealthy' children eating up health costs?

How about extending the late term abortion limit to children under say 8, as surely they are incapable of sustaining life on there own. And for God's sake stop treating diseases like leukemia and AIDS.

Bingo bongo!

Except, unlike you, I don't have an issue with contributing to the health of society at large, so of course I support the First Lady's efforts to improve eating and exercise habits. I'd like people to live long, healthy lives.

How is it fair under your "punish the people who do things I don't like" utopia to charge a smoker who doesn't ever develop lung cancer? Or an obese person who is in perfect health?

And really, smokers already are doing that, via the taxes they pay on every package of cigarettes.

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

And really, smokers already are doing that, via the taxes they pay on every package of cigarettes.

Only that tax money is going into the general fund like SS payments and everything else to pay for things like a billion dollars to the Muslim Brotherhood, 3 billion to destroy cars and untold billions wasted bringing in, educating, insuring and housing illegals.

It should be solely dedicated to lung cancer and related illnesses and anyone selling cigarettes w/o paying the tax should be choked out.