Affordable Health Care for All, Except Smokers

  1. 0 More proof Obamacare is more about governement control then it is improving healthcare.

    http://healthblog.ncpa.org/a-double-...obamacare-tax/
  2. Enjoy this?

    Join thousands and get our weekly Nursing Insights newsletter with the hottest, discussions, articles, and toons.


  3. Visit  SC_RNDude} profile page

    About SC_RNDude

    SC_RNDude has '4' year(s) of experience and specializes in 'Med/Surg,Tele, and now Peds'. Joined May '10; Posts: 590; Likes: 648.

    12 Comments so far...

  4. Visit  Rose_Queen} profile page
    4
    Higher premiums for those who smoke are nothing new in some places.
    Anne36, herring_RN, which_path, and 1 other like this.
  5. Visit  SC_RNDude} profile page
    2
    Quote from Sweet_Wild_Rose
    Higher premiums for those who smoke are nothing new in some places.
    I understand. But if the purpose of Obamacare is to make healthcare more affordable and accessible to more people, why would the law include a provision that makes healthcare more expensive for a population of people who will need it the most?
    Last edit by SC_RNDude on Jan 25, '13 : Reason: typos
    Jolie and VivaLasViejas like this.
  6. Visit  MunoRN} profile page
    3
    This particular rule provides less, not more government control of healthcare. It doesn't require insurers to charge more, rather it takes away the government's control to limit how much more an insurer can charge.
    mariebailey, herring_RN, and which_path like this.
  7. Visit  SC_RNDude} profile page
    2
    Quote from MunoRN
    This particular rule provides less, not more government control of healthcare. It doesn't require insurers to charge more, rather it takes away the government's control to limit how much more an insurer can charge.
    I didn't word that quite right. I do believe that the ACA is more about the gov't being in control then it is improving healthcare. This particular provision certainly doesn't do anything to improve healthcare (may be making the situation even worse), but you correctly pointed out it isn't doing anything to implement more gov't control either.
    herring_RN and VivaLasViejas like this.
  8. Visit  registeredin06} profile page
    4
    I'm not a smoker, but this is insane to me.

    What about noncompliant diabetics, obese pt.'s with CAD, liver failure 2nd to ETOH, sleep apnea 2nd to obesity, etc.....

    I don't get why eveyone goes bananas over smokers with criticism and disgust and it is completely acceptable, but God forbid someone remark "she ate too many cheeseburgers, we're gonna fine her"....it would never, ever fly.
    ShaynaSmart, skyandsydneysmom, Jolie, and 1 other like this.
  9. Visit  nowim clean} profile page
    1
    Maybe because you have to eat to live but you do not have to smoke to live. Now eating unhealthy is a choice SOMETIMES, but part is because healthy food costs more than junk food. Want to really address the obesity issue make fresh fruits veggies and high protein meat cheaper than a burger and fries. Ibelieve to some degree it's coming they already banned lg soft drinks in NY.
    ShaynaSmart likes this.
  10. Visit  BlueDevil,DNP} profile page
    3
    I don't see what that piece has to do with gov't control of healthcare. It seems to have nothing at all to do with your comment. Did you link the wrong article?

    Of course people with higher modifiable risks ought to pay more than those without. That should go without saying. The fact that that surprises or offends anyone is astounding.
    tewdles, elkpark, and mariebailey like this.
  11. Visit  SC_RNDude} profile page
    0
    Quote from BlueDevil,DNP
    I don't see what that piece has to do with gov't control of healthcare. It seems to have nothing at all to do with your comment. Did you link the wrong article?

    Of course people with higher modifiable risks ought to pay more than those without. That should go without saying. The fact that that surprises or offends anyone is astounding.
    A few posts back I acknowledged that this isn't a good example of more government control, and my comment was dumb in that sense.

    However, this is a great example of how Obamacare isn't about improving healthcare by making it more affordable and accessible. The provision in the law would make it so that a 60 year-old smoker making $35k a year would be paying $3325 a year (after a gov't subsidy) for insurance and then a $5,000 penalty on top of it for being a smoker.

    How is this considered affordable? It probably isn't. Therefore, he won't bother getting the insurance, which means his healthcare won't be more accessible either.

    Please explain to me how this provision is an exapmple of how Obamacare is a step in the right direction in improving our healthcare system.
  12. Visit  Jolie} profile page
    1
    Quote from MunoRN
    This particular rule provides less, not more government control of healthcare. It doesn't require insurers to charge more, rather it takes away the government's control to limit how much more an insurer can charge.
    You're contradicting yourself, Muno. On AN central, you state that Obamacare places limits on how much an insurer can charge. Here you state that Obamacare takes away the government's control over insurance charges.

    No matter either way. SC Dude is right that by allowing a punitive penalty on smokers, Obamacare violates the spirit of the reforms we were promised, which is affordable health care for all without regard to one's health status, and bringing the previously disinfranchised into the health care system.
    SC_RNDude likes this.
  13. Visit  Jolie} profile page
    2
    Quote from nowim clean
    Maybe because you have to eat to live but you do not have to smoke to live.
    Smoking is by no means the only habit that serves no useful purpose, yet is potentially harmful. Indoor tanning, binge drinking, sky-diving are a few others. Yet I see no surcharges mentioned for individuals with leather skin, DUI records or faulty parachutes.

    I'm also curious as to why we are just now learning of this provision. If Obama and Pelosi felt strongly that smokers should pay steep penalties for insurance coverage, why weren't they upfront about that? Perhaps the slogan, "Affordable health care for all but smokers" wasn't catchy enough.
    skyandsydneysmom and SC_RNDude like this.
  14. Visit  Jolie} profile page
    1
    Feel free to join the discussion here:

    Un-Affordable Care Act Targets Smokers - US Politics
    SC_RNDude likes this.
  15. Visit  AngelicDarkness} profile page
    0
    Not a fan - its not including a large group of people who grew up on smoking. Not that I'm encouraging smoking or quitting (my Dad is a smoker, but it his choice, and I will support him on my personal values) but there are a lot of people that are in the senior population that chose to smoke because that was what they grew up doing. That was the norm at the time.

    It seems very biased to only not include smokers. As mentioned above, what about tanners, diabetics (most situations are completely preventable), substance abuse including alcohol, past employment resulting in health issues 50-60 years later, piercings, tattoos, obesity, elective surgeries - each of these impacts health care costs. I'm thankful to be able to access health care in Canada regardless of my habits and be accessible to benefits. I can't imagine how others who cannot feel.


Nursing Jobs in every specialty and state. Visit today and Create Job Alerts, Manage Your Resume, and Apply for Jobs.

Top