Tribune Company Will Charge Smokers $100 a Month

If you buy insurance, you're ALREADY subsidizing that person. There are many reasons you can bring to oppose government-run health care, but the rationing and subsidizing arguments have been happening for a long time under private care, especially as the health insurance industry has become more consolidated. Health insurers are buying companies whose expertise is finding ways to make sure you don't get images done -- mostly by making it such a pain in the rear that you just give up in frustration -- or steering you toward lower-cost drugs, or doing any of various things to ensure people don't "overuse" the health care system. Maybe people figure private companies can manage things better than the government. But private companies are already telling you what care you can get, when. And it's a threat to private companies, and those who pay into them, that people who don't use the system regularly decide they'll chance it and not pay for insurance. Then, as an insured or as a taxpaying citizen, you end up subsidizing the cost of their care because they might not have the money to pay cash for it if something serious happens.

 

I realize I am currently doing that. It's a group insurance policy my family chose to buy into. We could have gone with an independent insurance plan for the family based soley on us. We did that once when we determined the employer-offered plan was more expensive than doing it on our own.

My thought was regarding a possible government-run health insurance where there is no choice, just a deduction from each paycheck.

 

I worked at CNN in the 90s, and you had to sign something saying you weren't a smoker and would not start smoking in order to get hired there. Some employees were "grandfathered" in, however.

What was funny was when Ted would traipse through the newsroom puffing a cigar. The policy had been Jane's idea, you see.

There was also an incident of a middle manager ratting out an employee for smoking at a party.

But I'm actually with Mizzou on this. The only way to get people to stop is to punish the wallet.

 

It's not worth even a little critical thinking about why we should support heavy-handed methods to "get people to stop" a legal behavior?

 

Which leads us to whether or not smoking should even be legal once Uncle Sam decides to pick up the tab ...

And I don't want to go there.

 

Devil's Advocate (from someone that's never had a cigarette):

Tell that to all the state and fereral programs supported by tobacco tax.

 

If we outlawed it, would that solve your dilemma?

 

I don't think they should be legal because secondhand smoke has been proven to be harmful to others.

Bottom line: I don't want my kids breathing in smoke. Whatever it takes to curb it....

 

So now people should be punished because you don't think their legal behavior should be legal? That's pretty extreme, even by the nanny-state-y standards of this thread.

And I say this as a non-smoking devil's advocate. I suppose they'll come for the drinkers next.

 

For what it's worth, I'd be way cool with outlawing smoking in the presence of minors. It never fails to upset me when I see someone smoking in a car with an infant next to them.

so, if the tax money for healthcare projects that would be significantly reduced by the abolishment of smoking went to the projects tobacco taxes currently fund, I suppose I could get behind that.

The only thing I'd ctually be upset about is the lost jobs in the tobacco belt, but Taco Bell is hiring, right? :-\

Wingman, I think they'll go after obesity, first. We're already seeing laws and lawsuits over transfat, etc. They tried alcohol once and it didn't go too well. I don't think it will go very well a second time, either.

 

Well, hell, whether the next target is bourbon drinkers or French-fry eaters, I'm still in the crosshairs. I'm not optimistic.

Again, is the bulk of opinion on this board really this OK with a massive expansion of government authority into their personal habits? You're really excited about the idea of giving more power to the folks behind the IRS, FEMA, airport security and the war in Iraq? This sounds like a good idea?