Quake3World

And, quite frankly, why do I care what's better for the insurance companies? I'm paying their profits already.

It's not as if they will lower everybody's rates if they begin to save more money.

R00k wrote:A small minority of drug addictions involve needles.

I'm using the word "junkie" as in "heroin addict". I meet about half and half heroin smokers and iv users.

I imagine I would agree with that - that the insurance companies would be better off without a lot of them. But do you think we should start penalizing people who make other lifestyle choices which have potential long-term health risks?

In a word, yes. I also think that George Best is a total waste of an ITU bed.

I'm sure they could also charge homosexuals extra for being at high-risk of STDs couldn't they?

Most STDs are still heterosexually transmitted; HIV disproportionately affects females. (may not get the full article with that link unless you're a NEJM subscriber[/quote]

R00k wrote:Our company's health insurance has decided to issue a surcharge for smokers this year.

Do they have surcharges on stuff like mountain climbing and parachuting as well?

I don't know how it is where you're from, but here in Norway, I've paid for a couple of lung cancers already with taxes on cigarettes, and I'll probably never stop smoking while alive.

They should either make it illegal or shut the hell up.

PS: Self righteous non-smokers are the scum of the earth.

actually rook, even when owners pay for massive packages, its still a tiny drob in the bucket.

so youre hardy paying there profits.

like i sayd , ive never had any insurence that wasnt concernd about that so it doesnt seem out of the ordinary to me.

and no i doen care one way or another if someone smokes or not why would i?

Anhedoniac wrote:PS: Self righteous non-smokers are the scum of the earth.

I'll assume this was directed at me. This opinion only ever comes from smokers. Non-smokers and those who've quit generally dont hold the same opinion, and those who do don't express it so bitterly.

Which begs the question of the underlying motive for some smokers being so bitter about non-smokers who argue against smoking. A far more likely explaination for this is that smokers are frustrated that the non-smokers who 'hassle' them over their habit are actually speaking the truth, but that due to their addiction they would prefer this blindingly obvious and rational dissaproval of smoking were not becoming so vocal nowadays. I'm pretty sure the people in rehab clinics are universally dispised by their patients.

I think that about covers your bullshit :icon14:

if someone has really bad shitstink gas oozing out of their ass all the time .

its ok, its no prob

Foo: Well, everything apart from this (I'm not sure you fit the the description, but I'll assume you do since you took it personally): What business is it of anyone what I put in my lungs as long as it legal?

Anhedoniac wrote:Foo: Well, everything apart from this (I'm not sure you fit the the description, but I'll assume you do since you took it personally): What business is it of anyone what I put in my lungs as long as it legal?

Because as we've gone over AD INFINITUM, you smoke, everyone around you inhales that smoke. In addition to that in a healthcare context, everyone on the same insurance scheme as you pays money to treat those who fall ill due to smoking.

Your choice to smoke impacts others both financially and health-wise. This makes it everyone elses business.

Geebs wrote:I'm using the word "junkie" as in "heroin addict". I meet about half and half heroin smokers and iv users.

Yea, but whoever said anything about herion addicts? I wasn't referring exclusively to them - heck I thought only rock stars could afford heroin anyway. I'm talking about people who do meth/coke/crack/crank/pills, etc..

Geebs wrote:In a word, yes. I also think that George Best is a total waste of an ITU bed.

George Best - washed up athlete who turned to drugs or something like that, right? I agree - he had loads of money and resources and squandered it all and expects somebody besides his family and friends to take care of him now. That's the true definition of a leech, IMO.

Geebs wrote:Most STDs are still heterosexually transmitted; HIV disproportionately affects females. (may not get the full article with that link unless you're a NEJM subscriber

Point taken. But you understand what I'm getting at, right?

Foo: I live in a country where I'm not allowed to smoke in bars, restaurants or in any public place. The healthcare for whatever cancer I get, I've paid for many times over in taxes on cigarettes.

People who still have a problem with smoking piss me off.

Anhedoniac wrote:Foo: Well, everything apart from this (I'm not sure you fit the the description, but I'll assume you do since you took it personally): What business is it of anyone what I put in my lungs as long as it legal?

There are a number of reasons quite apart from smokers abusing themselves. Excessive litter. Environmental impact. Poor living conditions for people around you. Excessive burden on healthcare system. Promotional advertising. That rancid smoker stank. etc.

The only good thing I can think of that smokers contribute is increased economy, but mostly just for tobacco companies.

Yes, I can really see how self-righteous nonsmokers are worse people than smokers.

Foo wrote:

Anhedoniac wrote:Foo: Well, everything apart from this (I'm not sure you fit the the description, but I'll assume you do since you took it personally): What business is it of anyone what I put in my lungs as long as it legal?

Because as we've gone over AD INFINITUM, you smoke, everyone around you inhales that smoke. In addition to that in a healthcare context, everyone on the same insurance scheme as you pays money to treat those who fall ill due to smoking.

Your choice to smoke impacts others both financially and health-wise. This makes it everyone elses business.

Second-hand smoke does not affect people's well being. You could smoke one or two cigarettes every 2nd day for a year and odds are you would not have any ill effects from it. Chronic, abusive smoking is what causes serious health problems.

Not true. It can increase infection risk and severity in children.

Well I don't smoke around children to begin with, that's a different issue altogether.

I'm glad to hear it, but it was just one example. Passive smoking can cause a number of the precursory symptoms of cadiovascular disease, for example.

That part doesn't make too much difference to me, though, as long as smokers aren't excessively smoking around others.

But it's those kind of generalizations that help to demonize me because I smoke.

I don't smoke around kids. I have friends I don't even smoke around because I know they don't care for it. I don't smoke near people who are trying to eat. I don't ever smoke in small, non-ventilated places.

It's called common courtesy, and just because some people don't have it doesn't make it a reason for justifying my paying an extra 600 bucks a year for health insurance.

I'll sign a freaking waiver right now that says:

"I, the undersigned, have chosen of my own volition to continue smoking. I understand that this choice is likely to have the effect of health complications and increased medical expenses, and since this is a voluntary choice I have made, I accept the fiscal responsibility for my actions, and have no expectations for anyone else to pay for any injuries or expenses I may incur if they are directly or indirectly related to my smoking habits."


Of course, even that sort of things stinks a little to me. I mean, can an auto insurance company start telling people that if they smoke while driving, their policy will not cover their accidents? Or that cellphones are a national health risk because they cause accidents on the highways, and therefore people with cellphones should pay an extra tax on them, and people who own cellphones should have higher auto insurance rates?

If I want to harvest a plant, put it in a piece of paper, and inhale the smoke of it into my lungs, who is someone else to say I'm polluting society and make a big deal out of it while they burn fossils for the 30 miles it takes to get to work?

What I'm trying to say is, all these little side issues about how smoking hurts others, and how in some way it makes me weak for not quitting when I'm slapped with $50 a month, these are all dissembling from the issue, which is smokers are being targeted more and more recently, because precedents are being set and it is becoming more widely accpeted.


I have a problem with fat people who are that way because of their own habits too - and I don't want to have to pay for gastric bypasses and diabetes medication and joint problems. But I am not about to walk up to one of those people, and tell them they have to pay a higher insurance rate than everyone else, even though they are the only group that is being treated that way, and then tell them it is their fault in the first place, and they deserve it because of all the harm they are doing to everyone else.

shadd_ wrote:some people are really shortsighted here. first it's smoking, next you'll be charged more for every pound overweight you are. then it will be alcohol. may as well be like china and start limiting the amount of time you can spend online. can't be healthy spending hours a day on the interent.

what the hell, your kids play sports? i'm not paying for any injuries they get. you should be charged $50 more a month for that.

etc, etc... society today, bleh. too many people whining about what other people are doing. fuck-off and mind your own business.

That's taking it to the extreme, and you know it.

Which parts are extreme and which aren't?

Scarface wrote:

shadd_ wrote:some people are really shortsighted here. first it's smoking, next you'll be charged more for every pound overweight you are. then it will be alcohol. may as well be like china and start limiting the amount of time you can spend online. can't be healthy spending hours a day on the interent.

what the hell, your kids play sports? i'm not paying for any injuries they get. you should be charged $50 more a month for that.

etc, etc... society today, bleh. too many people whining about what other people are doing. fuck-off and mind your own business.

That's taking it to the extreme, and you know it.

yeah some of it is but if you think it'll stop at smoking youre only kidding yourself. seriously, use your head. i guarantee a few years down the road i'll be proven right.

honestly, since i'm a non-smoker, I can't even sympathize with you in the slightest manner. Nor with alcoholics or obese people. mainly becuase these are self-induced health problems ( except for maybe obesety in some cases ).

Once insurance companies find that they can do this and people support it, they will realize that there is a moral line that can't be crossed, and use better judgement to keep themselves from charging more people for that sort of thing.

shadd_ wrote:

Scarface wrote:

shadd_ wrote:some people are really shortsighted here. first it's smoking, next you'll be charged more for every pound overweight you are. then it will be alcohol. may as well be like china and start limiting the amount of time you can spend online. can't be healthy spending hours a day on the interent.

what the hell, your kids play sports? i'm not paying for any injuries they get. you should be charged $50 more a month for that.

etc, etc... society today, bleh. too many people whining about what other people are doing. fuck-off and mind your own business.

That's taking it to the extreme, and you know it.

yeah some of it is but if you think it'll stop at smoking youre only kidding yourself. seriously, use your head. i guarantee a few years down the road i'll be proven right.

This is the first I've ever heard of an insurance company doing this, I doubt it'll even last.

Edit: and if it does last, people will just switch to a company that doesn't have these types of criteria, thus they lose money

I'm with rook on this one... It's not the persons fault for doing something that's legal. If they want to ban smoking then they should outlaw tobacco but penalizing those that smoke it is wrong.

its just a matter of a few years before its only sold at the liquer commisions imo

Scarface wrote:

shadd_ wrote:

Scarface wrote: That's taking it to the extreme, and you know it.

yeah some of it is but if you think it'll stop at smoking youre only kidding yourself. seriously, use your head. i guarantee a few years down the road i'll be proven right.

This is the first I've ever heard of an insurance company doing this, I doubt it'll even last.

Edit: and if it does last, people will just switch to a company that doesn't have these types of criteria, thus they lose money

No, neither of those points is valid. It's already been done in other parts of the country. And people don't have a choice to just switch insurance. I use the insurance that my company gives me access to. Like Fender said, if there were more of an open market approach to insurance, there would be that sort of competition, but the way the system is now it doesn't exist.