“Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it whether it exists or not, diagnosing it incorrectly, and applying the wrong remedy“.
~Ernest Benn, New York Times Magazine, 1946
Much has been made of Obamacare’s jettisoning of health insurance Pre-Existing Conditions. I’m not referring to the level/type of care you can expect to receive, but rather the COST of the coverage itself.
So why don’t we take a closer look at that claim, shall we?
Let’s say you’re an intravenous drug-user, and HIV positive. All other factors being equal, will you pay more for health insurance coverage under Obamacare than you would otherwise?
Hmmm, … what about if you’re diagnosed with cancer?
- Again, no.
…if you’re a prostitute?
- Nawww, that’s nuthin’. Don’t even worry about it. Same rate.
An expectant mother, in the middle of a high-risk pregnancy?
- Nope: same rate.
- Awww, heck no! C’mon, sign right up!
Okay, what about if you’re a cigarette smoker?
- Whaaaat? You SMOKE?!!??! ….. Up against the wall, fella: you’re goin’ DOWN!!!!!!
I have just one question: WHY?
WHY are smokers being singled-out as having to wear Obamacare’s ‘Scarlet Letter‘, when there are other, more dangerous or egregious risks for which to surcharge?
Well, it seems safe to surmise that back when the Democrats were busily bringing their newest Golem to life, the insurance companies were no doubt desperate to be able to rate someone accurately (read as: according to their actual risk), while the politicians were determined to be able to tout “no pre-existing conditions” to their constituents.
SO, since smokers had previously proven to be a convenient (and politically safe) target, they were the best compromise available and were likely offered to the insurance industry as a “concession”.
Which means that smokers are being rated differently than anyone else because it was POLITICALLY PERMISSIBLE for them to be.
Sorry, Smokers: you obviously should’ve taken up a habit which is less “frowned-upon” by our Obamacare Overlords, …like sniffing glue, or having sex with strangers for money to support your Meth habit.
Better luck next time.
Just another way to discriminate against the POOR… seems to me, government is RACIST (yea, I know being a ‘smoker’ is not a race, but if a ‘ghost’ and a ‘geisha’ can be a ‘race’, than…) anyway, smokes and alcohol are the poor man’s gold, it must be TAXED fully! /sarc
Oh, there’s no question that this will fall disproportionately on the poor, Teach. That’s accepted as fact at this point.
The Feds are holding our the “carrot” of lowering premiums, etc.,.. IF you enter into a smoking cessation program.
But as any insurance health professional will tell you, that argument doesn’t work with most cigarette smokers.
Which means that this will fail, and even more folks will NOT be covered.
Just another Obamacare “success” story…
Reblogged this on .
Reblogged this on .
Smokers are “convenient” for Libs because they smoke in public. And unlike consuming the socially acceptable (but EXTREMELY toxic) alcoholic beverage “in public” well, that’s ok because alcohol is swallowed and not exhaled back into “public” air. Prostitution, IV drug use, irresponsible sexual behavior (gay or otherwise) and the like, are typically done in the “shadows” much like anything liberal politicians do. No wonder those behaviors are given protection. Behavior done outside of public view can be lied about. Libs know this, wrote the book on it and have sold millions of copies apparently. Smokers, by simply being a human being with a vice (WOW. What nerve huh?), a vice that can be done in pubic, have become the scapegoat for everything. It’s convenient. Liberals use peoples’ weaknesses against them and smoking is the best example of that. Liberals aren’t interested in a smoker’s *health* as much as they are interested in using that person’s weakness to control them. I’m not even a smoker and this is STILL a hot-button issue for me!!
MissWendee, your comment is absolutely fantastic… hear, hear!
I’m not a smoker either, Miss Wendee. From a purely insurance-based perspective, I have no problem with smokers being rated higher.
But having them be the ONLY group so rated seems incongruous at best, and punitively unfair at worst.
This is just Politicians doing what they do, which is why we should restrict what they’re ALLOWED to do as much as possible.
If only we had a Constitution of some sort, with which to limit their powers….
Nothing is “across the board” with these folks. For a group that is SO preoccupied with equality, they sure do go out of their way to combat it at every turn. Most smokers I know take full responsibility for their habit and the consequences it causes, which is more than I can say for the moronic childish loons elsewhere in this debacle.
“Moronic childish loons” might be my favorite phrase of the week!
Thanks, Miss Wendee…..
Well, when it comes to Libs, I’ve got enough to give you a new one every week for many, MANY moons to come. 🙂 🙂
Is there a question on the O-care application that asks about the use of SNUS?
I believe it asks for nicotine use, and not just cigarettes.
So yes, SNUS is probably included.
You mean there’s NICOTINE in these things????!!!!
New idea: Marijuana filled SNUS!
Hmmm,…. The Libertarians would get behind that one, too.
Could be a winner, Pgh!
Are medical marijuana users frowned upon like cigarette smokers?
Of course not: that would take away from a large portion of the Youth Vote, which is so precious to The One.
Cigarette Smokers are today’s lepers, and must be shunned accordingly…….
Reblogged this on Defy The Narrative.
Just stopping by to wish you a happy, safe and blessed Thanksgiving!
Same to you, my friend!!!
Hope you get a chance to relax and spend time with family.
Be safe, and God Bless…….