~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.