"Self-inflicted wound." "Filthy habit." etc, etc. The same could be said for drug abuse, or alcoholism, or even injury-prone hobbies like mountain climbing and auto racing.
But in reality, they are all pre-existing conditions. Maybe smokers are at fault for their lung cancer, but are diabetics at fault for their their disease? Are we to penalize those who through no fault of their own have genetic dispositions to certain diseases? And what of those conditions that cannot be traced to some convenient moral turpitude? Like old age?
There should be no pre-existing conditions. Everybody pays the same, period. And the system would become much cheaper and easier to administer. The insurance companies aren't giving you a break because you don't smoke, they're just rigging the odds in their favor.
The only fair way to do this is single payer, and everybody pays the same, witholding taxes--a flat percentage.
Current Events » in reply to looks like a trade-off
It's easy to dump on smokers.
The whole thread (24 posts)
- ACA and smoking
- Bad drivers hate that their record is known to their auto insurers too.
- What a load of horse shit
- Are you and I the only smokers left here
- A lot of employers are asking that now.
- I don't get the indignation here.
- Re: ACA and smoking