The difference here is that you have control over whether you drink or smoke, but not about what genes you have. The original poster said they were debating the fact that the people who drink and smoke have "preventable" diseases if only they didn't live that lifestyle. On the other hand, having a certain gene isn't preventable.

We are rapidly approaching the day where having genes that makes one more prone to disease is preventable. And, at that point, it largely becomes a monetary issue: can the parents afford gene therapy for their yet unborn child who is apparently more prone to breast cancer?

I don't necessarily think this sort of determination will come to play anytime soon, but the insurance companies will do anything to make a buck.

Smokers should be left to rot on the street and die. Todaya t uni I noticed a bin was on fire, sure enough cigarette ash gave away the culprit. Smokers litter too. Filthy smokers.

"Progressive Healthcare"

Arguably the greatest wrong of a progressive taxation system is that by offering tax breaks for one element, you are inevitably disadvantaging others.

Presumably it is the rich that subsidize the burden of taxation, however more often than not the wealthy don't have to pay their taxes, which shifts the burden to the middle class. Of course, the poor don't have to pay taxes, so it's Johnny Factory Foreman who pays for Opie's bridge.

Is being middle class a lifestyle choice? Presumably, if we invested properly and saved more, it becomes so. Therefore, it's only natural that if one does not wish to pay more taxes, he should stop working and become poor, or work harder and become wealthy. Preventative economics.

Are you running a business, or a social service? The purpose of Healthcare is to provide national coverage. A fair system, where all citizens are able to be covered for their ailments. In order for a system to be fair, it must apply universally. Everybody pays the same amount of taxes, everybody gets the same amount of coverage. Whether or not somebody has a higher risk of need for coverage is irrelevant, as society has already elected to accept the burden of their ailment.

An insurance company is a business. Insurance companies provide coverage, but they must also make a profit. Smoke? Higher premium. Broke your collar bone? Sorry, non-work related, we can only cover 25%. Why should we have to lose revenue for your "lifestyle choices?" Liabilities.

"Preventable diseases."

All diseases are preventable. Thyroid problem? Sorry, buster, you'll just have to work out more and eat less. Genetic dispositions are not the same as genetic conditions. An overactive thyroid is a condition, but it's disposition to developing obesity is not. You can have an overactive thyroid, and maintain a proper body weight, you just have to work harder for it than others.

However, being pre-disposed is what makes people liabilities. That is, ultimately, the problem here. Smokers and drinkers are a liability.

But it is a choice!

"It's just so hard to quit."

"It's just so hard to be thin."

"It's just so hard to be... healthy."

You underestimate the power of a good lobby, my friends. In fact, it is because of a lobby that the suggestion that smokers and drinkers should pay more has come up in the first place. People do not want to pay for smokers. This is a popular sentiment. However, it is based on a selfish principle. Why should we pay for the obese, why should we pay for construction workers, why should we pay for the retarded? Why should we pay for condition?

Some would say that there is no slippery slope. Yet, when a system is no longer universal, it is corruptible.

Oh, are we now? I was under the impression that bio-ethics would make such thing illegal for a long time, especially in the US.

I am not sure about drinking since more people drink then smoke... but I agree that smokers should pay more.. either that, or the tobacco companies should pay for all healthcare costs that are used to treat conditions caused by smoking, incuding second-hand smoke.

As much as I honestly feel that smokers and drinkers are a blight, I oppose the idea of tiered healthcare fees for these people.

I do not feel that raising the rates would provide enough incentive for most people to quit smoking and drinking. Both are vices with instant gratification, the allure of which greatly outweighs any distant medical fees. Those who smoke and excessively drink almost certainly know the risks - how can you not by now? - and are going to do what they want regardless of threats from insurance providers.

What would more than likely happen is that these people would smoke or drink themselves into near-oblivion, then cry to the government when the fines levied upon them for being career smokers and drinkers have prevented many of them from affording their own healthcare. At this point, the government would be responsible for supplying care through Medicaid, at the taxpayers' expense.

Furthermore, I don't like the precedent it would set, that certain lifestyle choices can carry with them monetary penalties. While this would make logical sense on the surface, where is the limit to what can be assessed as a "risk factor"?
Do you eat red meat? Well, you might be at risk of a heart attack! Do you NOT eat red meat? Well, you might be at risk for anemia! Have you ever worked in a restaurant? That carries the risk of hepatitis and secondhand smoke inhalation! Do you have sex? Oh my, STDs!!

Unchecked, concessions like this would grant the HMOs vast power to profit from what are normal activities. Smoking and drinking are clear-cut choices, and not as incidental as, say, living under power lines, but it's enough to get the ball rolling toward being punished for everything we do that isn't sitting in a darkened room, eating organically grown celery.

HMOs and insurers have displayed a tremendous amount of influence over politics and business. We don't want to hand them this kind of power. Healthcare should be accessible to everyone, not just those who spend their lives preventing the need for it.

I agree that raising health insurance rates for drinkers and smokers is a bad idea. If you raise rates for one -- say, smokers -- you're going to have to raise them for drinkers, too, and, as previously discussed, this could have a snowball effect. Also, raising rates for smokers and not for drinkers because "Well, a lot more people drink anyway" is a shitty reason.

Not all smokers are pack-a-day smokers. Obviously some just light up in social situations, or even just at parties, and never get addicted. However, to what point can you be called a "smoker"? Only if it's a habitual thing? Or if you light up once, that's your label? (In my opinion, that's like calling someone who lies once a "liar." There are certain connotations that need to be taken into consideration.)

Raising rates for all smokers would disadvantage those who aren't addicted. It would discriminate against Mr. Joe Social Smoker while Mr. Joe Eats-Too-Damn-Much-All-Day has no problems. You can't take some lifestyle choices into consideration and not others "just because." There are too many gray areas.

My initial reaction to this was, don't they pay more for it anyway? I believe they're called "sin taxes". Get lawmakers to funnel sin taxes into the healthcare system, and there's your solution. You don't have to fuss with tiered healthcare systems or anything potentially arbitrary like that; smokers and drinkers pay directly into the system with every purchase.

That's not a bad idea, actually. And that means the amount extra they pay for it depends on how much they really do smoke and drink.

That's true, it would be a shitty reason, and definitely the wrong reason. I still don't see why you'd have to raise it for drinkers if you raise it for smokers, though. Smoking is unhealthy in and of itself, drinking is not. Drinking is only bad for you when you mix it with drugs or if you drink too much. Smoking is bad from the first drag.

Now if it were possible, I would say "raise it for heavy drinkers and regular smokers, and raise it a lot for alcoholics and chain smokers", but would that even be possible? If so, then that's what I'd support, but I don't know if that's realistic.

Basically, the difference is in whether or not the action is unhealthy in and of itself. Drinking is like fast food: only bad for you if you don't know how to control yourself. Smoking is just plain bad for you, and on top of that, bad for the people around you (as second-hand smoke is worse than first-hand smoke in many cases).

EDIT: I would also favor the funneling of taxes from cigarettes and alcohol into the healthcare system.

I like the idea, for any of you who have ever read Company: a Novel by: Max Barry, i like the idea that Non-smokers and smokers are seperated threw little things because of the obvios reason of one being an unhealthy habbit and one not. Now, i have a grandmother who smokes and i am not saying that she is a bad person, i am just saying, like for instance, smokers get more breaks than non-smokers, so it should be fair that non-smokers get an extra holiday that smokers do not get (a little Max Barry for you all). I feel like if you are practicing a proven un-healthy habbit then you should have to pay more for something like medical care because obviously you will have a higher risk of surious health issuies than non-smokers.

But that is just my opition.