 85242 |
 35212 |
|
|
||
|
|
|||||||
| Welcome to the Exploding Garrmondo Weiner Interactive Swiss Army Penis. |
|
GFF is a community of gaming and music enthusiasts. We have a team of dedicated moderators, constant member-organized activities, and plenty of custom features, including our unique journal system. If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ or our GFWiki. You will have to register before you can post. Membership is completely free (and gets rid of the pesky advertisement unit underneath this message).
|
 |
|
|
Thread Tools |
 Member 2001 Level 17.98 Mar 2006 
|
If your insurance company can justify it, and they can, then why would healthcare be any different? The 50/50 number sounds pretty misleading to me. I mean, if you look at how many sober drivers are on the road as opposed to drunk ones, having lets guess, less than 5% causing 50% of the accidents sounds pretty conclusive.
The experts arguing against this on the basis that smoking doesn't *always* cause cancer etc. are just talking out of their ass. The argument isn't that it *will* cause complications, only that it increases risk. They are arguing on their own terms in order to get around the debate. Personally, I would have no problem with a higher rate impossed on smokers. They know it's a risky choice, and there are no redeaming features. It may even give them that last push to quit. I don't support making this apply to other such choices, drinking included. I can't really justify it though. Either way, if this does go through in some form, I could only be happy about it if it were setup in a way that discouraged other voluntary lifestyle choices from being added to the premium list. Also, anyone trying to argue about non-voluntary things which increase risk like race, inherrited genetic conditions etc. are just trying to cloud the issue. This in no way would lead to such discrimination. Most amazing jew boots
"The avalanche has already started. It is too late for the pebbles to vote."
|
