should smokers and drinkers pay more for health care?

There are two questions here.

Should drinkers pay more? No. Absolutely not. Alcohol has just as many positive effects as negative effects, and most (if not all) of those negative effects only happen if you drink too much. Oh, and "too much" varies from person to person. I really get sick of hearing some righteous people claiming drinking is bad for you; most medical studies say otherwise. After all, the worst things that can happen are organ failure (which generally only happens when you drink too much) and vehicular problems (causing by drinking and driving). So how this should go down is as follows . . . If someone ends up in the hospital due to alcohol-related issues, the premium should jump dramatically, as this is a sure sign that someone is getting dumb and drinking too much. As for those who drink and drive, I think the legal penalties for doing so should be bumped up a lot, like 10-20 years mandatory for the first offense; these people are dangerous.

Should smokers pay more? Yes. They are doing something that is dangerous by its very nature and has very little (if any) positive value (and those are actually just side effects, not actual uses). They endanger themselves and endanger others (second-hand smoke is sometimes worse than first-hand smoke, depending on if the smoker smokes with filters or not), and are far more likely to get numerous diseases than the average person. There is no doubt that lung cancer and smoking are linked; smoking is the top cause of lung cancer! Sure, it's not guaranteed, but then the same could be said for having sex with someone who has AIDS in that it's a gamble; you might get lucky, but chances are greater that you're gonna get something nasty. Bottom line, people shouldn't have to pay for others' stupidity. Oh, and if people lie about smoking and get caught, their insurance should be rendered null and void.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Originally Posted by Luminaire

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.

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.

Most amazing jew boots