should smokers and drinkers pay more for health care?

For America, the good people that smoke and drink in more then what can be considered moderation saves our medicare and social security programs money. Since those people tend to die much sooner. Last time I checked, medicare doesn't cover huge operations like liver, kidney, or lung transplants. But that's a far cry from a socialized medicine system where public health is in the realms of public responsibility.

Originally Posted by Duo Maxwell

Then again, why don't we just raise premiums for people who are not within healthy BMI standards. Being overweight has a lot of associated health issues. More than smoking, I'd wager, actually.

Or, here's another one, what about people with family histories of disorders like thyroid problems or other chronic health problems?

Pretty soon, everyone is paying ridiculous amounts of money for health coverage, as if it wasn't bad enough that already like 15% (or better, depending on which survey you look at) of people living in the U.S. can't afford/don't have medical insurance.

At that point wouldn't it just be more cost effective for the State to not provide medical insurance for everyone? How could the State possible mandate that without making things much more inefficient?

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Originally Posted by Eleo

However, I do question how smokers are discerned from nonsmokers.

Determining who was a smoker could be seen as an invasion of privacy. That in itself will raise a lot of issues. At least I think it would here. No idea how well that would go over with countries like Canada. Canadians seem just as protective of their civil liberties, if not more so in some respects.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Originally Posted by BlueMikey

Medicare does cover major organ transplants. It is harder to get one of the organs with a large waiting list if your reason for needing them is because you were a smoker, but it doesn't disqualify you.

No, it just make's it close to impossible to get.

Originally Posted by BlueMikey

It costs a hell of a lot more to provide the services it takes to attempt to save someone from dying of lung cancer than it does old age.

Plus, your Medicare and Social Security money doesn't just disappear if you die earlier, it just gets transferred to your spouse.

(Medicare is also moving to start covering smoking cessation programs.)

Medicare and Social Security are practically the only government programs in good fiscal shape. Doesn't mean that will stay that way, but this issue seems like a rational to cut benefits prematurely.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.