So more intervention then?

Eh, I'm not opposed to the people who voluntarily make themselves unhealthy paying more than their fair share for the greater good of the people.

---

Lol at Republicans not being able to come together for a vote to pass this. Could that mean a fracture within the party grows deeper?

---

I for one applaud conservatives and libertarians that stood against it and killed this bill. Replace subsides with tax credits, leaving ACA taxes in place for 6 years (which all but guarantees they stay around longer than that) and not including free market solutions made this bill a load of bull. No Law is better than Bad Law. The ACA still needs to be addressed but this bill wasn't a solution it was a different shade of central planning healthcare which is a big state solution. 

 

Republicans are pathetic, they can't even propose a true free market solution after having 7 years to plan it shows just how bad the options are in American politics, you have socialist and idiots to chose between. 

---

For starters, lets add a 100% "health tax" to all tobacco products as well as recreational marijuana and have that go into a pool everybody can benefit from.

 

Sure then add a 100% tax on all fatty foods, alcohol, sweets and sugars! 

 

that's how it works, central planning moves to dictate behavior through premiums that's the very theory behind Obamacare. If your good with government taxing "sins" then your not better than the big government "liberals" you bemoan everyday. 

---

Eh, I'm not opposed to the people who voluntarily make themselves unhealthy paying more than their fair share for the greater good of the people.

Repubs and Dems, about a dimes's worth of difference.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

Insurers should just create different pools of coverage and care.  If you smoke, you have to select a plan with smoker's coverage.  This would include more frequent chest x-rays. more frequent cancer screenings, smoking-cessation advice and counseling, etc.  If and when you do quit smoking, you are eligible for a lower cost premium in a pool that does not include smokers.

 

If you are obese, the obesity pool would focus on diet, exercise, diabetes, pulmonary issues, etc. 

---

Insurers should just create different pools of coverage and care.  If you smoke, you have to select a plan with smoker's coverage.  This would include more frequent chest x-rays. more frequent cancer screenings, smoking-cessation advice and counseling, etc.  If and when you do quit smoking, you are eligible for a lower cost premium in a pool that does not include smokers.

 

If you are obese, the obesity pool would focus on diet, exercise, diabetes, pulmonary issues, etc.

Control of your life given to a corporation is no better than giving it to the government.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

Insurers should just create different pools of coverage and care. If you smoke, you have to select a plan with smoker's coverage. This would include more frequent chest x-rays. more frequent cancer screenings, smoking-cessation advice and counseling, etc. If and when you do quit smoking, you are eligible for a lower cost premium in a pool that does not include smokers.


If you are obese, the obesity pool would focus on diet, exercise, diabetes, pulmonary issues, etc.

Ideally, kind of what I was saying. It would be nice if the industries causing these diseases would help subsidise the medical care people will need from them, but others brought up good points in why more gov't control isn't good.


Until there is a way to deal with the middle man, costs won't really come down. How does that happen though? How do you make an insurance company be happy with making less money?


I can see a future of an ebay like site where doctors bid to treat your ailment, but there would still need to be some type of catastrophic plan available.


Something has to give.

---

Insurers should just create different pools of coverage and care. If you smoke, you have to select a plan with smoker's coverage. This would include more frequent chest x-rays. more frequent cancer screenings, smoking-cessation advice and counseling, etc. If and when you do quit smoking, you are eligible for a lower cost premium in a pool that does not include smokers.


If you are obese, the obesity pool would focus on diet, exercise, diabetes, pulmonary issues, etc.

There's a lot of merit in that. Of course, I am not obese and not a smoker. So of course I would be benefiting from such a plan.

---

Control of your life given to a corporation is no better than giving it to the government.

I think such a plan would be much more like a free market. Insurance companies would be free to charge higher premiums for higher risk people.

---

some health care companies already ask if you are a smoker and then your rate is higher...All life insurance companies that Ive found do

---

All life insurance companies that Ive found do

EXACTLY!

---

I think such a plan would be much more like a free market. Insurance companies would be free to charge higher premiums for higher risk people.

 

As long as the insured person isn't paying for the premium, as is still happening in the vast majority of insurance scenarios, then it will be the person with the financial interest who makes those calls. It's not what the insurance company is willing to cover, it's what the employer is willing to pay for.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

Insurers should just create different pools of coverage and care.  If you smoke, you have to select a plan with smoker's coverage.  This would include more frequent chest x-rays. more frequent cancer screenings, smoking-cessation advice and counseling, etc.  If and when you do quit smoking, you are eligible for a lower cost premium in a pool that does not include smokers.

 

If you are obese, the obesity pool would focus on diet, exercise, diabetes, pulmonary issues, etc. 

 

Wait a second.  Are you suggesting that a free market solution is the best?  No government mandate?

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world.  Those who understand binary and those who don't.

Sure then add a 100% tax on all fatty foods, alcohol, sweets and sugars! 

 

that's how it works, central planning moves to dictate behavior through premiums that's the very theory behind Obamacare. If your good with government taxing "sins" then your not better than the big government "liberals" you bemoan everyday. 

 

I always believed Marijuana should be legalized, but with a high "vice" tax that would go straight into funding infrastructure. Of course I'd also make D.U.I. laws much harsher as well to try and curb a larger rate of people driving under the influence. In any case, I like the idea of a "vice tax", on legalized marijuana, cigarettes and alcohol, but not on food. People buy the food they can afford. Healthy foods like fresh vegetables and fruits are way higher priced than junk food. You can't penalize people for buying the only foods they can afford to eat. If you add a tax to fatty foods and sugars then we need to regulate how much sugars and unnecessary ingredients are in the foods. Countries in Europe laugh at the kind of things we put in our foods here. Many of them frown on artificial coloring and flavoring and excessive sweetners and you don't see the excessive junk food over there that you see here. The companies who make the bad foods should be taxed extra until they come around and make their foods healthier. If everything was on a level playing field, it would then drive down the cost of the healthy foods. 

---

I always believed Marijuana should be legalized, but with a high "vice" tax that would go straight into funding infrastructure. Of course I'd also make D.U.I. laws much harsher as well to try and curb a larger rate of people driving under the influence. In any case, I like the idea of a "vice tax", on legalized marijuana, cigarettes and alcohol, but not on food. People buy the food they can afford. Healthy foods like fresh vegetables and fruits are way higher priced than junk food. You can't penalize people for buying the only foods they can afford to eat. If you add a tax to fatty foods and sugars then we need to regulate how much sugars and unnecessary ingredients are in the foods.
Countries in Europe laugh at the kind of things we put in our foods here. Many of them frown on artificial coloring and flavoring and excessive sweetners and you don't see the excessive junk food over there that you see here. The companies who make the bad foods should be taxed extra until they come around and make their foods healthier. If everything was on a level playing field, it would then drive down the cost of the healthy foods. 

you can't tax food by it's health benefit...There would be lawsuits forever about taxing unhealthy foods and not  healthy foods

 

I agree 100% about healthy foods being much more expensive...I'm diabetic and I am supposed to eat a low sodium, low carbohydrate, low sugar high protein, all natural diet...All the stuff I'm supposed to eat is so much more expensive than the regular stuff...I have been asking for years why the so called organic foods cost more and no one has an answer...I would think they should be cheaper...Supposedly there are no  fertilizers used, no pest killing sprays, no artificial lighting, so there should be less labor and materials used in producing such foods, therefor. the cost to produce these foods should be less but instead they are higher...People buy into the hype of organic or all natural this or that and they buy it...If people would would being such suckers and paying such high prices for that stuff, the price would come down

---

I always believed Marijuana should be legalized, but with a high "vice" tax that would go straight into funding infrastructure. Of course I'd also make D.U.I. laws much harsher as well to try and curb a larger rate of people driving under the influence. In any case, I like the idea of a "vice tax", on legalized marijuana, cigarettes and alcohol, but not on food. People buy the food they can afford. Healthy foods like fresh vegetables and fruits are way higher priced than junk food. You can't penalize people for buying the only foods they can afford to eat. If you add a tax to fatty foods and sugars then we need to regulate how much sugars and unnecessary ingredients are in the foods. Countries in Europe laugh at the kind of things we put in our foods here. Many of them frown on artificial coloring and flavoring and excessive sweetners and you don't see the excessive junk food over there that you see here. The companies who make the bad foods should be taxed extra until they come around and make their foods healthier. If everything was on a level playing field, it would then drive down the cost of the healthy foods.

With respect you just said don't tax food, but tax food.

---

Tax policy used for social engineering, a hallmark of tyrannical government.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

Tax policy used for social engineering, a hallmark of tyrannical government.

AGREED! Tax the people to steer them in the direction you want them to go, do what they want you do do, live as they want you to live, just like herding sheep to a different pasture

---

you can't tax food by it's health benefit...There would be lawsuits forever about taxing unhealthy foods and not healthy foods


I agree 100% about healthy foods being much more expensive...I'm diabetic and I am supposed to eat a low sodium, low carbohydrate, low sugar high protein, all natural diet...All the stuff I'm supposed to eat is so much more expensive than the regular stuff...I have been asking for years why the so called organic foods cost more and no one has an answer...I would think they should be cheaper...Supposedly there are no fertilizers used, no pest killing sprays, no artificial lighting, so there should be less labor and materials used in producing such foods, therefor. the cost to produce these foods should be less but instead they are higher...People buy into the hype of organic or all natural this or that and they buy it...If people would would being such suckers and paying such high prices for that stuff, the price would come down

Organic products have significantly lower yields because they aren't protected from pests, do not grow with the aid of said fertilizers and actual require more tending because the aid of chemicals isn't used. Therefore they don't grow as well and hence the higher price. Organic is also heavily regulated by the FDA. "All Natural" is a term used to make people think something is organic even though it isn't.

---

“It is the job of thinking people not to be on the side of the executioners.”
― Albert Camus