Affordable Care Act puts longtime rivals Big Tobacco and American Cancer Society on same side

I knew the ACA was going to let insurance companies charge smokers more, but 50 percent more is outrageous. It basically means that most lower income smokers who aren't on company plans won't be insured. That certainly isn't going to save taxpayers money, because when they get sick, we'll still have to foot the bill.

So what happened to the "pre-existing conditions" concept? We're being very vindictive as a country if we send the message that we want everyone insured EXCEPT smokers.

http://bangordailynews.com/2013/02/18/health/big- … ref=latest


Comments are disabled for this blog post.
  • If Obama were really a socialist, we'd have something more like single-payer instead of a system like the ACA that is going to richly benefit insurance companies.
    BearinFW 02/20/2013 11:48 PM
  • oh, sorry, how stupid of me. i didn't realize you meant it as a compliment.
    rae121452 02/20/2013 09:11 PM
  • Rae: the one who wrote that the word "socialist" is a pejorative WAS U, Brother!
    ilikemeninjocks 02/20/2013 06:16 PM
  • Thanks Rae!
    barney290 02/20/2013 07:01 AM
  • i love it when people who don't understand the meaning of a word try to use it as a pejorative....................
    rae121452 02/20/2013 06:28 AM
  • Because he a Socialist, that's why!
    ilikemeninjocks 02/19/2013 08:49 PM
  • rjzip, yes, some progressive states are acting to negate this provision, but it's really something that Congress needs to address. There are a number of Republican-dominated states, such as the one I live in (Texas), that refuse to have anything to do with the ACA. So there's no reason to believe they'd do anything about this either.

    If the ACA itself is going to write large numbers of Americans out of the insurance loop, it's obviously going to fall WAY short of its goal of providing health insurance to all Americans.

    Of course, we already know that there are some people (mainly working poor) who won't qualify for Medicaid and still won't be able to afford health insurance. This will just add to that number.
    BearinFW 02/19/2013 05:01 PM
  • I've always been strongly against "sin" taxes, such as heavy taxes on cigarettes and alcohol, because they are brutally regressive. I.e., they fall much more heavily on the backs of lower income people. And yes, we can preach all we like about how it's their choice, etc., etc., and if they didn't smoke or drink, they wouldn't have to pay the tax, but preaching isn't going to change anything.

    If smokers don't have insurance, the only people who are saving money are the insurance companies. Uncle Sam, and by extension, us, the taxpayers, are going to have to pick up the tab for their illnesses. Also, if they have no insurance, they're not seeing doctors to encourage them to quit or getting insurance help for smoking-cessation programs.

    I'm sure there are some Americans who are hardhearted enough to say, well they smoked and they don't have insurance. It's their bed, let em lay dying in it. But I don't think the overwhelming majority of us are that cruel. (Although there are undoubtedly some states that would take that approach if it were their option alone.)

    Even the American Cancer Society opposes this, saying "We're anti-smoking, not anti-smoker." This provision of the ACA is anti-smoker and pro-insurance company.

    BTW, this isn't just a matter of paying a little more for health insurance. This is such a HUGE penalty -- 50 percent --- that the reality is that if it goes into effect, the vast majority of smokers who do not work for companies that offer group plans will not be able to get insurance. In effect, this provision writes a large number of Americans out of being able to get health insurance, which is actually contrary to what the ACA is supposed to be about.

    Also, quitting alone may not be able to get you insurance. You can bet insurance companies will continue to define someone as a smoker until X amount of time has passed.
    BearinFW 02/19/2013 04:08 PM
  • I've said it before: I wish congress went for a single payer health insurance program and cut out the insurance companies altogether. I agree with BearinFW, it's shortsighted to punish smokers with an unaffordable surcharge. It's a bad addiction like drugs and alcohol. Addicts of any kind need healthcare and treatment, not abandoned and left to die in the streets! I appreciate the additional cost incurred by smokers, but isn't that covered by the astronomical taxes on each pack of cigarettes?
    skibear 02/19/2013 03:09 PM
  • No bill ever gets read by the elected officals they are always given to staff and have them look at it and make recomendations to their boss and he or she then votes accordingly. Your alternative to the ACA would be what? Continue to allow 40 million or so Americans to not have any healthcare and you and I pay for their visits to the emergency rooms? Allow insurance companies dictate what they will cover and not cover? Tell me what is your opposition to the idea of healthcare for everyone? King "O"? Really wonder what you have been drinking as it is not koolade. King O has done more for the average citizen in this country in four years then the previous president in eight. I am always interested in hearing why people are so opposed to president Obama?
    barney290 02/19/2013 11:22 AM
  • Can anyone find the hidden content in King O's "AFFORDABLE (???) Health Plan? Many of the senators and represenrtatives admitted they didn't even read the damn thing--it's so complicated and long! They just went along with the program, drinking the kool aide that was offered and "Hoped" for the best. Idiots!
    ilikemeninjocks 02/19/2013 11:05 AM
  • what ever happened to accountability?

    your argument is specious because on the one hand you're saying that these poor ole low income people won't be able to afford health care...even though they are and will be able to afford several packs of cigarettes a day.

    the internet is a wonderful tool for information. look up the annual impact of smoking and obesity on the national healthcare cost.
    rae121452 02/19/2013 10:09 AM
  • It is going to take years for the ACA to work out the bugs. Social Security and Medicare were the same way. Once in practice and people start accessing it and the feedback is taken things will be tweeked and changed to make it work. One of the things already being looked at is reinstating the public option. What a concept to remove the insurance companies all together from health care? A lot of the rhetoric we are hearing is dubious at best because the insurance companies and their protectors the GOP want to repeal the law. I recomend that you check out the actual document and see what it actually says about the tobacco surcharge and not what is written in a newspaper.
    barney290 02/19/2013 07:45 AM
  • Insurance companies have traditionally charged more for individuals who will likely cost them more including women because they get pregnant and might have complications and the elderly because they are often in declining health. Well, these are contitions that individuals have no control over and therefore should not be considered in setting the price of insurance. However, smoking is not only the main cause of many diseases, it is also an addiction that can be avoided. Cigarettes are the ONLY product that, if used according to the intent of the manufacturer, will cause disease and eventually kill the person. Want lower insurance rates? Quit smoking. Under the Affordable Care Act, preventive treatments are taken care of including smoking cessation. Besides, it sounds like states will be able to negate this part of the Affordable Health Care Act and several states already have laws that would forbid this from being the case.
    rjzip 02/19/2013 06:59 AM