omghai 2 social engineering!

http://www.northwestohio.com/news/story.aspx?id=853324

(AP) -- As more details about the Affordable Care Act, or "Obamacare" as some are calling it, come to light, some interesting and potentially controversial items are making headlines.

The latest revelations...smokers and the obese may face stiff penalties under the new law.

Last week, the Associated Press warned ominously that starting in January of 2014, ”Millions of smokers could be priced out of health insurance because of tobacco penalties in President Barack Obama’s health-care law.”

For insurance companies that opt to enforce the full amount, the change could mean as much as a $5,000 premium spike per year for older smokers.

Those who are clinically obese could face penalties as well.
...
...
...
Critics also contend that tobacco- and calorie-control measures place a disproportionately heavy burden on poor people.

That's one way to get people to stop smoking and eating too much.

Make health insurance mandatory, then price them the fuck out!

DIE FUCKERS!

_______________________________________________________________
"If guns kill people then spoons make us fat!"

Hmmm....

On one hand frankly I could care less about smokers because you know that product is poison and yet you still continue to use it. So they should reap the consequences of smoking cigarettes.

But the article mentions "$5,000 premium spike per year for older smokers." To me that's unfair to a specific group of "smokers".

Looking quickly at Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tobacco_packaging_warning_messages#United_States_of_America

"Caution: Cigarette Smoking May be Hazardous to Your Health (1966–1970)"

So I would say any smokers after 1975 (giving a nice 5 year grace period for the message to sink in) should be exempt. Now what I mean by that is if the legal age to smoke was 18 back in 1975. Then people who were born in what 1957 and older should not be effected by this.


I dunno if this makes sense but I'm not a fan of this story because it seems unfair to some people.

And please no Holly Hindsight here and say people should've never have smoked in the first place. Not everyone is gifted with the smarts you covet dearly inside that skull of yours.

edit add: Course I am high as a goose right now and I may have interpreted this story incorrectly. I dunno... I'm going back to watching Boardwalk Empire. I dunno why the fuck I even loaded TWL when I had a show playing in the first place. God damn! This is good weed!
Post edited by Evil Napkin at 12/18/2013 12:03:23 PM

\o/

Originally posted by: Evil Napkin

So I would say any smokers after 1975 (giving a nice 5 year grace period for the message to sink in) should be exempt.

I totally agree and all AIDS research should be stopped immediately because we all know putting a dick in a tight asshole will get you infected.

Only illnesses that afflict white, upper middle class individuals should be treated. All others should be left to their own devices.

Originally posted by: Cocytus

I totally agree and all AIDS research should be stopped immediately because we all know putting a dick in a tight asshole will get you infected.

You are just filled with positivity today

Originally posted by: Evil Napkin
Hmmm....

On one hand frankly I could care less about smokers because you know that product is poison and yet you still continue to use it. So they should reap the consequences of smoking cigarettes.

But the article mentions "$5,000 premium spike per year for older smokers." To me that's unfair to a specific group of "smokers".

Obama hates old people if you didn't notice.

I wonder is this applies to smoking non-tobacco products.



Anyone didn't see this coming is a fool. And they're just getting started.

Originally posted by: Evil Napkin

Originally posted by: Cocytus

I totally agree and all AIDS research should be stopped immediately because we all know putting a dick in a tight asshole will get you infected.

You are just filled with positivity today

I'm not following you.

You just said that people who know that smoking can kill you should have to pay more for insurance. Then when I say people who contract AIDS should pay more for insurance and research should be unfunded, you get snippy about my emotional state.

As far as I can see the two arguments we made are nearly identical. We know smoking and AIDS can be avoided if we take precautions. You can't have it just your way. I know that's what you'd like, but it's retarded to get all fascist when you think like that.

What's your problem?

FoxNEWS link from today

Under ObamaCare, smoking, obesity and other health conditions sometimes penalized by wellness programs can force even those with employer-provided insurance to pay more, an officer of the National Union of Healthcare Workers said Tuesday.
...
...
...
For instance, CVS drug stores imposed a $50 fine per month -- $600 a year-- on those who refuse to disclose their weight, body fat, and other health measures.

Walmart penalizes smokers by as much as $2300 a year if they want coverage.
...
...
"It's 50 percent more of the total cost of the insurance," he explains. "So if you have a plan that costs $6,000, a typical employee would pay $1500."

But Goodman says the "50 percent penalty is for the full $6,000. That would be a $3,000 premium increase. His premium out of his pocket will triple if he's a smoker."
...
...
He pointed to one, for instance, that asks such questions as "Have you ever had a total hysterectomy? How much do you weigh?... In the last month, have you ever felt nervous or stressed? In the last month, how often have you been angered because of things beyond your control? "

And finally, "During the past week, I have felt lonely-- yes or no? During the past week, I have felt sad, yes or no?"

Originally posted by: Cocytus

I'm not following you.

You just said that people who know that smoking can kill you should have to pay more for insurance. Then when I say people who contract AIDS should pay more for insurance and research should be unfunded, you get snippy about my emotional state.

As far as I can see the two arguments we made are nearly identical. We know smoking and AIDS can be avoided if we take precautions. You can't have it just your way. I know that's what you'd like, but it's retarded to get all fascist when you think like that.

What's your problem?

No you missed my point because you were in a rush to be Samuel Sarcastic.

I'm saying the elderly who didn't know at the time, because there were no warning labels on cigarettes, should not have to be effected by this. At the time the cigarette companies were peddling an addictive and harmful product which they did not inform the consumer about (ignorance is not an excuse). Once the information came out that cigarettes ARE dangerous, that's where people began to make the conscious decision to smoke KNOWING that it would cause harm.

I'm going to leave it up to you to think about what you wrote and how it has nothing to do what I was saying. Or if you think it does. Please elaborate. I'm curious at what I am missing.

EDIT ADD: OOH also make sure you are super sarcastic and condescending in your rebuttle! I love it when people talk down to me because they cant hold a normal conversation where their opinion might be refuted.
Post edited by Evil Napkin at 12/18/2013 2:59:50 PM

Originally posted by: Evil Napkin

On one hand frankly I could care less about smokers because you know that product is poison and yet you still continue to use it. So they should reap the consequences of smoking cigarettes.

Agreed and the consequences of bad actions, bad decisions, are already against the end user......these are not the social engineering decisions of others, of society and the government.

Be it if you are shit with money, have too many kids, eat unhealthy food, smoke, do drugs......you name it.

Vices are a punishment in and of themselves. That is how it should remain. Yet, sadly, some we encourage, some we promote, others we act like we need to control your fucking life over.

The punishment is in the act of doing certain things and should ultimately be left that way. Anything other than that is to further promote a draconian nanny state. One that will have no end.

One that will law by law, reg by reg, completely consume all of us.
Post edited by Mockery at 12/18/2013 3:08:18 PM

Originally posted by: Evil Napkin

Originally posted by: Cocytus

I'm not following you.

You just said that people who know that smoking can kill you should have to pay more for insurance. Then when I say people who contract AIDS should pay more for insurance and research should be unfunded, you get snippy about my emotional state.

As far as I can see the two arguments we made are nearly identical. We know smoking and AIDS can be avoided if we take precautions. You can't have it just your way. I know that's what you'd like, but it's retarded to get all fascist when you think like that.

What's your problem?

No you missed my point because you were in a rush to be Samuel Sarcastic.

I'm saying the elderly who didn't know at the time, because there were no warning labels on cigarettes, should not have to be effected by this. At the time the cigarette companies were peddling an addictive and harmful product which they did not inform the consumer about (ignorance is not an excuse). Once the information came out that cigarettes ARE dangerous, that's where people began to make the conscious decision to smoke KNOWING that it would cause harm.

I'm going to leave it up to you to think about what you wrote and how it has nothing to do what I was saying. Or if you think it does. Please elaborate. I'm curious at what I am missing.

EDIT ADD: OOH also make sure you are super sarcastic and condescending in your rebuttle! I love it when people talk down to me because they cant hold a normal conversation where their opinion might be refuted.

^^Guy talks about how people who smoke, prior to some arbitrary deadline, shouldn't have to pay for their mistakes......but others should.

Guy then talks about the good weed he is smoking.

Forgets refer madness was made in 1936.....and he should therefore add himself to the list of people who should have to pay higher insurance premiums because of his burden to all of us.

Life is funny like this.
Post edited by Mockery at 12/18/2013 3:12:32 PM

Originally posted by: Mockery

Originally posted by: Evil Napkin

Originally posted by: Cocytus

I'm not following you.

You just said that people who know that smoking can kill you should have to pay more for insurance. Then when I say people who contract AIDS should pay more for insurance and research should be unfunded, you get snippy about my emotional state.

As far as I can see the two arguments we made are nearly identical. We know smoking and AIDS can be avoided if we take precautions. You can't have it just your way. I know that's what you'd like, but it's retarded to get all fascist when you think like that.

What's your problem?

No you missed my point because you were in a rush to be Samuel Sarcastic.

I'm saying the elderly who didn't know at the time, because there were no warning labels on cigarettes, should not have to be effected by this. At the time the cigarette companies were peddling an addictive and harmful product which they did not inform the consumer about (ignorance is not an excuse). Once the information came out that cigarettes ARE dangerous, that's where people began to make the conscious decision to smoke KNOWING that it would cause harm.

I'm going to leave it up to you to think about what you wrote and how it has nothing to do what I was saying. Or if you think it does. Please elaborate. I'm curious at what I am missing.

EDIT ADD: OOH also make sure you are super sarcastic and condescending in your rebuttle! I love it when people talk down to me because they cant hold a normal conversation where their opinion might be refuted.

^^Guy talks about how people who smoke, prior to some arbitrary deadline, shouldn't have to pay for their mistakes......but others should.

Guy then talks about the good weed he is smoking.

Forgets refer madness was made in 1936.....and he should therefore add himself to the list of people who should have to pay higher insurance premiums because of his burden to all of us.

Life is funny like this.

I think I just took it one bitty step further by saying that people have known about AIDS since 1986. According to his own grace period of 5 years, anybody who contracts AIDS after that period should have higher insurance rates.

Now that I think about it, we all seem to think driving a car is safe. In reality we are taking a big risk and that risk shouldn't go without punishing everyone by raising rates much higher on people who drive cars versus people who walk. Don't even get me started about the dangers of public transportation. You could end up in a crash and get an std.

Keep your dicks out of dark scary places boys.

Originally posted by: Mockery

^^Guy talks about how people who smoke, prior to some arbitrary deadline, shouldn't have to pay for their mistakes......but others should.

Guy then talks about the good weed he is smoking.

Forgets refer madness was made in 1936.....and he should therefore add himself to the list of people who should have to pay higher insurance premiums because of his burden to all of us.

Life is funny like this.

First if you guys want to harp on my "5 year grace period" remove that and continue. I only really said that as a passing thought. And really since this is an idea, and I am one of those few people who can be flexible with their ideas. I'll happily remove that just so we don't have to nitpick away at my suggestion.

Also regarding your insurance premiums. Maybe you should question the insurance companies why they feel the need to raise your rates for something somebody else does. And if you don't like their answer maybe you should lobby to have that changed. Or maybe just switch insurance companies. If they all do it well I guess you're a victim of shitty practice. I mean if you think about it how fair is that? That you have to pay more because of somebody else?

See... that's a problem. Maybe we can address that another time because this isn't about your insurance company fucking you because of somebody else. Don't blame me for their exploitations of the system.

All I am simply saying is this:

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

The following label was enforced at the earliest of 1966:

"Caution: Cigarette Smoking May be Hazardous to Your Health"

People were sold a product that was addictive and toxic without ever being told so. They are now paying for it with their health. Some may have stopped smoking but still have health difficulties. Others may not have due to addiction (which some people unfortunately do not have the willpower to break). I feel that these people were wronged by the tobacco companies therefore their health insurance shouldn't take a hit. All plans have the person's date of birth on it. Here are my questions I'd like to ask the general public:

1) So why not make specific current ages null/void because times were different when they became smokers? (look at old school cigarette ad campaigns)
2) Why be black/white on this issue when it's people's health/finance that is involved? Can't we be flexible?

And please I'm not asking that in some beligerant tone. I'm genuinely asking why we can't do that and what's wrong with it? So I'm hoping to get a serious response this time and not a politician's response. You know where you just have to try and goad the other person and point out THEIR flaws. Just so you can get an edge on the person anyway you can. .... Or maybe it's some internal psychosis I don't understand. Please just try to answer my question in a serious matter. I'm not asking for much. I'm guessing we are both grown-ups so surely we can have an intelligent conversation about our viewpoints without resorting to petty shit-holery.

If you don't want to answer to my specifications then please don't reply. I'm actually seeing if I can get a quick intelligent discussion on my viewpoints if people disagree. Hell I'd even respond to Snake if he can keep the condescending tone out of his post.

I've spent way more time than I really wanted to with this. If we can't do this than lets bail on the discussion. No point in wasting more time.

I said I agree with you!!!!!!!

Do you agree that people who engage in risky sexual behavior should have higher insurance rates than people who don't?

That means homosexual activity if you aren't paying attention.

I didn't mean to be a prick about it. I just don't see how we can exclude certain risky behavior and only raise rates on smokers.

Originally posted by: Evil Napkin
Maybe you should question the insurance companies why they feel the need to raise your rates for something somebody else does.

Pretty sure I am, have been, and continue to do so. Thanks to the ACA, the two thousand pages of utter dog shit legislation that politicians and insurance companies created together, my concerns, my opinions, and pretty much all criticisms no longer matter.

The law is the law as the President likes to say.

This is when the individual mandate becomes so pertinent, I can’t say tough shit, I don’t like it, I give up, if I don’t like something anymore. If I don’t want something I feel like I am being gouged over. This no longer matters, you have to buy it anyways, or you will be further gouged with a penalty tax for something I still don’t want to be any part of.

About the only thing better than being fucked for a shitty service, that I don’t want, am being ripped off over, is being fucked into paying a penalty for something I don’t want, didn’t ask for, and will still will not have even after paying a penalty tax for it.

If that doesn’t make any sense I can try to word it differently.

Originally posted by: Evil Napkin
And if you don't like their answer maybe you should lobby to have that changed.

I’m sure my individual lobbying efforts will outweigh those who are in line to make billions off of this ACA system fucking everyone over. I might as well send my complaint letters to Santa.

Originally posted by: Evil Napkin
If they all do it well I guess you're a victim of shitty practice.

Shitty practice, shitty legislature, shitty ideas………but so is being an American today.

Where you can’t hold back your money, or body, from other peoples terrible ideas and piss poor implementation anymore. Where non-compliance, your opinion, and willful volunteerism no longer an option.

If it wasn’t for the mandate part I don’t care what some private insurance company wants to do. If they wanted to charge people for being stupid, being fat, eating meat……..don’t care.

That would be between a person wanting to be insured and an insurance company willing, or not willing, to insure them. Only with mandates does all of this fall the fuck apart.

Post edited by Mockery at 12/18/2013 7:19:17 PM

Originally posted by: Cocytus

Do you agree that people who engage in risky sexual behavior should have higher insurance rates than people who don't?

Nope.

Frankly I don't think anybody should have high rates because of the lifestyle they choose. Since we are being forced to pay for this. I don't think it's fair to have our rates go up. It's basically paying somebody to tell you how to live. You live by their rules, or else you have to pay more.

But in this case since I know we can't change the WHOLE system. Because money is the driving force here and that's what this country is now being run by. What I propose it that warnings were put into play in 1966 that told people doing this could be hazardous for your health. At that moment anybody who smoked KNEW the consequences. Just like having sex with a gajillion people has consequences (disease, children, etc). But people today KNOW this so therefore the decisions... AND consequences are theirs. The people before 1966 who smoked were led to believe the product had no harmful effects and even helped you. Those are the people I don't think should be effected by this.

Insurance, while a great idea, is a complete farce of a system. I mean a system that predicates itself on doing it's best to DENY you the service you pay for. They put loopholes and clauses and deductables and all that shit into your policy. All so they have a way to get out of doing what they are there to do.
Post edited by Evil Napkin at 12/18/2013 8:44:14 PM

now we really agree and I completely understand where you are coming from.