I’ve been saying that an one-size fits all approach to health care will have one initial casualty; common sense. Since a large program has to be highly regimented, and will be written by people with their own agendas, the regulations will often part company with logic. Here’s one of what I’m sure will be many examples.
(CNSNews.com) - Under the Senate Finance Committee version of the health-care bill, health insurance companies would be allowed to charge tobacco users premiums up to 50 percent higher than those of non-users, while marijuana and crack cocaine smokers could not be penalized with higher premiums.
According to provisions spelled out in the Senate Finance Committee’s summary of the bill–the so-called “chairman’s mark”–insurance issuers selling policies to individuals could only vary premiums based on three characteristics: tobacco use, age and family composition.
Specifically, it says premiums could vary “by no more than the ratio specified” for each characteristic:
– Tobacco use: 1.5 to 1
– Age: 4 to 1
– Family composition:
1) Single: 1 to 1
2) Adult with child: 1.8 to 1
3) Two adults: 2 to 1
4) Family: 3 to 1This means, for example, that for every $100 in premium that a non-tobacco user pays, a tobacco user could be charged $150. A family could be charged three times as much as a single person, and an older person could be charged four times as much as a younger person.
“Why are they talking about tobacco use only, not drug abusers?” asked Grinols. “What about people who choose to do hang gliding and technical rock climbing without ropes? They’re going to have higher medical expenses as well.”
“To the extent that cocaine users and drug abusers also have higher costs, there’s no question that it’s favoring those types of medical abusers with respect to tobacco,” told CNSNews.com.
Grinols said that generally, a goal of premiums is to spur people to choose healthy behaviors.
Remember that Cass Sunstein wants to “nudge” us into doing what the government wants?
Allen St. Pierre, director of the National Organization for Reform of Marijuana Laws agreed that the Senate Finance Committee was being “rather selective” in singling out tobacco users over users of cocaine and marijuana. But St. Pierre said the government is attempting to further a social trend.
Grinols added: “If the bill set up a proper structure so that insurance companies can rate on the things that people have choices over and life-style elements, there wouldn’t be any need for the government to put in these ratios.”
If we still had free speech in this country, I would point out there is one group out there whose behavior causes them to contract a chronic viral infection at rates astronomically higher than the general population, but then I’d be guilty of a hate crime. This chronic infection is very expensive to treat, and there is no cure, so…you get the point. Though, I have to wonder if that unnamed group should be at all concerned with this development. If the government can do it to smokers, can they do it to the unnamed group as well?
Oh, and for you seniors out there. Notice this fits in with some of the other things that we’ve been discussing here? They’re going to gut Medicare. They’re going to slowly kill of private Medicare plans. They’re going to ration (attenuate) your care. And, they’re going to make having private insurance VERY expensive for you. See a trend? Getting ready for that pain pill?
(Sighs), there isn’t much more to say here, other than that the more we let government manage things, the less flexible, and more illogical, services will become.
Conservative Hideout Recommends
- Dilemma: What’s a mom to do? Creepy President to deliver speech to all public school children! – Updated (LonelyConservative)
- Another Little Gem in the Stimulus Bill the Media Will Fail to Mention (LonelyConservative)
- The 99 Most Memorable, Interesting and Outrageous Political Quotes of 2008 (WesternFront America)
Do you favor the restoration of our Republic?
Do you dislike the nanny state?
Do you believe that our Constitution should be followed?
Have you joined the RESISTANCE? .
Be part of the solution!
Related posts:


![Recommend [conservativehideout]](http://s3.amazonaws.com/arkayne-media/img/badge/logo-recommend-badge-medium.png)






Makes me just want to smoke crack and huff acetone until I’m so screwed up that I qualify for SSI disability.
Go ahead, at least it won’t affect your insurance premiums! Have that cigar, on the other hand…OMG!!!!!!! :O
Legislating human nature, it’s a beautiful thing. So what are we supposed to do; eat fruit, vegetables, tofu, grass, dirt, wrap ourselves in bubble-wrap, and at the end of the night rub the Buddha belly of Al Gore for good measure? Is it because those of us that abstain from narcotic behavior and maintain some semblance of logic and reason then have to foot the bill for the cerebrally stunted drug user? My “brother’s keeper” has turned into “society’s keeper.” How long before they start to ration the acceptable amount of alcohol consumption – then base premium adjustments off of that? I know I am rambling, I prefer to think of it as my sanity’s pressure valve in release.
This may come as a surprise to you Liberty, but I have to vehemently disagree with your response to this article.
The EPA will outlaw the use of bubble wrap because it is not bio-degradable…
Other than that, yeah, I concur! =D
BTW Matt: I would say good article but I am disgusted. So I am off to smoke a cigar before that’s illegal.
Now, Now, Liberty Pen. They won’t outlaw it. They’ll just make it so expensive that you won’t be able to afford it. At the same time, they’ll tax the crap out of everyone who can. They’ll lose revenue in the end, but they’ve never let that stop them before!
Okay, just finished my Padron and I feel a little better. BTW, I sent you an email on the conservativehideout@gmail.com account. When you have time, could you check it out? Thank you.