ObamaCare slams smokers

[RampantAndroid]

Really? Which liver function tests and what is the relationship with the amount of drinking? Are there any confounders?

You can measure the state the liver is in. There's a bunch of tests, but the ones that come to mind are AST, ALP and ALT with AST being the least useful since it can also originate from the heart. Elevated ALT and ALP levels mean the liver is damaged. There's a slew of tests you can do to make sure the liver is in a good state, and these tests are part of your average physical that includes any amount of blood work. They should be done yearly along with cholesterol tests, calcium, iron and so forth.

The relationship with drinking is simply that drinking damages the liver, since it needs to filter it out. You can have bad liver results and not be drinking (for example acetaminophen damages the liver) but it's not too hard to figure out if your liver is in a good state.

 

[OverVolt]

I heard the ridiculous 30-30 rule here on ATOT

Doctors don't consider liver cirrhosis unless you've been drinking 30 beers a day for at least 30 days or something.

 

[RampantAndroid]

I heard the ridiculous 30-30 rule here on ATOT

Doctors don't consider liver cirrhosis unless you've been drinking 30 beers a day for at least 30 days or something.

Never heard that. As I understand it, you can see you're at risk for cirrhosis with the liver tests I mentioned, but to confirm if it is cirrhosis you need a biopsy which is probably why doctors shy away from diagnosing it.

 

[kage69]

And?


Smokers, having to pay the piper over an activity they choose to engage in? Sorry, not really seeing a down side there.

No way I can be outraged by all the lazy smokers out there get charged appropriately for their self-destructive habit. Oh you guys have to pay more? For starters, consider it collateral for the multitude of smoke breaks you lazy, smelly bitches take every day.

Yep. Zero fucks given.

 

[IGBT]

it's easy to detect in drug / blood tests too.

 

[DrPizza]

Sure. I'm all for forcing things to be done for insurance. High risk people should pay more. I pay more doing things like hiking, playing squash, volleyball, lifting, snowboarding and such. Things that keep me in shape. If someone wants to sit around and NOT stay in shape, fine. But I don't want to pay for their poor choices.

I'm no so much for forcing insurance, though.

On the other hand, people who sit around don't incur injuries such as sprained ankles, torn ACLs, etc.

 

[DrPizza]

The relationship with drinking is simply that drinking damages the liver, since it needs to filter it out.

No, it's not "simply." Show proof that drinking in moderation shows any liver damage whatsoever. That's like saying "eating damages the liver, because the liver has to filter out some of the byproducts that make it into the blood stream."

 

[RampantAndroid]

On the other hand, people who sit around don't incur injuries such as sprained ankles, torn ACLs, etc.

Sure. But the people who are active (and risking those injuries) generally have less problems over time, will have less serious problems later in life and aren't as likely to need surgery because of clogged arteries. I'd love to see a cost breakdown, actually.

 

[RampantAndroid]

No, it's not "simply." Show proof that drinking in moderation shows any liver damage whatsoever. That's like saying "eating damages the liver, because the liver has to filter out some of the byproducts that make it into the blood stream."

It absolutely causes liver damage, it causes the buildup of fat in the liver which can lead to cell death. So sure, drink a glass of wine and there's probably no real damage. Drink 4-5 in a night and you might have minor damage that will regenerate. Keep that up and it becomes a much larger problem.

I think you misunderstand what I'm arguing for here. I'm all for penalizing smoking and weight problems. I don't give a crap about drinking until it causes PERMANENT damage (given the liver has the ability to regenerate, I don't care about social drinkers.)

 

[Mr. Pedantic]

If you smoke, under the aca you can be charged up to 50% more than a non-smoker.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/11/25/obamacare-policies-slam-smokers-could-backfire/


You know who this is going to hurt the most? People who are retired, poor and minorities, the very people the aca was supposed to help.

So hows that change working out for ya?

The amount of time a lifetime of smoking takes off your life is measured in decades.

I think it's pretty reasonable to charge people who, because of their lifestyle choices, are more likely to require healthcare.

Sure, it could be thought of as a "poor tax", but if it helps people to quit (and it will), then I'm fine with it.

No, it's not "simply." Show proof that drinking in moderation shows any liver damage whatsoever. That's like saying "eating damages the liver, because the liver has to filter out some of the byproducts that make it into the blood stream."

It does, though. The main difference between smoking and drinking is that the changes in moderate drinking are temporary, and generally disappear after a few days to weeks.

 

[monovillage]

I'm glad to see that the government is getting into the act of legislating behavior. It's for our own good.

 

[Zodiark1593]

A 50% insurance increase combined with that god-forsaken individual mandate gives the government the power to heavily punish smokers (and whatever other activity it deems as bad). I don't smoke, I hate the smell of cigarettes, etc, but I think this is flat out giving the government way too much power and a very big reason I don't support socialized medicine. Do people not have the right to choose their own paths toward destruction?

 

[Mr. Pedantic]

A 50% insurance increase combined with that god-forsaken individual mandate gives the government the power to heavily punish smokers (and whatever other activity it deems as bad). I don't smoke, I hate the smell of cigarettes, etc, but I think this is flat out giving the government way too much power and a very big reason I don't support socialized medicine. Do people not have the right to choose their own paths toward destruction?

Just yourself to death.

 

[Zodiark1593]

Just yourself to death.

You know, a simple "I Disagree" would have worked too.

 

[Slew Foot]

I have no problem with taxing the shit out of smokers, fatties, and drinkers. None whatsoever. F those assholes.

 

[LTC8K6]

Not sure why nicotine addiction would be punished. Don't see why it isn't a medical condition.

At any rate, the higher premiums may actually cause smokers to qualify for a subsidy that they otherwise wouldn't be able to get.

 

[LTC8K6]

It may also exempt some smokers from the fine for not buying insurance, because under ACA, if insurance is too expensive, there's no penalty for not buying it.

http://kff.org/infographic/the-requirement-to-buy-coverage-under-the-affordable-care-act/

 

[sourn]

Not sure why nicotine addiction would be punished. Don't see why it isn't a medical condition.

At any rate, the higher premiums may actually cause smokers to qualify for a subsidy that they otherwise wouldn't be able to get.

Are you an idiot.. Come on now, nicotine is just an addiction, but alcoholism is a disease (sarcasm)!

Slew I have no problems with that either, but you also got to add in retards.. Well looks like you'll be with that bunch.

 

[monovillage]

I have no problem with taxing the shit out of smokers, fatties, and drinkers. None whatsoever. F those assholes.

Everyone that engages in any high risk behavior needs to be taxed to curtail their actions.

 

[OverVolt]

Everyone that engages in any high risk behavior needs to be taxed to curtail their actions.

??? Lol

Oh you're serious. Well in that case the taxes can be payable to me :awe:

Doing my part for the greater good of mankind and all that. Its to dissuade people from engaging in dangerous behaviors.

 

[Rakehellion]

When has there ever been an insurance policy that didn't charge more for smokers?

 

[OverVolt]

When has there ever been an insurance policy that didn't charge more for smokers?

All of them. I don't know where the arbitrary 50% increase came from. Is it based on statistics? Risk? Or just some random fine for smoking.

Whats a pre ACA smoker vs non smoker policy cost? I dunno.

 

[pcgeek11]

If it all about the odds!

I wonder what the Odds are of my wife getting pregnant after Menopause and a Hysterectomy?

 

[Mr. Pedantic]

You know, a simple "I Disagree" would have worked too.

Meant to type "drink". But that works too.

 

[Angry Irishman]

A 50% insurance increase combined with that god-forsaken individual mandate gives the government the power to heavily punish smokers (and whatever other activity it deems as bad). I don't smoke, I hate the smell of cigarettes, etc, but I think this is flat out giving the government way too much power and a very big reason I don't support socialized medicine. Do people not have the right to choose their own paths toward destruction?

Rant on.....

^^^^^This^^^^^

It's apparently no longer an American ideal to limit our government's power. People are too fucking lazy to even realize what's happening right under their noses. I hate smoking with a passion but it's not the government's place to legislate such things....not under our Constitution. But hey, I'm sure it's for our own good. Why even think for ourselves and just let the federal government decide every fucking facet of our lives....wake up you fucking sheep. I need to take a piss; should I ask permission? Smoking is dangerous, so is sky diving. Should that be legislated too? Where does it end? It doesn't is the secret here. The more that's given the more that's taken. Really simple.

Rant over....