ObamaCare slams smokers

[Angry Irishman]

??? 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.

He has a valid question. You have no good answer.

Should we up the rates for sky diving, scuba diving, cliff diving, horse back riding......the list goes on. I hate smoking but the government would be way out of line with that kind of power for something it shouldn't legislate to begin with.....it's not the government's function.

 

[AViking]

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?

Why do we allow foxnews links on this website? And screw smokers. They should be charged more.

 

[WelshBloke]

What about people with genetically superior health traits? Should they have to pay less because of their genetic makeup? Won't that slippery-slope eventually lead to a tax on the less genetically fortunate? Remember GATTACA? Do we want to live in a world like that? Sounds like a nazi's wet dream.

Do you have the kind of genetics that let you live till about 55 with no health problems and then suddenly drop dead? Because that's the kind of genetics that makes for cheap hospital costs.

Not sure I'd define those as superior however.

 

[Oldgamer]

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?

Insurance companies do this already...lol

 

[TheVrolok]

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.

How do you prove ALP is coming from liver damage and not bone? What about a biliary process? And what level of AST/ALT are we talking about? What about when the liver is burned out and AST/ALT fall to normal levels in the face of severe liver damage? Have you considered GGT? What transaminitis caused by meds or infection, or <insert one of the thousand t hings that can cause transaminitis> in non-drinkers? Or NASH, or cryptogenic cirrhosis, or NAFLD?

I wasn't really asking you, I was trying to point out that while you may have a little knowledge of the subject, you're way, way, off with it working in reality. What you're saying is just kinda silly.

 

[Mr. Pedantic]

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.

Cirrhosis is a long-term process, measured in years or decades. Short-term, acute alcohol can cause temporary changes to the liver, but they generally revert.

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.

Interpreting LFTs in isolation is more of an art than a science. It's definitely not as easy as you make out, because even if you accept the LFT derangements are solely being caused by the liver (which is unlikely) people can have isolated rises in liver functions due to stress or other temporary lifestyle factors, they can be false positives (I believe the go-to rate for most blood tests is about 5%) or they could be medication induced. On the other end of the scale, people with end-stage liver failure can have normal liver function tests, because all the LFTs are based on hepatocellular destruction and if there are no more cells to be destroyed the tests can return relatively normal.

 

[LTC8K6]

Insurance companies do this already...lol

Being addicted would seem to me to be a pre-existing medical condition.

 

[pcgeek11]

Being addicted would seem to me to be a pre-existing medical condition.

Doesn't Obamacare prohibit charging more for pre-existing conditions?