Tobacco smokers to pay 50% more for Obamacare!

[aubergine]

OK, that's it. There are lots of liberal Democrats on this forum (I'm one of them) who would be glad to wrangle point for point with some of the comments made in here that have little to do with ecigs. I don't, and won't; I'm here in support of the issue we're all passionate about. I save my wrangling and snark for other venues. Vocalek, I respect and appreciate the incredible work you've done on this beyond measure, and Petrodus, you're funny and smart and interesting on all sorts of topics, but to have to wade through offhand comments (and at this point sustained rants) that imply that I and anyone with differing opinions are idiots for our general political views is just not what this forum is about.
I've easily ignored that in the past, but it's been getting out of hand lately. I'm not the only one who's getting weary of it.
If you really want this to go the "Obummer ......." and "Tinfoil Hat Repugs" route, so be it. But please understand that insults to broad political views , like the same to religious and other passionately held differences, really are provocative and undermine the good sense of community here.
If this seems like a plea for inappropriate censorship to some, it's truly not. It is, however, a plea for common courtesy and mutual respect - something that seems to be abandoned these days on both sides of the fence in this country. Thanks!

 

[Petrodus]

Regardless of ideologies ...
The bottom line remains an unarguable constant.
There will always be Consequences.

On the broader subject of rants focused on our government ...
April will be here soon ... Buckle-UP !!

 

[FloridaNoob]

I agree no one should be taking stabs at someone's choices or ranting that someone is stupid for voting for a particular person. That being said, I have not seen anyone say that in their comments here. They have complained about certain politicians and other things that are within this legislation that effect all of us including e-cigarette users. Why something got bassed is just as important as what got passed. We all will have differing opinions on this, though, and as long as discussions can be kept civil and respectful while disagreeing I see no reason why such topics cannot be discussed when they impact us as PV users.

 

[Petrodus]

A lady told me many years ago ...
"Everything in this world is connected."

Didn't really think much about it at the time.
Heck !! ... I was a teenager, and of course, I knew it all.

 

[Horselady154]

Ironically people blame the high cost of health care on the insurance companies, when in fact most of the costs come from the health care providers instead. This in turn is caused by their need to cover costs not paid for by those who are here illegally as well as those who just don't pay there medical bills. now this would not be that bad if people only went to the hospital for life threatening illness, but they go there for the common cold and other minor non-emergency services knowing that they can not be turned away. That combined with the cost providers have to pay in malpractice insurance and all the tests they have to conduct to just keep from being sued it all adds up.

And every single bit of that is caused directly or indirectly by laws passed by our government. Many of which were written by those who directly benefit from them and who line the pockets of our "public servants".

Did anyone ever wonder why our illustrious Congress could write a law and not know what was in it? Answer: they didn't write it.

Follow the money.

 

[Petrodus]

And every single bit of that is caused directly or indirectly by laws passed by our government. Many of which were written by those who directly benefit from them and who line the pockets of our "public servants".

Did anyone ever wonder why our illustrious Congress could write a law and not know what was in it?
Answer: they didn't write it.

Follow the money.

Well, there some food for thought !!

 

[Petrodus]

Supermarkets cry foul as FDA proposes
new food labeling rule under ObamaCare LINK

"The FDA says much of ObamaCare is aimed at helping
Americans live healthier lives, and these proposed labeling
requirements would help them do just that."
____________________

Really ... The FDA thinks much of ObamaCare's mission
is regulating Americans health ??

This relates directly to the subject of e-smoking because its
becoming Obvious the FDA sees it mission to regulate
American's health via ObamaCare.

In addition to what we will hear in April ... The FDA could
add regulations to ObamaCare targeting e-smokers.

Who knows ... but since the FDA is opposed to e-smoking,
I wouldn't put it passed them to use ObamaCare to further
their agenda. Regulator's regulate and they just keep adding
more and more regulations ... Applies to All Federal Agencies.

ObamaCare will end up regulating much more than many
originally thought.

Disclaimer: Yes I saw it's Fox
Not posted to offend anyone

 

[Insignificance]

It never ceases to amaze me that these politicians still think that they can tax tobacco products out of existence. I'm told by my doctor that smoking is as addictive as crack yet they think that an additional dollar in taxes will solve that addiction. What's more, they now want to price smokers out of the insurance market based on the use of a highly addictive habit. It gets to the point where you want to go to Capitol Hill and tell them to lay off the smoking community (which has been marginalized enough) and go pick on alcoholics or some other group.

 

[Insignificance]

I cannot understand why any voter would re-elect a politician that admitted she had not read the legislation she voted for.

"We have to pass this so we can find out what's in it," may be the most asinine quote of this century.

I can't stand these politicians either, but that has to be one of the most mis-quoted utterances in recent history. Nancy Pelosi (again, of which I'm not a fan of by any stretch) didn't say that and what she did say was in the context of not knowing what the Senate was going to pass.

 

[Horselady154]

It never ceases to amaze me that these politicians still think that they can tax tobacco products out of existence. I'm told by my doctor that smoking is as addictive as crack yet they think that an additional dollar in taxes will solve that addiction. What's more, they now want to price smokers out of the insurance market based on the use of a highly addictive habit. It gets to the point where you want to go to Capitol Hill and tell them to lay off the smoking community (which has been marginalized enough) and go pick on alcoholics or some other group.

How about they lay off of everyone?

See, this is the problem when you get the government involved in every aspect of our lives. In addition to increasing the cost of whatever they involve themselves in, they then believe they now have the right to dictate to you how you live your life.

 

[Horselady154]

I can't stand these politicians either, but that has to be one of the most mis-quoted utterances in recent history. Nancy Pelosi (again, of which I'm not a fan of by any stretch) didn't say that and what she did say was in the context of not knowing what the Senate was going to pass.

Sounded like it to me.



Test the premise. Call your congressman and/or your senators and ask them a question about the legislation and see if their legislative aide knows it. I'm betting you that they do not even to this day and it is the legislative aide responsible for healthcare that provides the congressman with most everything they know on the topic.

 

[chartreuse]

Back on topic, I have a couple of thoughts:

1 - I think one can make a strong argument that Congress' intent, when it passed the law, was to allow insurers to charge extra for smokers. If insurers were to start levying that surcharge on non-smokers due to the systemic presence of nicotine (whether from vaping, NRT or whatever) it seems there would be strong grounds for a legal challenge.

2 - The above notwithstanding, getting to that point would be a long, hard road as precedent (including the suit against the FDA) uses the "T" word which would appear at first glance to support a literal reading of the law.

 

[bmwjen]

first it is government mandated healthcare..........this is just the beginning folks.........I don't even want to think about what the government will mandate next.

 

[Keega]

The federal law allows states to limit or change the smoking penalty.

So the final call on how the policies are premiums are priced falls to the hand of State government...

Also, kind of curious here as I am not an American, did insurance companies not already charge a higher rate for smokers? They certainly do here in Australia, depending on who you go with.
Australia also has just recently bumped the sin tax on coffin nails up so high that a pack of 25 is now $20. Hooray public healthcare and punishing the lower income bracket even more...

I don't understand America or anything really.

 

[Horselady154]

The federal law allows states to limit or change the smoking penalty.

Yes and with more and more states going bankrupt every single day, two guesses as to which way the wind will blow.

 

[Jman8]

See, this is the problem when you get the government involved in every aspect of our lives. In addition to increasing the cost of whatever they involve themselves in, they then believe they now have the right to dictate to you how you live your life.

I agree it is a huge problem when they do this. And I think it sucks that they dictate healthcare choices. I'm surprised Pubs have not done anything about this, much less Dems.

Oh wait, you said 'government' when I thought you were referring to 'health insurance industry' the quasi-socialistic entity that some politicians (and vast majority of general population) seem to favor over free market capitalism.

Shame that no politician on either side saw what's coming. It's only been on the horizon for about 60 years.
We made our bed, time to lie in it.

I say deal with it as long as 'insurance' for healthcare makes sense in a (allegedly) free market.
When that stops making sense (or is it cents), the solution will present itself.

 

[2coils]

Another Washington Post Blog weighing on this topic...http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...-obamacare-who-even-counts-as-a-tobacco-user/

 

[Jman8]

The article brings up a good point that may get sorted out - defining exactly what constitutes a tobacco user. I think us nicotine users are (rightfully) concerned that the definition will start broad and perhaps, eventually, get to a place that is 'more reasonable.'

But I think some of us nic addicts and ex-smokers who aren't zealots really want the discussion to be about - why nicotine/smoking? And moreover, why not alcohol, fatty foods, and the umpteen other substances that may lead to shortened life, and prolonged healthcare needs?

And yet, that does (already has) just opened a can of worms, because reality being what it is and us wondering how the heck we'll fund this ACA, leads to a semi-reasonable conclusion that the more fees around 'bad life choices' the better chance of making ACA work.

 

[sonicdsl]

Another Washington Post Blog weighing on this topic...http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...-obamacare-who-even-counts-as-a-tobacco-user/

We need to ensure that they define tobacco user as someone who smokes combustible cigarettes, since other users have a >99% reduced harm factor by using ST or e-cigs!

 

[Petrodus]

Personally, I don't have much faith in the Obama Care regulators
and suggest, like the FDA, they will do as they please.