On 9/16/2015 3:34 PM, Muggles wrote:
On 9/15/2015 6:18 PM, Don Y wrote:
On 9/15/2015 3:38 PM, bob haller wrote:

Watching someone smoke themselves to death is, to me, a big shrug.

As stupid as smoking seems to me, I agree. Obviously there are benefits
to smoking - it calms, energizes, suppresses appetite. Maybe more. And
who is anyone to say a informed adult cannot make the choice to add some
enjoyment to his good years at the expense of reducing the number of his
bad years?

Helps the finances of the Social Security and Medicare programs, too.

the costs to try and save smokers lives is astronmical///////

anyone who smokes shouldnt be covered by health insurance for smoking
releated illnesses.....

What about folks who drink? Are overweight? Don't exercise? Don't
eat right? Don't get the proper amount of sleep? Use recreational
drugs? Consume too much caffeine? Work long hours? etc. Each of
these have associated costs. Where do you draw the line?

How about drawing the line where one freedom infringes on someone elses
health?

But, what do you consider an "infringement"? Does "setting a bad example"
(for your kids) count as infringing on their (future) health? Does
engaging in a behavior that distresses folks who see that behavior as
harmful to *yourself* constitute a burden on them?

It's a slippery slope -- paternalism can be rationalized at all sorts
of levels. How does *your* not wearing a helmet when you ride your
motorcycle infringe on *my* health? (it *may* infringe on my finances
if we end up in a collision together)

require the tobacco companies to pay for their ill health..

In *theory*, the individual pays the cost for their "bad habits"
(along with genetic issues). In *reality*, we subsidize bad behaviors
(just like we subsidize bad policies).

Smoking wreaks, literally. It gets in peoples clothes and hair and even
if they aren't dragging on a cigarette they're still poisoning people
around them with the chemicals and stench in their clothes.

I get visibly ill when I am around someone "wearing scent" (perfume,
strong deodorants, etc.). Do I have a "right" to prohibit them from
wearing such things? Maybe make it illegal to manufacture anything
that could potentially harm some "bystander"?

The smell of coffee makes me nauseous. Should we outlaw that just
for my sake? Or, should I learn to avoid situations where I might
be exposed to it? (much easier to do than avoiding situations where
someone is "wearing scent")

Should insurers rate folks *individually*? I.e., assess *your* particular
"expected costs" and set the premium based on that? Stop grouping
folks into broad classes to distribute the risk?

Don't they already do that?

No. You are rated based on general characteristics: age, gender,
certain risk factors (e.g., smoking). I'm sure the actuaries would
*love* to have more detail about your actual lifestyle... what you
eat, how often you exercise, the amount of sleep you get, the
stressors in your life, etc. With "big data", they could refine
their assessment of risk much better than they do currently.

Auto insurers now want to talk to your car to understand *how*
you drive -- not just your accident history, age, gender, etc.
They already look into your credit -- not to determine if you
can *pay* for the insurance (you prepay so they already KNOW
that you can pay before they issue the policy). Rather, they
want to see how diligent you are with other aspects of your
life that are reflected in your finances.

The same is true of health insurers -- if you can't keep your
finances in order, you probably aren't the type that is
diligent about personal health!

and smoking around any child should be proscuted as what it really is,
child
abuse

What about folks with "tempers"? Alcoholics? Addicts (of any sort)?
People who are psychologically "unfit"?

Tempers often get people in trouble and sent to mandatory anger
management counseling. The others are supposedly diseases people need
treatment for.

All of these things can exist *without* remedies. Surely they present
harmful influences on a child. What's the cost to a child of a parent who
works long hours? Or, who takes work home (competing with time that "should"
be spent with the child)?

It's relatively easy to come up with a list that just grows -- each
addition
"making sense" (to someone).

N.B. I am not taking a stand on any of these issues. Rather, pointing
out how easily this sort of thinking can get out of hand.

I have a buddy who believes healthcare should be "free". Of course, that
means we all pay for each other. Should I, then, be able to *prevent*
him from indulging in the habits that he has (smoking, poor sleeping
habits, diet, etc.) on the grounds that *I* am paying for *his*
healthcare?

Good question.

The rabbit hole is *very* deep! Once you head down it, you can quickly
lose sight of your goal!