Smokers may get temporary break from Obamacare penalties

[OhioChick]

Source: AP

AP/ July 9, 2013, 4:25 AM

WASHINGTON Some smokers trying to get coverage next year under President Obama's health care law may get a break from tobacco-use penalties that could have made their premiums unaffordable.

The Obama administration -- in yet another health care overhaul delay -- has quietly notified insurers that a computer system glitch will limit penalties that the law says the companies may charge smokers. A fix will take at least a year to put in place.

Older smokers are more likely to benefit from the glitch, experts say. But depending on how insurers respond to it, it's also possible that younger smokers could wind up facing higher penalties than they otherwise would have.

Some see an emerging pattern of last-minute switches and delays as the administration scrambles to prepare the Oct. 1 launch of new health insurance markets. People who don't have coverage on the job will be able to shop for private insurance, with tax credits to help pay premiums. Small businesses will have their own insurance markets.

Read more: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57592779/smokers-may-get-temporary-break-from-obamacare-penalties/

[onehandle]

1. Awesome! Smoking is Cool!

[happyslug]

3. Who wrote this ad, the Tobacco Companies?

In any propaganda effort (and that is what any Advertising campaign is) the number one rule is "DO NOT TURN OFF THE VIEWER". This ad, like most of the recent anti-Smoking ads, violate that rule constantly. Most people seeing the ad will turn the channel or do something else (even look away from the TV). Thus the ad has no affect for the vast majority of people will NOT watch it.

People tend to forget the "Kick the Habits" ads of the early 1970s were extremely effective, so effective that the Cigarettes companies agreed to a ban on Cigarettes advertisements on TV, for without those Advertisements on TV, you could NOT claim the right to put on Anti-Smoking ads on TV.

The key to the "Kick the Habit" was none of the Ads turned off the viewer, the ads themselves were entertaining. People would view them and talk about them and when you talk about an ad, the effect of the ad is increased. This development is why the Cigareete companies wanted those "Kick the Habit" ads off the air, for they saw the result in the drop of sales.

This ad, like most such ad just turn people off from watching the ad or talking about the ad, thus is a complete failure as an ad to get people NOT to smoke. A better ad would be teenagers not being able to go to a dance do to they own excessive smoking, or having other teens of the opposite sex saying kissing them is like kissing a car's tailpipe. Such an ad would NOT turn anyone off, but the point that one should NOT smoke is made clear.

The only really effective anti=Smoking Ad that I have seen, I saw once on a special about advertisement, it started with a flyby in Hell with a voice over saying Hell the home of Hitler, Stalin and other Great Monsters of History is glad to welcome the greatest Killer of all times, the owner of Big Tobacco. It was entertaining, quick and made its point. It turned no one off, for you did not see anything ugly, everyone was happy, a new evil person was being welcomed to Hell. That is the type of ad people will talk about long after they have seen it, it is effective, unlike this piece of crap.

[wordpix]

6. I disagree, I think this ad is effective but your idea is good too

[happyslug]

9. You are falling into the trap, Stalin and his Properganda agency fell into

In a meeting Hitler and Goebbels watched some Soviet Propaganda films and they laughed at them for it was Clear Stalin did NOT understand propaganda. The Film was one of those due to being under Communism this person did this and that. Gobbles was a master at propaganda and would hire people who also understood effective propaganda (In fact brought in people from Madison Avenue in New York to help the Nazi Propaganda effort). Gobbles would fire people who did not.

When the Nazi's took over, the German Movie Industry made a Movie about a boy who fought for Nazism and died fighting for Nazism. Once the movie was finished, they showed it to Gobbles, who hated it. Goebbels told the movie makers this was the type of film he did NOT want, he wanted people to watch the movie and if pro Nazi elements could be fitted in, good, but it was more important to make sure people would watch the film and that required them to see something they wanted to see. Goebbels is suppose to have made the comment after watching Casablanca, and said it was the best Propaganda Movie ever made. You had an entertaining love triangle, you had a good and bad side, but in between these traditional story lines, you had a lot of comments about why the US should go to war with Germany. They help carried the love story on, but did not get in the way of the love story.

People tend to forget Casablanca was made during WWII but people who wanted to get people to support the war. The Play the Movie was based on was intended to get people to support the war, and so was the movie. These the hero, drunk over that fact his girl "deserted" him for another man, complaining about her and that his watch has stopped and thus all he knew it was December 1941. people had formed a resistance group against the Nazis even in Casablanca. The husband needed to get to the US to continue his own fight against the Nazis. The Hero had to make Sacrifices to stop the Nazi and that included leaving his girl go to Lisbon with her Husband. Sacrifice to stop the Nazi is a theme that is repeated over and over in that film. It is the propaganda message. It is quite heavy, but does NOT get in the way of the Story line, and while most people remember the story line and forget the little references to fighting WWII, even today people will internalize the message the Nazis are evil and must be defeated and that such a fight will not be easy or cheap.

Stalin once made a comment if he had Hollywood he could rule the world. Thus Stalin did understand how poor was his propaganda efforts, but was unwilling to give up control over the propaganda to permit people to do a better job. After Stalin's death, Soviet Propaganda slowly improved, but the change took time. By the 1970s it was almost as good as Madison Avenue. No more "MR Communism" did this or that, but that the US had to be fought was a stable, but any story line was first and foremost to keep the viewer entertained. Soviet Successes were publicized, failures were covered up.

My point is even the Soviet Union at its fall, understood that Propaganda, to be successful must be entertaining and to be entertaining people must want to watch it. Do not do things that turn people off, shows things people want to see, death and hurt are NOT want most people want to see, what people want to see is people having a good time. People meeting other people and having a good time. Couples mating not divorcing. Life not death.

This ad violates all those principals of propaganda and as such bad propaganda. I often refer to it as "Church propaganda" for it is the type used to the already converted, not new converts. Such a message is showing the wisdom of their viewers making the decision they did (often which church they belong to, thus its name), NOT to the unconverted to convert. This ad is a message to the non=smoker (or the people who have already quit) that they decision not to smoke was correct. It is not to the unconverted to change they "Evil" (in this case smoking) ways. It is the later that is needed, not the former and why this ad is bad. It is NOT going to be watched except by people who has already accepted the message that smoking is bad. thus ineffective in stopping more smoking and as such bad propaganda IF THE MESSAGE YOU WANT IS TO REDUCE SMOKING. It is good propaganda if you want to reassure yourself your decision NOT to smoke (or quit Smoking) was correct. Since it helps those already "Converting" to non-smoking, it fits my definition of "Church Propaganda" is that is helps those already converted to a set of beliefs to keep those beliefs, but does nothing to spread those beliefs to the unconverted.

[wordpix]

11. I am entitled to my opinion about this and any other ad and you're entitled to yours

[tomm2thumbs]

15. you were more patient than I would have been

kudos to you!

[olddots]

38. yes you are but the gross ads just make smokers feel mad and smoke more

I say this as an ex smoker but this is JUST MY OPINION !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Cronus Protagonist]

21. Great! So you agree that the ad would reinforce the stopping decision for people who quit

That's probably the target audience. So they did a good job. The mistake you made was assuming the ad was targeted to getting people NOT TO START smoking, but for all you know, and my money is on this, the people who made the ad are professionals who know precisely how to target their ads to the intended result. Some ads address starters, some reinforce public opinion against smoking in general, others try to get people who smoke to stop (usually by promoting alternative delivery methods like gum or patches), or reinforce and encourage quitters to keep up the good work, like this ad. If it turns you off enough to rant about it on here, then you've been properly propagandized and probably fit into the target demographic.

In other words, I agree with your general point about advertising and propaganda, but you simply don't know the intent of this particular ad. I think it most likely accomplishes the intent just the way it was scripted to do.

[happyslug]

24. Yes, Preaching to the Choir, keeps the Choir in the Church

The problem is, how do you tell OTHER PEOPLE NOT TO SMOKE, including people who are NOT smoking but of the age to start? This type of message does NOT reach them, for they are turn off by the negatively of the message. It is to much, "You will be damned to Hell if you start smoking" as oppose to "You will go to heaver and be graced by God if you do NOT smoke". The later is the more effective ad to non-believers for it is POSITIVE message.

A better approach would be to show someone saying, "I will not go out with you, for I can NOT stand the smell of cigarettes" but agreeing to go out with someone who either never smoked or quit smoking. Thus you have a positive message, Don't Smoke, get laid. Be popular with your friends, don't smoke. etc. Avoid negativity, it turns people off and once off message you lost them as a target of the message.

[LanternWaste]

28. I rarely discuss the ins and outs of law as I'm not a lawye

I rarely discuss the ins and outs of law as I'm not a lawyer-- I'd end up looking like an idiot before the end of my first premise.

However, as I do ad copy (rather successfully, thank you very much), predicated on demographics and psychology, it would appear that many people do not in fact, deny themselves from pretending to be something they are not, and wind up looking like, well.. an idiot... before the end of their first premise.

[happyslug]

34. I had to read your comment several times, to many negatives.

I do NOT do advertising, but I have seen its effect, both good and bad but your second sentence confused me for it appears to have three different possible meanings. Let me show you my confusion by dividing your second paragraph into three parts:

However, as I do ad copy (rather successfully, thank you very much), predicated on demographics and psychology, it would appear that many people do (I have no problem with that phase of that paragraph for it is clear).

not in fact, deny themselves from pretending to be something they are not,

I also have no problem with the last part of the paragraph, its meaning is clear:

and wind up looking like, well.. an idiot... before the end of their first premise

My problem starts with the first NOT and ends with the THIRD negative.

Do you mean:

However, as I do ad copy (rather successfully, thank you very much), predicated on demographics and psychology, it would appear that many people do deny themselves from pretending to be something they are , and wind up looking like, well.. an idiot... before the end of their first premise

or

However, as I do ad copy (rather successfully, thank you very much), predicated on demographics and psychology, it would appear that many people do not pretend to be something they are, and wind up looking like, well.. an idiot... before the end of their first premise

or

However, as I do ad copy (rather successfully, thank you very much), predicated on demographics and psychology, it would appear that many people do in fact, pretend to be something they are not, and wind up looking like, well.. an idiot... before the end of their first premise.

The differences in the above three paragraph is which of the two negatives cancel each other out?

I am NOT an English Major, I am noted for run on sentences and other grammar mistakes. I try NOT to make to many COMMUNICATION mistakes and that above is clearly the later. You can read the sentence three different ways, depending on which two negatives cancel each other out. I suspect the third one is what you mean, but your sentence is a good example of why one should avoid the word "Not" and other negatives when writing.

[JDPriestly]

18. The ad is intended to scare people who don't smoke.

Smokers are addicts. There addiction will turn them off to watching an anti-smoking ad right away.

But this ad makes people stop and think before they start smoking -- especially kids who are not yet tempted to smoke.

This ad is very realistic. It also encourages the families of smokers to try to support and encourage family members to stop smoking.

I think that the most effective thing done in recent years to stop smoking is to get it out of motion pictures. Just showing people in normal situation, in love scenes, in adventure movies, who don't smoke shows that life is complete and satisfying without those little killers called cigarettes.

The ad will not be watched by people who smoke unless their doctor has told them to stop or they have had signs of problems with their health.

[happyslug]

25. And that is why it fails as an ad, such people will NOT watch it.

It is to negative to keep people's attention. It is NOT, don't smoke, get laid (a positive message and if you look at most ads on TV most ads are a variation of that theme). It is to much "you smoke, you die" where is the POSITIVE message in that? People want to hear POSITIVE messages. The old TV Cigarette ads had that Positive Message, Basically "Be a real Man, Smoke Marlboro" "Be a real man, walk that mile for a Camel" etc. Being male I ignored the Ads to Females, but most of them were "Be sexy, be attractive, smoke Tiparillos". Notice those ads provide a POSITIVE Message, not a negative message. People avoid negative messages and advertisers know this.


Remember this ads are the product of a Judicial decision based on an agreement between the the Cigarettes makers and the States that sued them for the cost of treating people from the affects of tobacco. Part of that Agreement was the Cigarette makers were to pay for anti-Smoking ads. Big Tobacco did not want an independent group do it (they feared a rehash of the Kick the Habit Campaign), instead you see these High Price, High Expenditure advertisements designed to turn people off WATCHING THE AD. Thus the money is spent. Technically it is an Anti-Smoking ad. That the Ad it is a complete failure in stopping smoking for it was designed to turn people off from watching it is not even mentioned.

This ad campaign disgust me, this money could be spent on ads that WOULD BE EFFECTIVE. One way would be to re-run the Kick the Habit Ads, they were extremely effective, both at getting people to stop smoking and reducing the numbers of non-smokers (and as I said above the reason the Tobacco Companies agreed to ban cigarette ads on TV was to get those Kick the Habit Ads off TV). They were entertaining, did not turn off the intended audience and thus the intended audience heard the message. You are NOT just preaching to the Choir, but to everyone and that is why Big Tobacco want to make these types of ADs NOT Kick the Habit Positive ads and why I hate these type of Ads, they are a waste of Money.

[Mojorabbit]

36. I smoked for thirty nine years

and no ad no matter how good had any ability to help me to quit. They are good at putting public pressure on smokers though. I tried all manner of methods over the years and finally found a combo that worked. An ad cannot help one get over a physical addiction.
Peace, Mojo

[virgogal]

26. This ad is so over the top it's actually funny !

[kestrel91316]

2. I don't smoke, barely drink, don't eat animal products, consume minimal fat, and keep my

weight in the normal range. I am not on any medications. When do I get a break?

I am so tired of smokers, drinkers, and people who eat the Standard American Diet (guaranteed to kill) getting a pass. They burden the healthcare system continually, take their expensive meds (that I subsidize), and keep eating like pigs. I subsidize their bypasses their diabetes care, their leg amputations, and their stroke rehab.

Should there not be some sort of serious financial penalties for behaving like an ass and expecting everyone else to keep helping you so you can keep behaving like an ass?

[wordpix]

5. I agree with you. I buy indiv. health insurance & don't incur bills even close to my deductible

because I engage in a healthy lifestyle. Maybe my medical bills add up to $150/yr for a topical ointment I use. And yet my premiums keep rising b/c I keep getting older (I can't help it!), even though my medical needs and bills don't increase.

I have to attribute some of both the tax and insurance increases to paying for those who don't take care of their health.

[Warpy]

7. Gee, I thought you did that stuff so you'd stay healthy longer

not get a break on your insurance premiums.

I did all that stuff and still couldn't get insurance until Medicare kicked in.

I don't believe in penalizing people for stupid choices, bad genes or simple bad luck. I've known too many smokers who have tried everything and still can't quit, people who develop coronary disease in their 30s, and people who just seem to catch everything. Nailing them on insurance premiums feels just a little unfair.

There are steep penalties for behaving like an ass. For instance, smokers with a strong family cardiac history will develop heart disease 20 years sooner than they otherwise might have. Junk food junkies feel like shit because of their poor diets and are setting themselves up for hypertension and type 2 diabetes.

However, health care should be affordable and available to all of us, no matter how well or poorly we lead our lives. People who behave like asses are object lessons to the educable in why one shouldn't act like an ass. They have value, too.

[me b zola]

8. Thank you

But then again you are/were a health care professional so you are more concerned with delivering health care than creating barriers to medical treatment.

[kestrel91316]

10. I am becoming more of a believer over time in penalties for willful acts

of stupidity that wind up costing us all. Eating a high-fat diet overloaded with animal protein is just such stupidity, IMHO.

It should raise insurance rates just like skydiving does, lol. Perhaps more.

[HardTimes99]

19. How about driving SUVs? They pollute the air we all breathe, causing

asthma and other respiratory ailments. Shouldn't SUV drivers have to pay higher health insurance premiums for the damage they do to us non-SUV driving citizens?

I'm being partially snarky and partially serious, but I drive a sub-compact and hate all the land yachts with a passion. I quit smoking a long time ago too!

[kestrel91316]

32. Oh, don't even get me started on the urban assault vehicles.......

[wordpix]

12. everyone should have affordable health care but it's barely affordable to me as a non-smoker

who eats mostly organic, grows a garden and exercises regularly. I pay $400/mo. as an individual with a high deductible and my health insur. co. hasn't paid out a dime in 10 yrs. or more b/c I don't need health care for the most part. I provide my own.

People who engage in high risk personal behaviors should pay more for health insurance. The person who posted said he or she doesn't like having to pay for such people, either through the insurance exchange or other means, and I agree.

I am not including people who get sick from breathing the polluted air, drinking polluted water and eating foods grown with pesticides or where pesticides have migrated. That is not the individual's fault, although I wish more people would become environmentally aware and active since environmental causes are the #1 reason for cancer incidence and many other health problems. But the point of the post was to protest having to pay for someone else's choice to smoke, eat food heavy on meat and fat, drink excessively and otherwise engage in risky behaviors.

The smokers, drinkers, drug addicts and food addicts CAN quit bc many people in their shoes have. They choose to ignore the warnings of their doctors, friends, families and even their own bodies.

[Warpy]

14. No, not everyone is capable of that.

If they were, they'd do it.

I can't see making their health care unaffordable because you don't like them.

[Ed Suspicious]

29. Addiction. Is addiction a choice or an addiction? Walk a mile in an addicts shoes.

[Warpy]

37. I tried heroin in the 60s.

It was pure curiosity. It made me puke, dulled the pain in my joints, and made me sleepy. My reaction was "that's all?" I couldn't believe people would abandon their families, alienate their friends and totally wreck their lives over that stuff.

Yet I saw other people try it and instantly fall in love with it. It made them feel the way they wanted to feel for the rest of their lives.

I'm convinced I just had more fortunate brain chemistry than the people who fell in love and then lost themselves in that drug. Most people share that brain chemistry because I saw people in the hospital on the heaviest drugs we had to throw at them hit the third day and want to get all the drugs out of their heads, they were just desperate to get back to normal where their brains worked right, never mind the considerable pain they were in.

So I don't blame junkies for poor choices any more than I blame people with genetically determined high cholesterol who stroke out in their early 40s.

Body chemistry means a hell of a lot more than most people think it does.

[HardTimes99]

20. +Infinity! You have nailed the essence of liberalism - nt

[CountAllVotes]

30. They learn one day

Of course it never happens to people that believe themselves to be infallible.

Some day however, they do learn.

It is the in-between stage that is most distressing to me.

Uh huh ... *sigh*

[Ed Suspicious]

27. Yeah as a diabetic, I work to keep my diabetes going because I'm incentivised by all the

kick ass insurance coverage breaks. I don't know about the other diabetics, but I keep my pancreas failing all for the cheap leg amputations.


You sound fucking obnoxious and very right wing. Maybe there's a Cadillac driving welfare queen you could chase down and castigate.

[kestrel91316]

33. Actually, I'm way left of most Dems these days. But I do resent having to pay

so much for medical insurance because so many Americans can't refrain from abusing their bodies.

I make serious sacrifices so as not to become a burden on society. I wish others would, too. The vast majority of people with Type 2 diabetes still eat crap - they don't want to give it up. They'd apparently rather take pills and have injections then give up their burgers and fries.

Are you aware of the HUGE percentage of Americans who are now overweight/obese +/- having Type 2 diabetes????? IMHO there is simply no excuse for the self-abuse that leads to that.

I'm not obnoxious. I just call 'em as I see 'em. Like Harry Truman said: I don't give 'em hell - I just tell them the truth and they THINK it's hell.

[Deep13]

4. Anyone can get a break from smoking penalties...

...by not smoking.

[tomm2thumbs]

16. bingo

and there are life benefits too -- all for free!

[brett_jv]

13. Everyone that smokes tobacco and cannot quit should switch to a vaporizer (e-cig)

I started the switch 7 weeks ago and after 2 weeks of weaning off 'analogs' (tobacco cigs) I have been on a straight vapor diet for 5 weeks, and I couldn't be happier.

Cost is 1/10th (at least w/the prices where I live), my sense of taste and smell are much better, food tastes better, I don't have to go out into 110F+ heat to suck off a hot, burning stick, my wife doesn't complain all the time about how I smell or how my kisses taste gross. Oh, and I can also sing better now, I don't start to cough after like 3 minutes of belting it out ... and perhaps the best part is that it's almost inconceivable that vaping is going to kill me nearly as fast as tobacco was going to do.

And it REALLY wasn't that hard to make the transition. I strongly encourage anyone who's repeatedly tried to quit, and always failed, to give 'vaping' a try instead!

Smokers who actually have to go out and buy their own insurance would obviously benefit greatly from making the switch ... you no longer have to check the 'tobacco user' checkbox on the form. I'd imagine at some point the TPTB will change that to 'nicotine' user to justify higher premiums for people who vape instead of smoke, but for now ... that's just one more great reason to get off the cancer sticks in favor of the vapor.

[JDPriestly]

17. This is ridiculous. Obamacare is becoming a joke because the administration

isn't really focusing on its implementation.

I think the Obama administration should have made proper implementation of the ACA its top priority. Too many compromises were made in writing and now in implementing it.

It looks like the administration is insincere about the program.

This is bad news.

[Igel]

22. It's starting to look less like a law and more like a set of options for the government to implement

If it's inconvenient, just don't bother with it. Not the kind of law that gets much respect. In fact, it starts looking very arbitrary. Did when at the beginning a lot of waivers were granted for temporary exemptions.

Then a requirement is optional.

Then another requirement is optional.

Or perhaps they're not optional, but nobody has standing to compel enforcement. Which goes back to "arbitrary": It's the law, if you can make me do it--otherwise it's just some suggestions.

Or perhaps it's obligatory on everybody but the government. What's sauce for the goose is obviously intended to only be used on the goose, preferably by the gander who's decided to take up cannibalism?

Meh.

[Blue Bike]

23. details on Obamacare looked very different before the elections

What's going on?

[CountAllVotes]

31. If they don't know

How would we know.

They got a HUGE from me a long time ago.

Welcome to the Democratic Underground btw!

[PSPS]

35. "Somker's penalty" or any penalty is a bad idea anyway.

The proper model for health insurance is that you price based on the pooled risk, not the individual. As soon as you start varying rates based on individual behavior, you instantly lose all the benefits of pooled risk and end up with everything that's bad with today's health insurance market.