Smoke ‘em if you got ‘em at Tribune

[nuxvomica]

Source: Reuters

Tribune Co earned the scorn of its smoking employees when it decided to charge them $100 more than their non-smoking brethren for health insurance. That was before Sam Zell took over, however. Here’s the memo that went out to employees today.

Since the closing of the going-private transaction last December, we’ve been reviewing policies and practices across the company, including Tribune’s healthcare benefits. While well-intentioned, we think the tobacco-use fee implemented by the previous management team is inconsistent with the new culture we’re developing-we’d rather you use your own judgment when it comes to tobacco use, not impose ours upon you.

This policy was a part of open enrollment last fall and took effect January 1, 2008. I’m pleased to tell you that we’re eliminating this fee effective April 28th.

· If you successfully participated in the smoking cessation program, have quit and been reimbursed for all fees, then congratulations are in order. Quitting is one of the hardest things you’ll ever do.



Read more: http://blogs.reuters.com/mediafile/2008/04/23/smoke-em-if-you-got-em-at-tribune/

---

This is the first time I've seen a large company actually rescind this sort of policy.

[ixion]

1. score one for the smokers...

nice to see this happen. It's be nice to see more of it. :woohoo:

[Warpy]

2. Kudos to them!

Grownups should be able to make their own damned choices. The only restriction should be for not harming other people. Smoke em if you must, just please smoke em outside and we'll get along just fine.

The silly insurance surcharge is a bad idea. Some people get early heart disease and some are predisposed to expensive illnesses like breast cancer. Only focusing on one lifestyle choice that can accelerate these disease processes is nuts. How far away are we for penalizing people for their DNA, their menu choices, or their cultures?

[TechBear_Seattle]

4. And why should healthy employees have to pay?

Health insurance is about pooling risks. Those who deliberately engage in high-risk behavior, such as smoking, should be asked to bear a higher proportion of the costs associated with that risk. This is absolutely no different than a health insurance provider charging an individual smoker more than an individual non-smoker, which has been standard practice for decades.

Make whatever unhealthy choices you want. Don't ask me to cover your costs.

[dlfuller]

6. No employee should pay

Health insurance should be provided for everyone, regardless of employment status. The sham of insurance companies creating "risk" pools to further refine their profits must stop.
The whole point of EVERYONE belonging to the "group" is to both share the cost among all at the lowest possible rate, and ensure that all are covered. Period.
Just because something has gone on for decades..does not give it legitimacy. See Race, Gender, etc...

[gorfle]

33. While I agree....

While I agree that everyone should have health insurance (shoot, everyone should have health CARE) provided, this does not give participants the right to then engage in voluntary, proven unhealthy behavior at the expense of everyone else.

Even if everyone was covered under a national insurance or health care program, I believe people that willfully engage in a voluntarily health-endangering behavior should be financially penalized for it.

[razors edge]

37. Since using our country's health care is

the number one cause of preventable death in this country, I agree, those engaging in such a dangerous activity should pay their fair share. But, by following this train of though wouldn't that leave those of us who don't use this fucked up health care system paying nothing, and those who do paying for their own dangerous ways?

The more things change...

Edit: that was sarcasm, true as it may be. And I believe we should have free health care for all who "need" it.

[NashVegas]

43. How About the Athlete Whose Knee / Hip / Elbow Gives Out?

Shall they, too, pay an extra fee for their future joint replacement surgeries, which come with all those nifty inherent risks?

If you aren't doing *something* that puts your health at risk at least once a month (remember, people can and do have all sorts of mishaps), you aren't living.

[gorfle]

49. That would depend...

How About the Athlete Whose Knee / Hip / Elbow Gives Out?

Are athletes statistically more likely to need health care than non-athletes? I would think not.

[reggie the dog]

53. Football, hockey players????

[Rhiannon12866]

84. I'd have to agree with you since I followed the sports teams when I was at school.

It was a small school, so needed student support, and my long-time college boyfriend was a wide receiver. The football players that I knew were always breaking collar bones, one had broken his back, another broke his arm, but pulled his cast off because he was needed in a game, one guy had his hand completely turned around and still played, and don't even ask me about our one-armed kicker... But it's possible that these guys were just particularly accident prone...:shrug:

As for the hockey players, they needed a good dental plan...;)

[tavalon]

59. Absolutely!

Those joints are not made for athletes. Athletes blow out hips and knees and elbows more frequently than any other group and at an earlier age. That is the unfortunate slippery slope that we are playing with here.

[Oak2004]

143. As a (former) athlete who has had the (predictable, for my sports) surgeries, yup n/t

[Owl]

48. Exactly.

[tavalon]

58. I think they should be penalized at the moment

I don't really have a problem with sin taxes, though I think they don't go far enough. Want twinkies? Pay the tax.

[pokercat999]

62. Think about this, there are many

"health-endangering behaviors" besides smoking. Will you want to control my intake of say ice cream? How about my mountain climbing habit? Can I still ride my motor cycle, swim or drive my car. I'd just sit at home but then I'd be a couch potato and we all know that's un-healthy. I'm not for smoking (I quit a three pack a day habit 25 years ago) but this is a slippery slope.

We should all have free health care provided by our new US Medical Service without restrictions on medically necessary procedures, prescriptions and treatments.

[Peace Patriot]

65. Where do you draw the line, gorfle? Who decides? Who gets penalized? For what?

And who determines what is "voluntary" behavior? Some people have genetic predispositions to alcoholism, for example. The issue of "voluntary" risky behavior gets very murky in that case. What about people who sleep around a lot--increasing the odds for sex-related illness, including AIDs? What about high-risk pregnancies? What about people who like to jump out of airplanes, or crash cars in demolition derbies, or have bad driving records? Or people who keep guns around and don't follow safety rules? Where do you draw the line, and--rather important--how do you find out who is engaging in risky behaviors? Government spies? 24 hour surveillance? Just because smoking has been particularly demonized--it's almost akin to being a "witch," these days--doesn't mean that NUMEROUS other 'voluntary' acts aren't equally risky, with equal or greater risks of medical expense.

What this kind of thinking can lead to is eugenics and euthanasia. We let some people die, cuz they are defective. We only let 'the good people' live, the virtuous people, the strong people, the clean people. Where is our human compassion? Why shouldn't a smoker, or an alcoholic, or a woman who undertakes a high risk pregnancy have health care? What if they can't afford the penalty? You going to throw irony at them, as they lay dying? That they should have thought of that before?

It's not all that removed from white bigots, or rich fascists, and their view of the poor and the brown that poverty is their own fault. Are we all humans or not? Are some of us less than human because we smoke, or drink, or are reckless drivers, or slept around and were careless and got AIDs?

The problem is that we equate health care with MONEY. So people get ego-centric around it, and want to limit their own costs, and don't want to pay for others' costs. The problem is the COST, not the people. Drug corporations, medical equipment corporations, doctors and other health care professionals, are charging exorbitant prices and fees--doctors and other professionals mostly because of the enormous costs of their educations and setting up business; some out of greed, not all. But the corporations are the worst drivers of costs. Medical care SHOULDN'T cost so much. We have to look at the whole system. We have to change the culture of profiteering off of health care, and restore health care as an act of mercy, not an act of business.

Our reaction to things we don't like, and want to refuse responsibility for, is too often punitive. We don't like prostitution? Round up all the prostitutes and put them in jail. We've created a hundred other problems--much worse problems--by doing that, but we just want it to go away, to be out of sight, to be not our problem. But we end up paying $30,000 a year to keep them in jail--and endless other costs due to abuse, mistreatment, violence and oppression. And what of the cost of health care for prostitutes? Would you make poor prostitutes pay EXTRA for health care? Would you make a poor janitor pay extra for health care, if he drinks too much, but is a good person and the sole support of his kids? And how do you monitor all of these behaviors, and decide who pays extra?

I guess you just want to live in a very simplified world, where there are no fuzzy lines, and where there are spy cameras everywhere, and limit your responsibility only to yourself, and other healthy, disciplined, right-thinking people who never make bad choices, and who don't suffer from emotional, social or genetic conditions that make their lives and behaviors more problematic than others.

[gorfle]

91. Answers.

And who determines what is "voluntary" behavior? Some people have genetic predispositions to alcoholism, for example. The issue of "voluntary" risky behavior gets very murky in that case. What about people who sleep around a lot--increasing the odds for sex-related illness, including AIDs? What about high-risk pregnancies? What about people who like to jump out of airplanes, or crash cars in demolition derbies, or have bad driving records? Or people who keep guns around and don't follow safety rules? Where do you draw the line, and--rather important--how do you find out who is engaging in risky behaviors? Government spies? 24 hour surveillance? Just because smoking has been particularly demonized--it's almost akin to being a "witch," these days--doesn't mean that NUMEROUS other 'voluntary' acts aren't equally risky, with equal or greater risks of medical expense.

One way to determine and account for risky behavior would be, as has been suggested, to tax such risky behavior and put the proceeds into the (currently nonexistent) national insurance/healthcare system. You want to smoke? No problem - we'll add a tax to cigarettes to go into national health care. You want to jump out of airplanes or crash cars in demolition derbies, tax those activities. Bad driving record? Increased tax to get your license or car insurance.

I'm not saying we can catch and account for all risky behavior - but this doesn't mean we should give a pass to the ones we can easily catch and account for.

Why shouldn't a smoker, or an alcoholic, or a woman who undertakes a high risk pregnancy have health care? What if they can't afford the penalty? You going to throw irony at them, as they lay dying? That they should have thought of that before?

Absolutely, as I throw it at my mother who is dying from her smoking habit. I am a big proponent of personal responsibility. Yes, we should have national health care. This does not mean that participants in the plan can abuse their bodies as they please because everyone else will make up for their poor choices. People should think of the consequences of their actions before they commit them.

It's not all that removed from white bigots, or rich fascists, and their view of the poor and the brown that poverty is their own fault. Are we all humans or not? Are some of us less than human because we smoke, or drink, or are reckless drivers, or slept around and were careless and got AIDs?

Your being human does not abrogate your personal responsibility for your actions. I will love you because you are human, even if I am completely unsympathetic to your dying in a car crash because you refuse to wear a seat belt, or dying from lung cancer because you smoked. My compassion is at a completely different level for people who become ill through no fault of their own vs. people who are directly responsible for their illness.

The problem is that we equate health care with MONEY ... Medical care SHOULDN'T cost so much. We have to look at the whole system. We have to change the culture of profiteering off of health care, and restore health care as an act of mercy, not an act of business.

The fact of the matter is, health care will always cost money. And I think it is very selfish for people to do risky things and not think twice about it nor suffer any additional burden for it because people like me will take up the slack.

Our reaction to things we don't like, and want to refuse responsibility for, is too often punitive. We don't like prostitution? Round up all the prostitutes and put them in jail. We've created a hundred other problems--much worse problems--by doing that, but we just want it to go away, to be out of sight, to be not our problem. But we end up paying $30,000 a year to keep them in jail--and endless other costs due to abuse, mistreatment, violence and oppression. And what of the cost of health care for prostitutes? Would you make poor prostitutes pay EXTRA for health care? Would you make a poor janitor pay extra for health care, if he drinks too much, but is a good person and the sole support of his kids? And how do you monitor all of these behaviors, and decide who pays extra?

Taxes on prostitution and alcohol that go directly into a health care system would suit me fine.

I guess you just want to live in a very simplified world, where there are no fuzzy lines, and where there are spy cameras everywhere, and limit your responsibility only to yourself, and other healthy, disciplined, right-thinking people who never make bad choices, and who don't suffer from emotional, social or genetic conditions that make their lives and behaviors more problematic than others.


Sorry, but smokers are not suffering from emotional, social, or genetic conditions that make their lives and behaviors more problematic than others. They are suffering from the consequences of poor personal decision making. If you want to provide them equal national health care coverage that's fine - just take a good chunk of the tobacco taxes and put it into the national health care system.

[Peace Patriot]

126. You are cruel individual, indeed, Gorfle!

Why shouldn't a smoker, or an alcoholic, or a woman who undertakes a high risk pregnancy have health care? What if they can't afford the penalty? You going to throw irony at them, as they lay dying? That they should have thought of that before? --me

Absolutely, as I throw it at my mother who is dying from her smoking habit. I am a big proponent of personal responsibility. Yes, we should have national health care. This does not mean that participants in the plan can abuse their bodies as they please because everyone else will make up for their poor choices. People should think of the consequences of their actions before they commit them. --you

You think that providing pain relief or a few more months of life to a dying smoker is "making up for their poor choices"? How does this "make up for" for those choices? They're dying. Whatever drove them to smoke--whatever stresses in this life, or emotional incapacities, or predisposition, or misguided effort at self-control (f.i., a mother controlling her temper at her kids by going outside for a smoking break)--they are suffering and dying. Health care can't fix it, or "make up for" it, at that point. It can only be merciful.

Maybe your mother smoked because you were such a judgmental little asshole--ever think of that? And you now throw irony at her, as she lay dying--and lecture her about "personal responsibility"!

You keep using truisms--like "people should think of the consequences of their actions before they commit them"--but you can't answer the question: How do we monitor everyone's risky behaviors? And did you ever think that maybe your mother's decision to give birth to you was a "risky behavior"? Was she smoking at the time? How old was she? What was her physical condition? What were the risks that she took, of major "costs" in health care, in bringing you into this world--to judge her, and punish her now for her "choices"?

I don't think you're coming from a very clear-headed place, in discussing our social/government policies on health care. I think you have some growing up to do, with regard to how you have formed your own personality in relation to your mother's. Sorry to get so personal, but you brought up it--that you blame your own mother for her risky behavior and would penalize her, financially, or even deny her care, because she is undeserving. In your opinion, she "chose" to smoke, ruin her health and become a costly drag on everybody else.

Life is not so simple. Alcoholism is now considered a disease, which it rightfully should be. There is a genetic component in many--and probably in most--cases of alcoholism. In times past--not all that long ago--alcoholism was considered a disgrace and a shame, and was covered up by families. There is still some shame attached to it, to this day. But it really is a disease. It is not a choice. Drinking alcohol is a coping mechanism, that, for some people--the genetically predisposed--presents high danger of addiction. I have little doubt that a genetic component of smoking will also be discovered. Stress prompts people to smoke, society makes its easy, and those who are vulnerable become addicted. And then it is hell to kick--and basically can dominate the remainder of your life (trying to resist using it again). I just read a study the other day that smoking ignites areas of the brain that have to do with intellectual concentration. Is this why so many writers and other intellectuals smoke? It aids concentration? Or, rather, it becomes an easy substitute for other ways that the brain might support concentration. But once you are addicted to smoking as an aid to thinking, it is very, very difficult to disassociate the two. Every time your mind wanders off, you want a cigarette. It could drive you crazy. And is that why some people smoke? Because they are easily distracted--perhaps have mild learning disorders, that smoking compensates for?

I once had a friend who smoked, who told me--when his workplace was banning smoking--that he tried to quit, but "I couldn't stand myself," he said. He couldn't stand being grumpy and onery towards others, caused by his efforts to quit. It was wrecking his relationships. So he had been using smoking to gain perspective on others, to achieve patience, to control his anger. As a non-smoker, he lost that ability. I don't know how it came out, in the end. I lost contact with him. Probably he could have learned to achieve patience without having a smoking break--but it would have meant continual effort. And it was possibly just an excuse. Addicts are good at inventing excuses for why they must continue to be addicts. Perhaps something else was at work. He was a professional writer. Was it the concentration thing? That smoking activated brain centers that aid focused concentration--and he was unable to concentrate, and do his job, without smoking?

Your idea of using "sin taxes" is better than your idea of adding to peoples' health care costs, as a penalty for risky behavior. "Sin taxes" are better than banning substances (or behaviors). We've had a miserable history of banning substances and behaviors--from Prohibition, to the corrupt, failed, murderous "war on drugs." 70% of the people in our prisons are there for non-violent crimes like drug possession or prostitution. That is absolutely nuts. We could pay for universal health care for the whole country--at no risk to anybody--by just letting all the non-violent offenders out of prison. But "sin taxes" also have some downsides--in creation of black markets, in increased robbery (to pay for habits), and in fostering of a criminal culture. I think our efforts would be far better devoted to social justice, to creating a just society--a society that everyone can be proud of, and feel hope in--and to reducing the stress in peoples' lives. Downplaying aggression, competition and war, upgrading cooperation, community and innocent pleasure. Also, going after corporate pollution--pesticides, solvents, outgassing, vehicle pollution, GMOs, etc. Probably more people die from that, ultimately, than from smoking or alcohol or drug addiction.

The notion that we can insulate ourselves from life's risks--and take care of ourselves alone, or just those folks we like and approve of--leads down some bad paths. If it's important that people take personal responsibility for their health and for their life choices--which I generally agree with--it is also important that we take personal responsibility for creating a good society, and for helping everyone to have better lives. Compassion is the key to that greater responsibility, not punishment. Because you never really know about people. They may be dealing with stresses you can't even imagine. We need to be less quick to judge, and more concerned to understand and to help. Understanding opens the soul--it helps people find their own strengths, and create their own better possibilities.

I recommend the following to you: A DVD entitled "Tocar y Luchar" ("To Play and to Fight")--about Venezuelan street urchins who have created one of the finest classical music orchestras in the world. Understanding and help create miracles of human transformation--that punishments, penalties and exclusion cannot accomplish.

[gorfle]

127. Replies.

You think that providing pain relief or a few more months of life to a dying smoker is "making up for their poor choices"? How does this "make up for" for those choices? They're dying. Whatever drove them to smoke--whatever stresses in this life, or emotional incapacities, or predisposition, or misguided effort at self-control (f.i., a mother controlling her temper at her kids by going outside for a smoking break)--they are suffering and dying. Health care can't fix it, or "make up for" it, at that point. It can only be merciful.

I was not referring to making things better for the person dying. I was referring to the cost the rest of us have to pay for their poor choices. You're right - they're screwed. But we'll all be paying for the long goodbye!

Maybe your mother smoked because you were such a judgmental little asshole--ever think of that? And you now throw irony at her, as she lay dying--and lecture her about "personal responsibility"!

Considering she started 11 years before I was born, that would be a neat trick. There is nothing wrong with being judgmental with people who's actions deserve judging! Also, I don't lecture her at all - I don't literally throw irony at my mother, for Pete's sake.

You keep using truisms--like "people should think of the consequences of their actions before they commit them"--but you can't answer the question: How do we monitor everyone's risky behaviors?

Like I have repeatedly said: You can't catch them all, but this does not mean we should ignore the risky behaviors we can identify. It's pretty easy to identify smokers. I'm not advocating we try and identify and monitor everyone's risky behaviors.

And did you ever think that maybe your mother's decision to give birth to you was a "risky behavior"? Was she smoking at the time? How old was she? What was her physical condition? What were the risks that she took, of major "costs" in health care, in bringing you into this world--to judge her, and punish her now for her "choices"?

Oh yes, she smoked merrily though her pregnancy. She was 27 when I was born. She was in average physical condition. I'm not aware of any above-average risks that she took of major "costs" in health care.

I don't think you're coming from a very clear-headed place, in discussing our social/government policies on health care. I think you have some growing up to do, with regard to how you have formed your own personality in relation to your mother's. Sorry to get so personal, but you brought up it--that you blame your own mother for her risky behavior and would penalize her, financially, or even deny her care, because she is undeserving. In your opinion, she "chose" to smoke, ruin her health and become a costly drag on everybody else.

I'm 38, so I'm about as grown up as I'm going to get on this issue, I think.

And it's no opinion, it's a fact. She chose to smoke, ruin her heath, and become a costly drag on everybody else. About the only slack I can cut her is back in her day everyone smoked and it is somewhat plausible that they didn't know the full health implications of smoking. Though how anyone could suck on one of those things and think it was good for you is beyond me.

Your idea of using "sin taxes" is better than your idea of adding to peoples' health care costs, as a penalty for risky behavior. "Sin taxes" are better than banning substances (or behaviors). We've had a miserable history of banning substances and behaviors--from Prohibition, to the corrupt, failed, murderous "war on drugs." 70% of the people in our prisons are there for non-violent crimes like drug possession or prostitution. That is absolutely nuts. We could pay for universal health care for the whole country--at no risk to anybody--by just letting all the non-violent offenders out of prison.

No argument here. I think the whole war on drugs is a colossal waste of time and money, completely ineffective, and has been a huge excuse for the increasing of police powers. I think all drugs should be legal.

But "sin taxes" also have some downsides--in creation of black markets, in increased robbery (to pay for habits), and in fostering of a criminal culture. I think our efforts would be far better devoted to social justice, to creating a just society--a society that everyone can be proud of, and feel hope in--and to reducing the stress in peoples' lives. Downplaying aggression, competition and war, upgrading cooperation, community and innocent pleasure. Also, going after corporate pollution--pesticides, solvents, outgassing, vehicle pollution, GMOs, etc. Probably more people die from that, ultimately, than from smoking or alcohol or drug addiction.

No argument here.

The notion that we can insulate ourselves from life's risks--and take care of ourselves alone, or just those folks we like and approve of--leads down some bad paths. If it's important that people take personal responsibility for their health and for their life choices--which I generally agree with--it is also important that we take personal responsibility for creating a good society, and for helping everyone to have better lives. Compassion is the key to that greater responsibility, not punishment. Because you never really know about people. They may be dealing with stresses you can't even imagine. We need to be less quick to judge, and more concerned to understand and to help. Understanding opens the soul--it helps people find their own strengths, and create their own better possibilities.

And I generally agree with you. But you need to realize you also open yourself up to being massively taken advantage of by people more than willing to soak up the rays of your understanding and compassion. If you hold no one accountable for poor behavior and instead reward everyone equally with the blessing of your compassion you encourage more poor behavior. Eventually you may not be able to afford compassion for anyone.

[Peace Patriot]

140. Yeah, okay (on the last point). I do understand what you're saying.

But I encourage you to see "Tocar Y Luchar." Children in trouble with the law, poverty-stricken street urchins, headed for miserable, criminal or marginal lives--playing the best classical music ever played! Hundreds of thousands of them! It is just amazing--and it all has to do with the founders' and teachers' belief in the innate creativity and desire for discipline and cooperation in forgotten and neglected and very poor street children.

Compassion is actually boundless. It doesn't take sides. And it does not encourage poor behavior. It does the opposite. It brings out the best in people. If they backslide, more compassion is the answer, not punishment. You are setting an example for them, of how they can change their view of things. Selfishness is its own reward, but if you really want to be happy, you will live for the happiness of others. For the music schools of Venezuela, this is a social policy. I don't know what they do with miscreants, but there doesn't seem to be any punitive tone to the classical music schooling. The kids absolutely love going to school. They have fun. They practice all the time. They feel transcendence in the music, and in the communal experience of orchestral playing. It transforms them. They live to make themselves, each other and everybody else happy through the music. Thomas Jefferson turned the "pursuit of happiness" into a human right. These kids are living it. The hundreds of music schools and children's orchestras receive government funding--but it was started through one man's vision and private funds (until the Chavez government, which has helped the program to expand).

I do respect the individual ego and our need to protect ourselves, individually and as a society, from exploitation. It's usually not the poor, though, who exploit. It is those who already have too much. But anybody can be mean, careless, grasping and exploitative, it's true. And that kind of behavior tends to make us react like a snail--crawl into ourselves for preservation. We try to avoid and exclude. It's hard to get out of that mode. No one wants to be a patsy. No one wants to be used or abused. But neither should we let ourselves fall into a automaton response to others--a programmed response that everyone is selfish and grasping, so we might as well be self-protective from the start, and give them no chances to abuse our good will. We miss so much this way--in the potential of other people to be generous and kind, and in their potential to change. We MAKE into something, by our expectations of their behavior. I'm not saying we should be fools. I'm saying, don't get locked into patterns of LOW expectation--because you will then help create low behaviors.

I'll give you an example in government policy. Past governments of Venezuela tried land reform--giving unused, fallow lands or land with questionable titles to peasant farmers and others, in an effort to reverse Venezuela's lack of food self-sufficiency. But they placed no requirement on the recipients of the land to produce any food, nor gave them technical assistance to do so. The programs failed. People exploited them. It became cronyism, and a way to accumulate wealth by re-sale. The Chavez government changed all that. They instituted land reform, but they don't give title to the land to new farmers until they have been producing food for a number of years (five, I think). They give them lots of technical assistance and encouragement, and monitor them closely. It is the first well thought out land reform program in Venezuela's history.

But they might have just given up, and said, "Land reform can't work--people exploit it." Or they could have just given land away and hoped for the best. Instead they thought through how to obtain the behavior that was needed, and how to bring out the best in new farmers. People WANT to work. They WANT to produce things. They WANT to be useful. They WANT to learn things. They WANT the satisfaction of helping society, and of being successful at it. But if we have a low expectation of them, we will never find out what they need as an incentive, and we will fail. Past experience of failure can promote future failure, if you let yourself get programmed that way.

The government leaders in that case did not permit government resources to be used or abused, or exploited. They did the practical thinking necessary to figure out how to PREVENT the program from being just a land giveaway, and how to HELP people be productive and useful.

Compassion sometimes requires very strategic thinking. You have to be wise about human nature, but not become cynical.

Personally, I get very pissed off when anybody exploits me. My anger rises. But I don't like that state of mind very much, and I can change it. And, often, when I change it, whole other realities come into view. I can see why they did what they did. I can dislike what they did, and still feel for them--and this often greatly helps the situation, and can entirely turn it around. It's just a matter of point of view--of not letting yourself become too much of snail, all closed into your own little, egocentric world, with a hard shell against all potential friends, because of what they MIGHT do. I can't know what others will do. I really can't. Nor can anyone. And I've found, that by lifting the snail shell a bit, there is a lot more compassion and goodness in others--A LOT MORE!--than my little shell-protected self would ever have predicted.

[JeanGrey]

116. Absolutely true. It is simply absurd to entertain any idea of

punishing people for "risky" behavior. That is the facist state and one we could not possibly manage, as there are too many risky behaviors and where do we draw the line, and you are right, how do we find out? 24 hour surveillance?

[Dogtown]

81. How very arbitrary of you

I think nosey, judgemental pissants with delusions of omniscience should correct their own faults before making decisions for everyone else.

[LanternWaste]

93. Well... if that's the case

"I think nosey, judgemental pissants with delusions of omniscience should correct their own faults before making decisions for everyone else."

Well... if that's the case-- it seems as though no one would be making any decisions at all as we are every one of us a nosy, judgmental pissant with delusions of omniscience. The only differences being in degrees...

[Dogtown]

103. Clearly

And none of us are qualified.
My point is that your very personal concern is not worth opening a door for even more loss of personal freedom.

The rude tone of my initial post *did* get your attention. Please understand that your rather moralistic judgements are extremely offensive to persons with an alternate viewpoint; they are pompous and rude.
Just like my post to you was.

Realistically, it's a relatively minor sentence you wish to impose, but it's a really petty point to carp on.

Maybe you should start hunting down and taking AIDS victims to task fot their "risky behavior"..

[LanternWaste]

104. What precise moralistic judgment did I make?

What precise moralistic, pompous, rude judgment did I make?

The only point I made is that none of us are in any way any better or worse when we impose our judgments on others, of which-- we all do at one time or another...

[Dogtown]

109. You want to penalize addicts

Tobacco addiction is different only in degree from other addictions.
Would you penalize alcoholics by imposing different universal health care coverage to them?
How about METH ADDICTS????
Should we leave them in the gutter? For surely, a tweaker that has hit bottom probably isn't current in his insurance payments.


If you want to penalize someone for their choice of behavior, you have to deal with a lot of variables.

Which behaviors get penalized?
Do they all pay the same penalty, or how do you decide how much for each offense?
What if "A" smokes, & drinks?
What if "A" has sex with a member of the same gender?
That may or may not matter to you, but there are other judgemental souls out there who would swear that it affects their health costs. (not to mention sending "A" to Aich-EEH-double Hockey Sticks).

Universal health care means that my health is as precious as yours, and you don't get to exclude me, or charge me differently, or discriminate against me for any reason.



The REAL reason for this attitude is to alter someone else's behavior.

[LanternWaste]

112. Where in the blazes did I say any of that?

Where in the blazes did I say any of that? The closest I've come on this thread is to state that my smoking addiction was my choice...

Is this reading incomprehension day, or are there simply a lot of lazy posters who don't look at who posts what...?


On Edit: Dude, please-- put the bong and the game controllers away for a few minutes and pay attention to who posts what, mm-kay?

[mrreowwr_kittty]

101. Like driving a car? Having a baby? Playing a sport?

Why single out smokers?

[JeanGrey]

115. You don't see the problem. Give us the list of things that are

"voluntary" non healthy behavior. And don't leave anything out.

[Rhiannon12866]

7. When I worked for the company that they bought, I was a regular at the "perfect attendance lunch,"

held yearly for those who had perfect attendance throughout the year. I was there for nine years. We used to ask how many of us were smokers, and we numbered around half, including our first-ever retiree, who had smoked for 50 years. It's the conservatives who want to make lifestyle choices for others, not liberals. K&R. :-)

[TechBear_Seattle]

68. This is not about making lifestyle choices for others

This is about holding those who engage in provenly unhealthy practices responsible for their actions. No one is saying you cannot smoke, only that you take responsibility for the likely consequences of smoking.

[Dogtown]

82. TechBear

Have you ever ridden a mortorcycle?

[TechBear_Seattle]

87. As a passenger, yes. As a driver, no.

And your point is...? :hi:

[Dogtown]

102. seat belts

Your behavior could, statistically, have placed a drain on health care resources.

Where do we place limits on what behaviors are to be punished?

Should we merely judge the behavior of smokers?
Or any tobacco use?
And how about those goddam pot smokers?

Child birth.
Dangerous after 40. Want their tubes tied?



We're already over codified, overcharged, and over incarcerated. Can we restore some of the freedoms that have been stolen instead of inventing new restrictions?

[JeanGrey]

149. Why, that can't be!! Just read up and they'll tell you that little

table assures us you guys are always sicker and will always get sick.

[Warpy]

8. The whole trick is to expand the pool to spread the risk

One guy who smokes will not use up more of the plan's money than another guys who's a nonsmoker with a genetic predispostion to early heart attack or specific cancers. Get it?

We all present risks. Penalizing one risk is stupid. Allowing one risk factor to be penalized opens the whole thing up for incredible abuse as people's lives are invaded to discover all the different possible risks they present and can be penalized for.'

What you're assuming is that the plan has to make a profit. This simply isn't so. In rational countries around the world, health care insurance is strictly non profit and pay as you go for everyone.

Have whatever rotten things hiding in your DNA you want. I think we should cover illness equally, no matter what the cause is.

[sybylla]

12. Piss poor analogy

I can't do anything about my genetics, but I certainly can choose to smoke or not. No one should have to pay for my health care costs associated with my smoking.

I agree - we should cover illness equally - except for those who CHOOSE to be unhealthy.

[Warpy]

13. Smoking doesn't cause illness quite as much as it

speeds genetically predetermined illnesses along.

I saw nonsmokers with heart disease, but they were generally about 15 years older on average than smokers.

Because of the extremely addictive nature of nicotine, you can't exactly say people smoke voluntarily. They continue to smoke because trying to stop is extremely distressing.

Again, you're heading into very dangerous territory here. Just how intrusive do you want employers to be in the name of for profit health insurance?

Wouldn't it be better to have a system that focused on care instead of profits?

[gorfle]

35. So....

speeds genetically predetermined illnesses along.

I saw nonsmokers with heart disease, but they were generally about 15 years older on average than smokers.

Even if we buy your assertion, which I don't, this still means that smokers are starting to rack up higher medical bills 15 years before their non-smoking counterparts.

Because of the extremely addictive nature of nicotine, you can't exactly say people smoke voluntarily. They continue to smoke because trying to stop is extremely distressing.

And yet the decision to start smoking is completely voluntary, and anyone but a complete idiot would not be aware of the risks for at least the last 30 years. They were telling us smoking was bad for us back when I was in grade school that long ago.

Again, you're heading into very dangerous territory here. Just how intrusive do you want employers to be in the name of for profit health insurance?

I don't really care about the insurance company's profits - they are going to get theirs no matter what. What concerns me is how much more it costs me to subsidize the risky behavior of others. If not smoking saves me an extra $100 a year, that's enough money to get my attention.

[Warpy]

38. I'll ignore your strawman

and ask you what behaviors you're going to charge a premium for. Frequent flying? Long commutes? Skiing? Nightclubbing every weekend?

Trust me, the list goes on and on and on and on.

Just how much intrusion are you going to accept into YOUR life in your zeal to make sure you don't pay for health care for people you don't approve of?

[gorfle]

42. Any voluntary behavior

and ask you what behaviors you're going to charge a premium for. Frequent flying? Long commutes? Skiing? Nightclubbing every weekend?

Trust me, the list goes on and on and on and on.

Just how much intrusion are you going to accept into YOUR life in your zeal to make sure you don't pay for health care for people you don't approve of?

It's not the people I don't approve of, it's their voluntary behavior that costs me money that I don't approve of.

I'm all for free national health care for all. This does not mean that I can trash my body and not sweat it because everyone else will pay for my carelessness. That is selfish!

So I'm for charging a premium for any provable risky voluntary behavior that is scientifically and statistically proven to result in higher health care costs, and smoking surely fits that bill.

I already pay life and auto insurance rates based on my weight, the length of my commute, dangerous hobbies (like skiing) and alcohol consumption, because these behaviors have been demonstrated to make me statistically more likely to make an insurance claim. I don't have a problem with that. In fact I'd feel guilty not paying a premium because I'd be asking other people to take up the slack for my personal choices of behavior.

[reggie the dog]

56. Good point

"I'm all for free national health care for all. This does not mean that I can trash my body and not sweat it because everyone else will pay for my carelessness. That is selfish!"

True, but nearly EVERYONE has some risk evelvating behaviours. We are nearly all selfish in our own ways. That is why I think that we should all just have nationalized health insurance, as you do, and that eventually people will realize that the benefits of being fit are more than just personal, they are societal. Under national health insurance we pay based on our econmic level not our risk level. Of course tobacco and alcohol are taxed and thoses taxes go into the health system but I am against that because I do not want to pay a cake tax or a hamburger tax.

[gorfle]

88. Well I could go with that.

True, but nearly EVERYONE has some risk evelvating behaviours. We are nearly all selfish in our own ways. That is why I think that we should all just have nationalized health insurance, as you do, and that eventually people will realize that the benefits of being fit are more than just personal, they are societal. Under national health insurance we pay based on our econmic level not our risk level. Of course tobacco and alcohol are taxed and thoses taxes go into the health system but I am against that because I do not want to pay a cake tax or a hamburger tax

I live in the USA, so I do not have nationalized health insurance. We should though, or better yet, national health care. I'm hopeful the Democrats will work for this once we win the elction.

I would not have a problem having equal insurance coverage for all, with no smokers' penalty, provided that the taxes from tobacco sales go into the health insurance/care system.

Either way, they pay for their increased risk.

[reggie the dog]

108. I can agree to this

"I would not have a problem having equal insurance coverage for all, with no smokers' penalty, provided that the taxes from tobacco sales go into the health insurance/care system."

This works fine for me. I think we see eye to eye.

[tavalon]

60. You'll be happy to know that I quit skiing when I blew out my mediocollateral ligament

Now, since I don't exercise as vigorously, I might end up with CHD a bit early. You don't mind, do you?

Slippery slope my friend, slippery slope.


Do you ever drink alcohol, do you smoke pot, do you engage in unprotected sex, do you watch more than an hour of TV a week, do you possibly put your carpal tunnels at risk typing slippery slope arguments on DU? And so on. The list could be a mile long and it's all bad for you, in excess. I don't smoke - my mother died when I was eight and she smoked and died of asthma. I made the connection but I don't have the holier than thou issue because we all have our things that aren't the healthiest - every last one of us.

[gorfle]

89. Answers.

Do you ever drink alcohol

Hardly ever. I might have one drink every 6 months.

do you smoke pot

No. I have never used, nor even seen, any illegal drug.

do you engage in unprotected sex

No, I am married. But I never had uprotected sex when I was single.

do you watch more than an hour of TV a week

No, I hardly ever watch TV.

do you possibly put your carpal tunnels at risk typing

Possibly, but I'd bet my risk level is nowhere near that of a smoker.

I made the connection but I don't have the holier than thou issue because we all have our things that aren't the healthiest - every last one of us.

Yes, we all have "our things", but some of us didn't do it to ourselves. We may not be able to catch all voluntarily risky behavior and penalize accordingly, but smoking is a no-brainer. Easily detectable, statistically verifiable health risk, completely voluntary undertaking.

[tavalon]

118. So you pick that one thing

and think that you aren't advocating a slippery slope? You would be massively mistaken. Smoking as a health defeating behavior does not stand in a vacuum.

[gorfle]

120. Correct.

It's not a very slippery slope. Most health issues are far far away from self-poisoning.

[tavalon]

123. Really?

You would be wrong on that but live in your little bubble if you wish.

[reggie the dog]

55. Some of what you say is BS

"they are going to get theirs no matter what."

No, nationalize health isurance, make it non for profit and you will reduce costs and premiums. Do you VOULANTARITY choose to live in a city where smog and gun violence puts you at risk? It is a choice right, it has nothing to do with it being easier to find work in a city.

[JeanGrey]

152. I am sure you realize that you "subsidize" many risky behaviors

through your tax money, no?

[MindPilot]

16. And exactly who would decide what is healthy and what is not?

What if I'm a healthy guy who jogs everyday and bikes to work. But by age 48, that jogging and and biking has wrecked my knees and I now need expensive surgery or a wheelchair.

"Sorry, you chose to damage your knees; you can buy your own wheelchair."

That's why we need universal health CARE not insurance; it's an all-or-nothing deal.

[reggie the dog]

57. biking bad on the knees?

Fill me in please, I do not job but I bike, I am 29, what do my knees have in store for me?

[bean fidhleir]

117. "what do my knees have in store for me?"

Depending on how you bike, a lifetime of enjoyment.

I'm a utility cyclist. I ride everywhere I can (I've bought 5 gals of gas in the last 6 months). I'm pushing 68. My knees have a little arthritis, but are otherwise fine, and I see no reason why they won't be good for another 20 or 30.

Of course, if you ride for some reason other than to get from A to B and back again, Goddess knows what what that might do to you. I see a lot of people wearing fancy clothes and riding fancy bikes. They act like they're in the Tour de France, and I'm sure their knees are being given a beating in the service of their ego trips.

But if you're just a cyclist....

[reggie the dog]

121. my average bike ride

is in the hour and a half range, but often times that is 45 min. one way, hang out with friends, and 45 min back. Sometimes I do longer 2 to 3 hour rides in the hills pushing 40 km in the hills or 60 in the valleys. Every once in a while (once a month or so) I do I 1300 foot climb in 5 miles. I push myself to get up without stopping and my best time is 37 minutes. Once I get to the top I coast down. I worked my way up to this by doing first valley training to get my heart and lungs up to speed, then hill/mountain riding to build up my legs. I average around 100 kilometers a week or about 60 miles. Do you think I classify as one of the folks beating up their knees? Seeing as you are 39 years older than me and bike a lot I would like to know your opinion. I have a mid range bike and no fancy clothing but it is true that I push myself for my ego on my 1300 foot climb but it is only my inner ego, no competition with others, just the satisfaction of looking down the valley from the top of the mountain and knowing that I just climbed that non stop. As I stated that took me 4 years of training to do that but my heart and lungs, as well as my legs are in better shape than they have ever been. I just do not know about my knees and do not want to blow them out young. Do you think I push it too much?

[bean fidhleir]

125. Your ordinary riding sounds okay to me

But your hill climb I'm not sure about. You're riding at about 10mph -which is a decent average speed even over ordinary upsandowns- and at the same time doing the equivalent of lifting yourself to the top of the Empire State Building. That feels like a lot to me, doesn't it to you? In cycling you don't have the shock to the joints that come from jogging/running, and a 3 degree grade isn't huge, but five miles worth at the speed you go will still definitely take it out of you and your knee cartilage. Are you doing the whole thing on your middle chainring?

[reggie the dog]

133. I have 3 big gears and 8 small ones

I am usually in the easiest big gear and the third from easiest to 5th from easiest small one. Like I said I do that climb at about 9 km to 18 km per hour depending on the grade. Like I said this is strenuous but I only do it once a month or so. Most of the grade is around I think about 10 percent or so but some parts climb 15 to 20 percent (the 9 km per hour parts) other parts are around 3 to 5 pecent grade. I do push myself a little but my legs are in good shape and I do not get any pain or ache in my knees. Do you think the ache will come later?

[bean fidhleir]

135. "Do you think the ache will come later?"

That would be my guess, yes. But if you're using the smallest of your chainrings (front gears) and getting your speed from a high cadence, that's probably easier on your knees than your middle chainwheel and a 60-beat cadence.

But the bottom line is still that once a month or so you're lifting yourself to the top of the Empire State Bldg by repeatedly bending your knees under pressure, and that's got to be slowly doing a number on your knee cartilage. I have no idea how long it'll take you to wear through your cartilage, but most people start getting twinges in their 50s without ever done any jogging or even cycling.

On the other hand, if you monitor your knees and start being less tough on them when they do start complaining, you could very well escape wrecking them and only need a daily hit of ibuprofen to keep going. Of course, backing off is a little like dieting - it takes a lot of willpower to stop doing what you've enjoyed doing for 20-30 years.

On the third hand :) you could suddenly prang one or more knees next week by giving it/them a bad twist under pressure while trying to avoid hitting or recover after hitting something nasty.

[reggie the dog]

141. that is why I limit

the big climb to once a month. It is tempting to do it though because I live in a valley and the tallest mountain, the one I go up, starts just behind my condo, and the view is beautiful, you see the Alps to the north, the sea to the southeast and grape fields to the southwest. When I lived in Illinois for 24 years I had nothing like that.

[bean fidhleir]

142. If it's mostly the view you're after (Illinois is pretty flat, for sure)

you could always decide that an hour or even seventy-five minutes for the uphill ride is a pretty good tradeoff for still having usable knees in your fifties. :)

[LanternWaste]

94. And as a smoker, I fully agree.

And as a smoker, I fully agree.

The consequences are mine and mine alone. It was a choice I'd made, and a choice I continue to make. There is no absolute Good Thing that comes from smoking, yet a whole host of Bad Things.

There is no positive cost benefit ratio in my habit, however there are so many costs-- direct and indirect, hidden and obvious associated with it.

[JeanGrey]

151. What you don't get is that about 100% of the people out there

make choices that are unhealthy. Smoking is no worse than being fat, or a couch potato, or indulging in any number of risky behaviors. If you advocate this nonsense you are asking for 1984. It isn't going to work unless it covers everyone because we ALL SIN and do risky, stupid things that cause trouble. If we all ate, exercised and or lived the right way we'd probably ALL live twenty years longer - where does that fit into cost?

Sure we can help things about "genetics". When you say we can't help it, well then by god make sure genetic testing is done on all of those people and if they have any flaws, off to the state sponsored sterilization unit or else forfeit your job and healthcare. See where this leads?

[JeanGrey]

28. Bravo.

We all present risks. Penalizing one risk is stupid. Allowing one risk factor to be penalized opens the whole thing up for incredible abuse as people's lives are invaded to discover all the different possible risks they present and can be penalized for.'

I don't think I've ever heard it put better. Having said that, I'm a non smoker and I'm glad that laws are being enacted to protect children from smokers. But EVERYONE has risks. The fastest growing group of lung cancer patients are never smokers or non smokers.

[Warpy]

36. I'm delighted that somebody managed to get the point

so thank you very much for that response.

Eliminating the profit motive will likely eliminate the abuse. Focusing on delivering care rather than squeezing all patients and providers to death by trying to limit risk and curtail costs is what we need to do.

We deserve no less. Don't let them play this cost cutting game. The problem with our health care system is not as much the high cost of generating profit, it's the unconscionable cost of generating profit at the expense of people's lives.

[JeanGrey]

96. I agree. :-)

[gorfle]

39. No one denies we all have risks...

We all present risks. Penalizing one risk is stupid. Allowing one risk factor to be penalized opens the whole thing up for incredible abuse as people's lives are invaded to discover all the different possible risks they present and can be penalized for.

Yes, we all present risks. But there is a difference between random risks spread across a population and people who voluntarily enhance their risks by smoking.

I'm all for equality in health care coverage for people who are roughly equal in risk level, as most non-smokers are. I'm not for subsidizing the health care for people who voluntarily set out to ruin it.

[NashVegas]

44. Risk Is Risk. Period. It Doesn't Matter If It's Voluntary or Not

Everyone does something that places them at risk. For most people, all you have to do is stick around long enough.

How about people who live near toxic dumps? They are more at risk for lung and a host of cancers than someone who lives in a spot that's never held waste. Should they have to pay an extra $100 a month for every month they don't move to a historically pristine location?

[gorfle]

50. We'll have to agree to disagree.

Everyone does something that places them at risk. For most people, all you have to do is stick around long enough.

We will have to just agree to disagree.

I'm not saying there are degrees of risk that we all share.

I still hold that smoking in particular is a risk that I'm not willing to subsidize.

[JeanGrey]

114. Well I'm not willing to subsidize a lot of things but the fact is,

I'll have to, and so will you! Nothing else is workable.

[JeanGrey]

153. Well, let's look at your life through a microscope first, shall we?

I'm sure I can find many things "I'm not willing to subsidize".

The facts simply are, you won't have a choice.

[JeanGrey]

97. That is nonsense. Only one in 7 smokers will develop lung

cancer. One in seven mcdonald's eaters will probably develop heart disease. See how that works? Wht about gay men? Aren't they more "predisposed" and at "risk" for HIV? Should we charge them more? You can't single out a group, period.

[Warpy]

106. All long term smokers will develop some level

of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Most long term smokers will have associated heart disease. They will also die younger, on average, than non smokers, meaning they'll have less time on earth needing expensive medicine. It all averages out, which is another reason that smokers shouldn't be singled out as a special risk group deserving of more financial punishment than their addiction is already providing.

Moralists will always howl about voluntary behavior in others costing them money or peace of mind or something. However, we are all perambulating risk packages when it comes to health insurance. Unless we manage to kill ourselves off while we are young and healthy, requiring only a ride in a coroner's van as health care, we represent avoidable risk to for profit insurers, risk to their profits, and they will do anything to weed us out and deny us coverage just before we need it.

The problem is for profit health insurance. The solution doesn't lie in singling out any group for discrimination. The solution lies in removing profit as a motive in health care.

[JeanGrey]

113. Nonsense they will not. EVERYONE in my family smoked

except me. My grandmother lived to be 104 and she had nine brothers and sisters and when she was 98 they were ALL living. She took up pipe smoking the last five years "for her health". No one else in my family has any lung disease. And I suppose you think they are the only ones? Great grandma: 104. Grandma: 99 Mother: 97 There also isn't any type of cancer in my family anywhere except me. I inherited a disease from my natural father that caused me to get cancer. Otherwise I would not have.

Most of them die of old age, unless they get offed in a car wreck or bar fight.

The statistics are simply there. Cruise around to some of the lung sites and see how many non smokers and never smokers are getting lung cancer.

Again, you CANNOT single out a single behavior. It simply will not wash.

[Warpy]

119. Lung disease would have shown up in pumonary function tests

and have affected quality of life but not necessarily longevity. Also you are confusing chronic obstructive pulmonary disease with cancer. They are very different. Please educate yourself on them.

And if you'd read my whole post, you'd see that I didn't separate a single behavior.

[JeanGrey]

137. Hon, you are the one who is confused. None of them had any

disease, do you get it? No COPD, no emphzema, no heart disease. You don't live to be 100 with these diseases! As it said YOU need to check out neversmokers.com and other sites about the alarming number of people getting lung cancer who do NOT smoke.

[JeanGrey]

138. One more: You don't live to be 100 with COPD.

[Warpy]

139. My mother lived to 94 with it

25 years after the diagnosis caused her to stop smoking--too late.

It was a terrible way to go.

[JeanGrey]

145. Oh wow she died at 94! That smoking certainly shortened her

life.....................

[Warpy]

147. Have you ever seen anyone with COPD?

My mother spent 25 years fighting for every breath she took. She spent 25 years being able to walk fewer and fewer steps before having to stop and gasp for breath. She spent the last 15 years with a heart so badly damaged by pulmonary disease that her feet looked like water balloons if she'd skipped her diruetic because she needed to go to the grocery or doctor.

It was a miserable way to live and meticulous health care ensured she got as much of it as possible. It was painful to watch her try to function at all, painful to watch her lips turn blue after she walked from the bedroom to the living room, even with stops on the way to gasp for air.

Thanks for a heartless and disingenuous post that completely missed the point of the posts you were replying to.

[JeanGrey]

148. No, I have never known anyone who had to fight for every breath

they took live for twenty five years. And no, I haven't seen much COPD because as I told you no one in my family had any breathing problems that you keep ignoring.

[reggie the dog]

54. smog

smog is putting non smokers into higher risk groups like smokers. Having said that I am proud to pay taxes for my national health insurance here in France. Smoke if you want to, hell smoke crack if you want to and I will still happily pay for your health care costs.

[gorfle]

92. I cannot subscribe to that.

Smoke if you want to, hell smoke crack if you want to and I will still happily pay for your health care costs.

That is just insane.

The people you describe are willfully and deliberately destroying their health and placing a burden on everyone else because of it.

Just where do you draw the line on people presuming on your good will?

[reggie the dog]

107. so you will not pay

for health care for alcoholics or drug addicts, which would include psychological counseling and drug rehab if they wanted it? I pay for social services because I think health care is a RIGHT not a privilege. I draw the line nowhere on people presuming on my good will because I could get hit by a car and crippled while out on my bike or walking or driving around town. I could get hurt in a mudslide or a tornado or have a tree branch fall out of a tree on my head. Perhaps one of my kids will be handicap, blind, or deaf. Perhaps I will go blind or deaf. Perhaps my kids will get themselves addicted to hard drugs, especially if we move back to the USA and we cannot afford a psychologist if they get depressed and they treat themselves. How many people who are crack or heroin addicts had an easy life? How many have mental issues such as depression or other mental illnesses which go untreated? So yes, you can give yourself aids shooting heroin and I will still proudly pay taxes to a social system which makes sure our health care is a right, paid for by the collective, and not a privilege for those who have enough money to pay for insurance.

[gorfle]

111. I agree, health care should be a right.

I agree - health care should be a right to people of all civilized nations, but people should not be allowed to abuse that right.

I am torn on the issue of treating drug users. One one hand, they have made a voluntary choice to engage in known dangerous behavior and thus deserve whatever fallout comes from that. On the other hand it may be more cost effective to treat them than to put up with the crime and homelessness that can come with untreated drug abuse.

Mostly I am of the opinion that people who take their most precious possession - their own health - and squander it foolishly, willfully, and purposefully by poisoning themselves are deserving of precious little public welfare.

I could get hit by a car and crippled while out on my bike or walking or driving around town.

Through no fault of your own.

I could get hurt in a mudslide or a tornado or have a tree branch fall out of a tree on my head.

Through no fault of your own.

Perhaps one of my kids will be handicap, blind, or deaf.

Through no fault of their own.

Perhaps I will go blind or deaf.

Through no fault of your own.

Perhaps my kids will get themselves addicted to hard drugs,

Correction: Perhaps your kids will make the personal decision to poison themselves, knowing full well the consequences in advance.

I have a hard time mustering sympathy for such people and a harder time expecting society to foot the bill to help them.

Accidents, even accidents resulting from somewhat risky behavior, are still accidents. Diseases that strike you down because of random chance or something you were born with are things you have no control over.

These sorts of things in no way compare to drug use and abuse. If you willfully poison yourself knowing full well what the consequences are going to be don't come crying to me when the consequences play out.

[reggie the dog]

122. Lest see where we agree and disagree

Agree
a. health care as a right

the important aspect is agreed upon.

Disagree

a. willful risk taking should be/ should not be punished by increased cost.

me "I could get hit by a car and crippled while out on my bike or walking or driving around town".

you "Through no fault of your own."

Just today, because of my own negligence, I rode out in front of a car. Luckily for me, when I freaked out and could not find my brakes the driver of the car was going slowly and managed to stop about 2 feet from me. (oddly enough it was one of the grad students I teach an English language opition to at the university). I did not choose to do this, I was negligent, but it was nearly an accident which would have been my fault. In your eyes should I pay a higher premium because I bike ride and run the risk of being negligent?


me "Perhaps my kids will get themselves addicted to hard drugs"

you "Correction: Perhaps your kids will make the personal decision to poison themselves, knowing full well the consequences in advance."

I think you misunderstood me. When I said get themselves addicted to hard drugs I meant "make the personal decision to poison themselves". Hence the GET THEMSELVES addicted to instead of BECOME ADDICTED to. At any rate I also talked about how depressed or mentally ill people may choose to use hard drugs to try to escape from their mental illness. Not a wise choice mind you, but in the American context it is much cheaper to get 10 dollars of heroin and feel better for the afternoon than it is to pay for repeated visits to the psycologist and to pay for prescription meds. It is also "easier" mentally because the drugs do not ask the questions a psycologist may ask and you are not forced to do an introspection. Again this introspection with a psycologist would be the wisest choice, but depressed people often make self destructive choices as a part of their depression. Also mentally ill people often addict themselves to drugs or alcohol in an attempt to escape their own maddness. Perhaps we disagree with the following idea. Most hard drug addicts are fleeing some kind of pre existing mental/economic/physical hardship which clouds their judgement when they make the choice to use. This makes me think of the country music song with the refrain "but for the grace of God go I, I must have been born a lucky guy" (just a note I do not believe in God, I just have that song in my mind now).
From what I gather you are not depressed, or if you were you dealt with it in the conventional go to the psycologist and get treated way. Do you hold out the possibility that other people can be
a. less mentally capable than you
b. very depressed, suicidal, and self destructive, unlike you or I (at least since I was 16)
c. unable to pay for correct treatment for mental illness
d. more foolish than you
e. were born far more unluckily than you

Like you say you argee with national health care so you would agree to pay taxes for a system which would help these folks, so I can buy your moral argument that "what you reap is what you sow" but having experienced depression first hand for 2 years (hopefully you never have) I can say that depressed people can make what "normal" people would consider pretty stupid choices. I had friends whose families were uninsured and too poor to pay for visits to the psycologist so they made a choice, suicide or heroin, they chose heroin, and none of us could talk them out of it. The ability of heroin to make people falsely feel warm, happy, and to forget their problems for a couple of hours was too great for them. After all this false happiness was often the only happiness they had felt for months or years.

I can understand your point concerning my current 100% recreational weekend hash use, or people that use cocaine or x on the weekends and get themselves hooked, but I think most hard core addicts never got into drugs for fun, then ran to them to escape (albeit falsely) dispair, saddness, and other ailments.

What is your take on this?
c.

[gorfle]

124. Replies.

Just today, because of my own negligence, I rode out in front of a car. Luckily for me, when I freaked out and could not find my brakes the driver of the car was going slowly and managed to stop about 2 feet from me. (oddly enough it was one of the grad students I teach an English language opition to at the university). I did not choose to do this, I was negligent, but it was nearly an accident which would have been my fault. In your eyes should I pay a higher premium because I bike ride and run the risk of being negligent?

Just because you ride a bike it does not necessarily follow that you are at risk for being negligent.

Further, bike riding is a normal, relatively low-risk activity that you are probably no more at risk of injury from than every other person.

That said, if there is statistical data that shows that bicycle riders are at risk of greater injury, then sure, why not charge them accordingly? The rate I pay for automobile insurance is directly tied to the kind of car I drive. Why not other kinds of vehicles?


I think you misunderstood me. When I said get themselves addicted to hard drugs I meant "make the personal decision to poison themselves". Hence the GET THEMSELVES addicted to instead of BECOME ADDICTED to.

Yes, but my point here was that all your other examples were examples of injuries happening through no fault of the person injured. This is vastly different from deciding one day to poison oneself.

At any rate I also talked about how depressed or mentally ill...

And I ignored all of that because I'm not going to wander off down a side-track about mental health issues in the United States.

We aren't talking about mentally ill people seeking self-medication. We are talking about people who willfully poison themselves, specifically with cigarettes. As far as drug use goes, I'm sure of all the people who choose to poison themselves some few do it out of desperation or mental illness, and those people have my sympathy. I'm also sure that the vast majority are just plain stupid, and those people have none of my sympathy.

A good friend of mine's son died on his 18th birthday. He ended up at a friend's house where someone living there was dying of cancer. His son thought it would be fun to try the on-demand pain medication (heroin?) He went to sleep and never woke up. This was not a case of some mentally ill person desperately seeking medication. This was not a case of some depressed individual looking for something to make himself feel better.

This was a case of terminal stupidity.

[reggie the dog]

132. althought it is difficult

I consider myself lucky to be smart, most of the time I am smart anyway, but I have sympathy for stupid people. I would rather they would check their own stupidity mind you.

[TechBear_Seattle]

69. You are comparing apples and celery

Not even apples and oranges, as both of those are at least fruits.

There is a fundamental difference between carrying a genetic disposition that might cause major health problems, and engaging in a purely voluntary activity that not only is proven to cause major health problems but has been show to cause major health problems in other persons near the activity.

[gorfle]

95. Hear Hear! n/t

.

[JeanGrey]

150. Exactly.

[MindPilot]

9. So what if you are one of those healthy lifestyle people

who still drops dead from a heart attack at 45? Does the insurance company bill your estate for your failure to fall within the actuarial mean?

Or on the other end of the spectrum, if you happen to be one of the smokers who live well into their 80's, do you get a refund of your unused premiums?

If you are going to require smokers to pay more, then so should fat people, women, skiers, motorcycle riders, clumsy people, hypochondriacs, sunbathers, etc.

[gorfle]

40. And in fact they do.

who still drops dead from a heart attack at 45? Does the insurance company bill your estate for your failure to fall within the actuarial mean?

Or on the other end of the spectrum, if you happen to be one of the smokers who live well into their 80's, do you get a refund of your unused premiums?

Health care premiums are set up based on statistical averages. While you do have the occasional fitness junkie who dies at 45, and you do have the occasional smoker who lives to be 100, statistically it has been demonstrated that this is not the case. Insurance companies can handle the flukes because they are flukes.

If you are going to require smokers to pay more, then so should fat people, women, skiers, motorcycle riders, clumsy people, hypochondriacs, sunbathers, etc.

And in fact, fat people do pay more, at least I pay more for my life insurance because of my weight. If I engaged in any risky hobbies it would also be higher. It would not surprise me if skiing and motorcycle riding were qualifies for higher rates.

It would not surprise me at all to find that fat people will start having to pay a larger share of insurance premiums due to the health problems obesity brings.

[TechBear_Seattle]

71. The field of statistical analysis is called actuarial analysis

I was a math major in college, and almost took the exams to become a licensed actuary. It is an interesting field.

[TechBear_Seattle]

70. Difference between "might" and "very likely will"

Smoking has been proven time and again to cause a host of major health problems, not only in the smoker but in non-smokers subjected to "normal" concentrations of second-hand smoke.

As for your suggestion, many insurance companies do exactly that and have been for decades. The only difference is that soaring costs are forcing group policy managers to do the same.

[reggie the dog]

10. You are on the left

but you do not think that we should all pay for each others health care costs?

Do you live in a city where there is smog? In your logic contry folks should not pay for your health insurance, so I guess you would not like national health insurance like we have in France.

What about non smokers who are overweight????
I smoke weed on the weekends but do one to two hours of biking four days a week. Are you more healthy than me?

[Zhade]

32. Your weekend and weekday choices are not incompatible - they're both healthy.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with smoking herb.

[reggie the dog]

52. It is not too bad

but if you look at the tar in your pipe you realize that the tar goes into your lungs and must be processed out. This does not give me vitamins. Having said that the quantity of tar for me is much less than that of a daily tobacco user so I am pretty confident that my risk of cancer is not elevated by smoking some grass. One of these days I will buy a vaporizer and at that point all the tar will be cut out.Plus for insurance purposes smoking grass often times means you cannot get health or life insurance in the USA, unless of course the insurance companies do not know about it.

[TechBear_Seattle]

74. Again, insurers have been taking these factors into consideration for decades

An individual who lives in Los Angeles will pay higher insurance premiums than someone who lives in a healthier, safer location. A person who is overweight or has a history of weight related medical treatments (diabetes, sleep apnia, high blood pressure, etc.) will pay higher premiums than someone who is healthier. This is the way it has been for decades.

The ONLY innovation is that group policy managers have become less willing to pass those additional costs on to everyone in the group. The soaring costs of health insurance have made the "averaged cost" untenable for many employers; as a result, they are requiring those who engage in voluntary habits of proven health risk to pony up their fair share of the increased costs.

[reggie the dog]

105. My question to you is

Do you support this private system which makes certain people pay more than others?

[TechBear_Seattle]

129. Do you believe that an overweight race car driver who smokes and has T2 diabetes...

should pay the same as a a healthy weight office worker who jogs regularly and has never smoked?

Again, the whole point of insurance is risk management. Even under a universal healthcare system, I would expect -- I would demand -- that there be a disincentive for voluntary unhealthy behaviors commensurate with the risks involved in that behavior, or at least an incentive for those who do not engage in voluntary unhealthy behaviors.

How about we change the framing of the OP's issue? The employee contribution to pay for the company sponsored health insurance program has gone up $100 a month accross the board. As an incentive to healthy behaviors, those who participate in the company's smoking cessation program get a $50 a month discount. Those who do not smoke, either because they successfully completed the program or because they have never smoked while an employee, get a $100 discount. This is the exact same thing, but framed differently. Does it make sense now?

[LoveMyCali]

11. I work for the same company

and my rates never changed since I'm a non-smoker so I'm not actually covering the costs for the smokers since I pay the same whether the smokers pay more or not, and although I see your point about high-risk behaviors, where do we draw the line? I drive fast sometimes, should I pay more?

[Rhiannon12866]

15. How about those of us who drive too slow and get lost a lot? LOL. ;)

I once got stopped for driving too slow, had my puppy in the car, but never for driving too fast...:crazy:

[LoveMyCali]

19. I'm lost all the time

which is one of the reasons why I have to drive fast ... to make up for the half hour I was driving in the totally wrong direction. :D

[Rhiannon12866]

34. And that's the reason that I drive slow, so I don't get so hopelessly lost that I can't backtrack...

:rofl:

[merwin]

14. So should people who drink alcohol have a $100 extra charge as well?

How about people who are overweight? Tack on $100 extra for them too.

Eat too much greasy food? $100 extra for the risk!

[mrreowwr_kittty]

25. First, why do you automatically assume non-smokers are healthier?

Second, do you agree that other high-risk behaviors should be penalized with an added fee? How about for people who play contact sports, or drink, or eat a lot of onion rings? What if your family has a history of diabetes, or suicide? Should you pay a fee for that? This kind of stuff is a slippery slope toward an Orwellian nightmare of fascism.

[TechBear_Seattle]

76. Actuarial science says so, that's why

Actuarial science is a field of statistical analysis developped in the 17th century and used by insurance companies to find and predict patterns of health and longevity.

The extra fee is not a penalty; it is a reasonable additional cost for engaging in a voluntary behavior with proven major health risks. Insurance companies have been charging higher premiums to smokers for decades, and to contact athletes and to people with chronic illnesses caused or aggrevated by being overweight. Do you insist that health insurance companies not assess the likelihood of having to make high payouts when determining premiums? Why should those in a group policy not be subject to the same higher premium?

[mrreowwr_kittty]

100. Making individuals pay higher premiums for any of those things

Defeats the whole point of group insurance, which is intended to pool the risks of several individuals.

And again, if higher premiums are going to be charged for extra risk, why single out smokers? How about a higher premium for women of childbearing age too? After all, childbirth is expensive and dangerous. And voluntary.

[TechBear_Seattle]

130. What is the difference between employees in group, and all subscribers to a plan?

If the insurance companies individually evaluate all 500,000 subscribers to their Health Coverage Plus plan and sets individual premiums based on those evaluations, doesn't it make sense for an insurance manager to do the same for the 5,000 people who subcribe to XYZ Corp.'s employee plan?

The only difference is that XYZ's plan manager is not assessing employee contributions to the plan based on individual assesment, but on evidence of one voluntary habit with high health risk. The main benefit of being in an employee sponsored plan is still there: much lower cost to the plan subscriber. Even a $100 a month smoking surcharge is minimal; the same person, paying for his own health insurance, would likely pay $500 to $600 a month because, among other things, he is a smoker.

[nuxvomica]

134. Yet it doesn't appear to do so consistently

I've seen three wildly different estimates of the annual extra cost of a smoker to his employer: $5,700, $2,500 and $753. If we go by that last figure, $100 per month is unreasonable. To me, the question isn't so much actuarial as cultural. Employers expect to get away with charging smokers extra because there's a cultural consensus that smoking is bad.

[DissedByBush]

27. Then I want higher premiums for those who

are overweight

don't get their preventive dental checkups

ride motorcycles

play contact sports

are female

and who are otherwise in a category with higher risk than an extremely health-conscious and risk-averse person.

[TechBear_Seattle]

77. More and more companies are doing just that

Again, insurance companies have been looking at lifestyle and current and past health when determining how much an individual should pay in premiums. In the last decade, soaring costs of insurance have forced many group policy managers to do the same.

[DissedByBush]

110. So much for spreading the risk then n/t

[TechBear_Seattle]

131. How can you spread risk when your risk pool is full of high risk?

The point of insurance is to cover costs associated with events that are reasonably unlikely to happen. Health problems in smokers are NOT reasonably unlikely to happen; they are almost certain. The only way to balance the much higher risk is for smokers to pay a much higher premium.

Premiums are set (ideally, that is) so that every person pays in x dollars for every x/y dollars the company is likely to pay out to the same person. If you are currently healthy and have habits that will likely keep you healthy, your premiums will reflect the low payout the company expects to make to you. If you are currently unhealthy and/or have habits that will likely make you unhealthy, your premiums will reflect the higher payout the company expects to make to you. That is how individual risk is pooled.

[ShaneGR]

30. Because its for the good of the company?

And where exactly does that kind of stuff stop? Can you be charged more for eating McDonalds in the morning? Drinking beer too often? Not having the right DNA? It's a group plan, and everyone pays for everyone. Suck it up.

[TechBear_Seattle]

78. Can an insurance company base individual premiums on those things?

No.

Can an insurance company base individual premiums based on whether you smoke, or work in a high-risk occupation, or have a history of chronic health problems related to being overweight? Yes, and they have been doing this since the start of the insurance business centuries ago. Where is your outrage over that?

[Zhade]

31. The real issue, which they have you fighting each other to miss: UHC would eliminate that question.

NT!

[tavalon]

61. Well spoken Zhade

Cut right through that one, didn't you?

Good work.

[Owl]

46. Absolutely agree.

[xioaping]

51. Gannet newspaper chain implemented same policy years ago

The Gannet newspaper chain (USA Today and about 100 papers across the U.S.) implemented the same policy two years ago when it said employees that smoke will pay a premium for their health insurance. It was about $100 a month on average (insurance at the company is handled on a sliding scale with employees paying different rates for their insurance based on their income so the exact amount varied). There was not much of a stink about it. Many employees quit smoking.

[TechBear_Seattle]

80. They implemented a smoking cessation program

Typically when employers add an insurance "surcharge" such as the one for smokers, they also implement programs to help employees lose the habit. Being in the program will usually reduce, even eliminate the surcharge. There was large company in the Seattle area who added such charges for smokers and those who were overweight; at the same time, they added a free smoking cessation program, free clinics on how to eat healthy and brought in physical trainers twice a week to lead free aerobics and fitness classes. Those who participated in these programs paid only half of the surcharge; once they quit smoking or dropped below the percentage of body fat threshold, the surcharge not only went away but was refunded by however much the employee paid in the previous 12 months.

After three years, overall health at the company had improved to the point where the company reduced the base premium to participate in the employee health insurance plan. By creating the surcharges and paying for the employee programs, everyone at the company ended up with lower health care costs.

(I don't remember the company, but it was a big one; I think it was Microsoft but it might have been Boeing.)

[Skittles]

154. let's add people who don't exercise

yes INDEED!

[zanne]

99. I heartily agree.

I quit smoking five years ago, but I see how tough it's getting for smokers out there. They're made to feel like pariahs because of an addiction (whick is a medical fact) and now even their careers are being threatened. Any smoker or ex-smoker knows that the effect of withdrawal after a few hours can reduce job performance. The answer is not to bully people into submission but to allow people to choose for themselves as long as nobody else is put at risk.

[guyanakoolaid]

3. Wow - somebody had the balls to swim against the flow

Because in a short time, insurance companies (and employers) will be looking all the way into a person's genetic makeup to determine their "fitness".

[dlfuller]

5. finally a win for smokers

Why don't all governments try to do without the taxes they receive from tobacco? Ha ha.

Yea, it's the first time I remember ANYTHING breaking for smokers.

(disclosure: I smoke - a lot -)

[Stinky The Clown]

17. I dont see this as a 'win for smokers' ... I see it as a win for fairness and humanity

I'm not here to debate smoking. I am an ex-smoker who now finds the smell of it incredibly off-putting. I don't miss it at all.

But that's beside the point. We are a social animal and we owe our fellow man our love and support. That means we share.

And risk is something we should be sharing. As we often do success.

edit: typo in title

[Rhiannon12866]

18. Very well stated. Thank you.

My friend who was new to politics used to ask me if we were liberals or conservatives *sigh*, was trying to get it straight. I finally told him that one way to tell the difference is that the conservatives are the ones who want to tell everyone else what to do. We do owe our fellow citizens equality, humanity and fairness, above all. :-)

[LoveMyCali]

20. Well put

I'm actually quite anti-smoking since my mother died from emphysema and the entire family went through hell but I totally agree that it's a fairness issue not a should they or should they not smoke issue.

[FloridaJudy]

21. Actually, over a lifetime smokers cost *less*

To take care of medically than non-smokers. They die earlier of cheaper diseases.

I'm not promoting smoking, and I think it's criminal that most insurance companies won't cover the cost of drugs/programs to help smokers quit, but the financial argument is a not a valid one. At least for society as a whole. Medical insurance companies love it, of course, because the medical costs to the elderly are more likely to be covered by Medicare, whereas middle aged people who die are on the insurance companies' dime.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

26. I agree.

Promoting healthy behavior should be about what is a social good, and not about profit margins or "efficiency". If providing all of citizens with adequate medical care, prevention, nutrition, and social services ended up costing MORE than it currently does, and was *gawd forbid* not cost-efficient, I say so what?

[malta blue]

22. what I want to know is how many employees actually

admitted they were smokers and had the premium deducted.

I think this is a great move for Sam Zell. He has put his money where his mouth is.

;)

[nuxvomica]

24. About 600 employees signed, according to this E&P story:

Tribune Company Ends $100 Monthly Smoking Fee

By Joe Strupp

Published: April 23, 2008 11:24 AM ET

NEW YORK The Tribune Company has ended a $100-per-month penalty for employees who smoke and enroll in the company's health plan, saying the fee is "inconsistent with the new culture," the Chicago Tribune reported.

"We'd rather you use your own judgment when it comes to tobacco use, not impose ours upon you," Gerry Spector, executive vice president and chief administrative officer, said in an e-mail to employees, the paper reported.

The Tribune added that: "about 600 of more than 16,000 employees in the plan acknowledged smoking when they enrolled in October." The fee, effective Jan. 1, was adopted before Sam Zell, now chairman and chief executive, led the private takeover of Tribune in December.

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003793103

[Shaztastic]

23. With goup insurance, it makes no sense to charge some more than others.

That's the ourpose of group vs. individual.

[Owl]

47. Group claims affect group rates, that's why.

[varelse]

29. I'm a non-smoker

and I say - good for Sam Zell!

[superconnected]

41. Non smoker here - Great News!

[Owl]

45. The policy to "to charge them $100 more

than their non-smoking brethren for health insurance." was absolutely reasonable; and an incredibly minimal cost.

[Rhiannon12866]

63. BTW, that's a terrible pic in the Reuters article...

How many people who work there, smokers or not, come to work in clown makeup?! I've never seen anybody...:eyes:

[lanlady]

64. life insurance policies cost more for smokers

But should the same logic apply to health insurance? I'm not convinced. Before long, they'd start charging more for obesity (1/3 of US women are considered obese) on the theory that bad eating habits are a choice. Or for choosing not to wear a condom because you've increased your exposure to STD or unwanted pregancy. And so it would go until everyone is dinged for something in their lifestyle.

[Cooley Hurd]

66. Up until recently, smoking cessation help wasn't offered by health ins companies...

Their philosophy was that it was ultimately cheaper to have you die by 60 than live until 90. :hi:

[nuxvomica]

67. Why not pay smokers to quit?

I found a copy of the original announcement of the Tribune policy and here was the justification (I added the underline):

Tobacco Use: The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates that tobacco users cost companies about $5,700 more per year than non-smokers. To encourage a smoke-free lifestyle, on October 17, Tribune will begin offering a company funded smoking cessation program. Information about the program can be found on the Human Resources page of TriLink. While Tribune employees who use tobacco products (or have covered dependents who do), will pay a $100 per month fee (per family) in addition to their medical premium, the monthly fee will be waived upon completion of the program.

http://www.edpadgett.com/blog/2007/10/tribune-company-dependent-audit-results.html

If the CDC statistic is correct (the highest statistic I could find at the CDC site was $2,500 per year) and they were charging smokers $1,200 a year, they were still losing $4,500 on the smokers. If they instead paid smokers $1,200 per year to quit, they would be saving $4,500 per year. Double that to include regular testing and they would still have saved $3,300 per year, which is a difference of $7,800 per year over the punitive policy.

[Rhiannon12866]

73. Excellent idea. It's well-known that positive reinforcement is much more effective than negative,

and doesn't have the added side effect of pissing people off. You should suggest that to the company. Sam Zell seems pretty open-minded, and enlightened, from the OP article. And it would benefit the company...:-)

[Red1]

72. Smokers

whether in the working envirnment or otherwise, cause insurance costs to go up....smokers are either atheists or rightwingers or both

red

[Rhiannon12866]

75. Right-wingers are atheists?! What have you been smoking?

:smoke:

[dmallind]

79. We have quite a few traditionally libertarian right atheists in our group.

Not too many social conservatives, but a few.

[Rhiannon12866]

83. What is your group?

I've seen you in the Atheist-Agnostic group here on DU, where I also belong...:hi:

My point was that the Republicans consider the Fundies to be their "base," anti-choice, anti-gay, anti-free speech, pro-war, not exactly liberal values, supposed "believers" who are anything but true "Christian" in their philosophy or in their view of others' rights. There aren't too many right-wing atheists...:shrug:

And George Bush* said that "God" told him to invade Iraq. Anyone else who said that would have been put in a straitjacket and on Thorazine...:scared:

[dmallind]

85. various really

I was actually making a blanket statement about organized atheist groups to which I belong or whose conferences etc I've attended. The largest single group I had a lot to do with was MN Atheists, but including a lot of interaction with umbrella groups like AA and the various Humanist groups etc.

I guess it depends on what you mean by "right wing". A lot of DU has a tendency to lump all Republicans (and to a good chunk of DU, lump in the centrist and Blue Dog Dems too) into one monolithic "right wing" which is all that is evil and anathema. But just like not all left wing groups - the decidedly non-centrist DU included - do not all share all left wing views, the same is true of the right. I see the big split in the right - and of course this is far from unique or original insight - between the economic right who are driven to reduce taxes, generally reduce spending, regulation etc, and the social conservatives who want to impose a, usually biblical in great part, universal code of what's right and wrong and what should be allowed etc.

There are plenty of atheists who are fine with the former, but few indeed who want the latter. It IS of course fair to say that atheists tend to the left, even economically. It's also fair to say there is a definite amount of pressure and group think in organized atheism to carry the fight into politics and always on the left. Even though I almost always agree with this political direction I confess I resisted efforts to make atheist activist groups into an extension of a left-Democrat caucus. Any efforts directed to things like gay marriage, choice, ending the war etc - all of which I agree with 100% - seemed to be problematic to me in terms of both diluting our efforts merely to help much larger and better organized groups who never ever returned the favor, and in turning away potential members who may disagree. My goal in these groups was always to expand and promote the cause of atheism itself, and that meant welcoming anyone of any political stripe.

I can't say I was all that successful to be honest. We certainly did have some economic right members not just in MNA but in the umbrella and sister groups too. We had a few social conservatives too, but as you can imagine very rare. But I could do little to prevail on the leadership, even when I was part of it, to retain focus only on separation and atheist image/rights issues.

As a "celebrity" example at least among atheists, I would point to Dr. Robert M. Price of the Jesus seminar. Theology professor, Historical Jesus debunker, all round brilliant son of a gun (I have a high bar for use of that word but he passes it), church-going atheist. And about as right wing as you can get. Not so much socially, but definitely a gung ho Republican conservative with nothing but vitriol and scorn for Democratic policies and politicians. I can and do agree with him and admire him greatly on the first part, while disagreeing vigorously and thinking he's lost a sprocket or two on the last. Plus I used to love doing debates or cable shows with him because he's one of the few people who make me look thin ;)

[Rhiannon12866]

90. I agree with you and thank you for your thoughtful reply. :-)

No group is monolithic, despite what George Bush* believes. He believes that by playing to the Fundies, he's satisfying the conservatives, but that's hardly the case. He's been criticized by the conservatives as much as he has been by the Democrats, since conservatives are fiscally conservative, and he's been anything, but... He is anything but a true conservative. x(

And I wasn't sure if you meant groups that you belonged to in the "real world," LOL, or here on DU. You obviously belong to both and they sound very interesting and educational. I tend to spend way too much time on the computer...:shrug:

By right wing, I guess that I meant the Freepers. I previously was a member of Free Republic, though I'm still probably a member in good standing. I joined there out of curiosity, and posted infrequently, mainly lurked and tried to understand what they were all about, after reading posts on DU, and rarely got into it with anyone there, since that wasn't my mission, a losing one, if there ever was one, LOL.:D

I think that the problem, as you experienced it, was mixing religion with politics. Bush*'s problem is dragging religion into everything, to the point of psychosis, while our founding fathers had separation of church and state as one of their basic tenants.:-)

And I'll have to look up Dr. Price. I may be an atheist, but I'm an activist only when it comes to politics. As a liberal, I think that anyone has the right to believe whatever works for them, as long as it doesn't harm others, which is one reason I have opposed George Bush* from the start...:-(

My family is mostly Catholic, but I have no issue with them, since they're secure in their beliefs, so feel no need to proselytize, and they're Irish Democrats...:D

I'd be interested in your debates. You might consider posting either videos or texts of them here on DU. It's nice to meet you, my friend, and thank you so much for your thoughtful post. I see it as the beginning of a dialog, which is the most important aspect of DU...:hi:

Rhiannon:pals:

[dmallind]

98. Some more info..

Here's Bob's website. If you get tired of Bible geekery (and he's one of the best non-dogmatic Bible geeks in the world so depends on your tolerance level more than the quality) then check out his archived newspaper columns for the RW demagoguery.

http://www.robertmprice.mindvendor.com/

Here's the main bunch I refer to. Not much from me on their more recent archives as I moved away a few years back, but the site is a good one.

http://www.mnatheists.org

You'll doubtless see that I definitively lost the struggle to keep activities focused on atheism.

And remember that atheist activism does not seek to stamp out religion or even to "devangelize" per se. Even the "pure" atheist activism I proposed was instead focused on trying to increase understanding and acceptance of atheism, to take away the "immoral" assumption, and to challenge laws which assumed everyone does, or should, conform to Christian dogma. Trust me we never knocked on doors on Saturday mornings telling people their immortal souls were nothing more than a Zoroastrian idea grafted onto pre-Christian Judaism during the exile.

Thanks for the kind words and no problem at all if you'd like to discuss further - probably better to go to the R/T or A/A forums though. I've hijacked this thread too much already!

And to somewhat redress that - I consider smoking to be a vile and loathsome activity to yourself and those around you, but unless we are willing to quantify and rate all voluntary risks and price them differently into health insurance costs, then doing so for smoking is unfair. I don't smoke. I don't engage in any crazy dangerous activities, but I am fat and I ride a motorcycle (sport tourer, 20+ years long distance accident free and essentially ATGATT so not exactly a high risk). Even if I were a granola crunching runner with no vices I would still say we need to do all or none though.

[Red1]

86. The Right

are atheists, their all encompassing pray to god for everything is not what the big guy is all about. so they pray to what? an imaginary entity.

the left has no use for religion because they see all the problems caused by this irrational concept of not being proactive but prayer-active. Nothing against prayers but....

Smokers, believe it is their right to smoke....a mind trend shared by the right...

the left on this board is a combination of 1.) naivety about what obama can do for the usofa, considering a govt. that rules by an elite body of elected officals that considers 'who owes what' before acting, 2.) youngins that aint been around long enough to form a really accurate picture of the world, (but oh, please keep trying)3.) tripe that came over from jim robinsons cess pool for the dimwits.

red

[Lone_Star_Dem]

136. You may want to look up the meaning of atheist.

Just for future use.

[Mind_your_head]

128. Clear headed policy!!!!!

:applause:

This could be the start of something 'big'.....really!!!!


:applause: again

[lynne]

144. Excellent! A precedent-setting policy!

It is long past time that the invasion of our private lives by corporations was halted. The tobacco-use fee opened the door for the "alcohol use fee", the "obesity fee", the "I've got 4 speeding tickets fee" and a fee for any other type of personal behavior that they don't approve of.

We all win with this ruling! Sam Zell deserves some >>> :applause:

[bean fidhleir]

146. The rightwing seems to have been very successful

in de-legitimizing the concept of "community", judging by the number of "rugged individualist" responses in this thread.

Yet for maybe 90% of all functioning adults everywhere in the world through the history of our species, the sole purpose of living with other people has been sharing. Sharing the good, sharing the bad.

There's a little story (true) from ethology in Britain. It seems that when milk was still delivered to the stoop every morning, the bluetits and robins discovered that they could punch through the paper cap and get a nice drink. When the dairies changed to foil caps, it stymied the birds for awhile. But then some bluetit found that it just took a little more pressure to get through the foil. Pretty soon, all the bluetits (who live socially) knew the new trick. A few robins learned how to do it, too, but since robins are "individualists", robins in general never learned.

Question for all you robins in the thread: how did you get suckered into changing species?