Attention

The opinions expressed by columnists are their own and do not represent our advertisers

Sunday, January 27, 2013

EXPERTS ARGUE CARING FOR SMOKERS, THE OBESE MAY BE TOO COSTLY: ‘WHY NOT JUST LET THESE HEALTH SINNERS DIE?’

Faced with the high cost of caring for smokers and overeaters, experts say society must grapple with a chilling question. The Associated Press summarizes: “Instead of trying to penalize them and change their ways, why not just let these health sinners die?”

Annual health care costs are roughly $96 billion for smokers and $147 billion for the obese, the government says. These costs accompany sometimes heroic attempts to prolong lives, including surgery, chemotherapy and other measures.

But despite these rescue attempts, smokers tend to die 10 years earlier on average, and the obese die five to 12 years prematurely, according to various researchers’ estimates.

More 

12 comments:

Anonymous said...

Aforementioned are all free will issues.Whatever our vice is we have chosen it ourselves.If we choose to quit smoking, good.If we go on a diet,good,but each of us have the power to choose and the right to make our own decisions.That includes the right to die because of poor choices.

Anonymous said...

Am I the only one that doesn't think this is such a hard issue to solve? cut all the food bans! Charge folks who choose to live unhealthy lifestyles higher premiums/copays for insurance just as bad drivers get charged up for car insurance. It's a win-win situation.

Anonymous said...

I do not see it as "hard-hearted" or "insensitive" to just let them die. IT"S THEIR CHOICE! Scrooge had it right: "If they want to die, then they better do it and decrease the surplus population." After all, that's the ultimate goal of every living thing,is'nt it??

Anonymous said...

9:13 It's "their" choice to be homosexual and or promiscuous. Should I have to pay for "their" AIDS treatment or sexually transmitted infections and birth control???
Why not just let the morally corrupt die.
If you go after smokers you have to go after the gays and whores.

Anonymous said...

So if you get in a car accident we should let you die because driving was a "Free Will" choice??

Kid falls out of a tree and breaks his arm... sorry about your luck kid, you shouldn't have been in that tree.

If you penalize one "risky behaviour" why not all of them?

Anonymous said...

Remember when the argument that everybody needs to buy health insurance to spread the risk?

Health insurance premium increases have accelerated before everybody has to buy.

Now they want to charge more for high risk people.

What other high risk activities can they find? Don't like the vaccines that contain mercury, MSG, and other things, while telling you in the inserts that you might die? Do you have a risky occupation? What about the blood that they draw at birth - do they have a genetic marker?

This whole thing was a sham from day 1. Now we are all getting screwed.

Anonymous said...

Smoking/chewing is an addiction...maybe big tobacco should pay their premiums. There are food addicts too. Who started the "super sizing" of food orders? The fast food chains and soda guys are getting rich off of gluttony. They should pay up too. Mayor Bloomberg has the right idea.

Anonymous said...

"Mayor Bloomberg has the right idea."

Bloomberg "idea" was concocted by his buddies in the beverage industry to do nothing more then sell more drinks. Bloomberg & NYC are benefitting by the extra in tax also. Don't be so naive as to think Bloomberg is doing anything for anyone besides himself and his families wallets, 1:07.

Anonymous said...

The food industry is as bad as it gets. The overly processed foods of today are meant to not fill a person up quickly, make they hungry sooner and some experts even claim are laden with addictive chemical ingredients.

ginn said...

I'd like to know where the author got these stats? They have to be guesses by someone. There's no way to absolutely know this.., that is unless you believe you government. And, if you do, you are the one who needs to be penalized.

Anonymous said...

I am going to file the first law suit on the first insurance company that tries to charge me 50% more for being a smoker. Why should they be allowed to discriminate against me for smoking. How many alcoholics are out there pouring in mass quantities of alcohol everyday and ruining their good health. Are we charging them more. How many drug addicts are out there pouring in mass quantities of drugs everyday and ruining their good health. How many liver transplants do I have to subsidize for these two groups of people. How many blood transfusions do I have to pay for when they start bleeding from every orafice in their body because their liver is shot. Yes, I know a little about the disease of alcoholism. I buried a brother at before he reached the age of 45. We spent six years with the blood transfusions every other month after he threw up all the blood in his body. Then he was on the liver transplant list for a little while--but it fell through--and he went back to drinking. But he could have gotten the liver transplant first and then went back to drinking. What about these people. They will not be charged a higher premium but because I smoke cigarettes I can pay more. Sure I can and I can pay a lawyer also and will be glad to do so. They will fine me if I don't get the insurance but if I do get it I have to pay more because I smoke. And they are just talking about the obese--they aren't actually going to start charging them yet. Yeah right. Bring on the lawsuit.

Anonymous said...

"Bloomberg has the right idea."

Bloomberg hasn't had a right idea in his entire life.