Tell Me Something

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

This simply isn't true in a large number of cases. Most large companies underwright their employees insurance and simply pay the "insurance company" to administrate.

If employees are more healthy this will naturally reduce the number of claims which contributes directly to bottom line savings. If a company has less "loss" they can return more "profit" to the shareholders...

This may not be applicable to small businesses who buy insurance directly, but it impacts a large share of the insured regardless.

-spence

companies that promote health lifestyles have lower health care costs JD

companies do not pay for health care, they do not have health care costs...they forward your health insurance premium to a health insurance company who ultimately pays for your health care services less any deductibles...this is the problem, Obama uses health care and health insurance interchangeably just as he does principles and values....because he believes that they should be one in the same and dictated by and directed through the state....

What else does the state attack through taxation? Please be specific that you think is healthy and they think unhealthy.

it doesn't matter what I think is healthy and unhealthy...it's none of my business what someone else eats....read the news, in NY taxing soda, trans-fats anything that they may deem unhealthy...none of their f-ing business...nor yours....is this really the road that you want to go down Rock??? drop smokers from insurance and then maybe deny them treatment because they smoked??? what does "encouraging" mean.....it all just fine till someone decides that they don't like what "YOU" are doing and decide to tax it or "encourage" you to stop

[RIROCKHOUND]

Originally Posted by scottw

it doesn't matter what I think is healthy and unhealthy...it's none of my business what someone else eats....

Fine, I understand the slippery slope of food, but something like smoking, a known carcinogen with a direct link to lung cancer, and has deleterious effects on others around you? Absolutely, make it undesirable, and if you still want to smoke, then lets raise some revenue on it!

Originally Posted by scottw

drop smokers from insurance and then maybe deny them treatment because they smoked??? what does "encouraging" mean.....it all just fine till someone decides that they don't like what "YOU" are doing and decide to tax it or "encourage" you to stop

Yup, absolutely. Offer options for addiction treatment etc to ween off but, basically yeah. If someone chose to eat asbestos for breakfast everyday, you can drop them too!

[scottw]

[QUOTE=RIROCKHOUND;714734]Fine, I understand the slippery slope of food, but something like smoking, a known carcinogen with a direct link to lung cancer, and has deleterious effects on others around you? Absolutely, make it undesirable, and if you still want to smoke, then lets raise some revenue on it!




no, if it's so bad...ban it...


big congrats buddy....babies are great! enjoy the hell out of it, I really miss my kids being little...had twins though....lotsa diapers....

[justplugit]

[QUOTE=scottw;714800]

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

but something like smoking, a known carcinogen with a direct link to lung cancer, and has deleterious effects on others around you? Absolutely, make it undesirable, and if you still want to smoke, then lets raise some revenue on it!




, if it's so bad...ban it...

Never happen, too many govt. taxes would be lost.

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by justplugit

Never happen, too many govt. taxes would be lost.

I'd be willing to bet that over the long term, the government pays out more on health care for smokers than they collect in taxes.