Obamacare-Smokers and the obese face penalties

[Karee 4,189]

What you are failing to take into consideration is the amount of money that will be saved on the health insurance/medical expenses end by people living healthier lives. Those savings, in my opinion, will more than offset any extra money needed for social security disbursements. Take that money saved and apply it to the social security program. In other words, we're already paying the money needed for the social security program, but we're paying it into health care costs for people who livce unhealthy, high risk lifestyles.

Apples and oranges. Social Security and health care are two totally different issues. People living longer will be a drain on Social Security. Bottom line. Whether they spend 10 of their golden years in the hospital or one day, the social security disbursements are the same.

If the person that smokes for 40 years while paying into the Soicial Security system dies before they ever collect one Soical Security check, then that's a financial win for Social Security. Now they may have run up 2 million dollars in unpaid medical bills, but that's not relevant to social security.

[Teddy B 17,251]

Apples and oranges. Social Security and health care are two totally different issues. People living longer will be a drain on Social Security. Bottom line. Whether they spend 10 of their golden years in the hospital or one day, the social security disbursements are the same.

If the person that smokes for 40 years while paying into the Soicial Security system dies before they ever collect one Soical Security check, then that's a financial win for Social Security. Now they may have run up 2 million dollars in unpaid medical bills, but that's not relevant to social security.

They are only apples and oranges if nothing is done about it. There is no reason why the savings from medical costs cannot be applied to the social security program. Govco does this sort of thing all the time, take money from one program to help fund another.

[Karee 4,189]

They are only apples and oranges if nothing is done about it. There is no reason why the savings from medical costs cannot be applied to the social security program. Govco does this sort of thing all the time, take money from one program to help fund another.

You don't have a problem with that?

[Teddy B 17,251]

You don't have a problem with that?

No.

[Karee 4,189]

No.

Personally I'd like to know that my social security payments that I paid into for all these years will be there when I retire. That's they way it's supposed to work. Unfortunately, Social security has loaned the govt. all kinds of money for other things not related to social security. I have problem with that. Why even have a FICA tax then? Let it all go into the general fund. The congress can pi$$ it away like they do with everything else and at least be up front about it.

[Teddy B 17,251]

Personally I'd like to know that my social security payments that I paid into for all these years will be there when I retire. That's they way it's supposed to work. Unfortunately, Social security has loaned the govt. all kinds of money for other things not related to social security. I have problem with that. Why even have a FICA tax then? Let it all go into the general fund. The congress can pi$$ it away like they do with everything else and at least be up front about it.

Social security, just like welfare, is not going anywhere. Once you make a very large amount of the population dependant on something for survival, if it's taken away all hell will break loose. Yes, social security has been scavanged, and yes there is a real chance that the program could run into the red in our lifetime, but the money will be had elsewhere. A great surce of revenue for it would be exactly what I suggested with the savings from healthcare costs.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

People living longer will be a drain on Social Security.

Who is living longer? Folks in other OECD nations are. Here, not so much. It's not like we're France or something. Especially those that really depend on Social Security are not actually sharing all that much in those extra years. Statistically speaking, if you really depend on Social Security, then you still die off early. If you'd raise the eligibility age, then those most in need of the program would never draw a dime from it.

Edited February 1, 2013 by Mr. Big Dog

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

sad but

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

sad but

My wife says all the time, "They don't have those in the Philippines."

Of course, on the Filipino news, everybody is getting upset that they have to pay domestic help's social security premiums and cover their health insurance costs, as well as setting a minimum wage beginning this year.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Sosial Security is already going to go broke in ~2033, yet they keep punishing people for trying to off themselves at an early age. Kinda seems counter-productive.

Do you have any idea what the medical costs from the consequences of smoking are? Spend some time in a hospital ICU and you'll be dumbfounded by the wide range of ailments caused by smoking that don't necessarily kill someone off before they have a chance at collecting the Social Security benefits.

I would say just in the CVICU of our hospital, at least 80% of our open heart patients are or once were smokers. Do you want take a stab at how much open heart surgery costs? These patients have to go through a long recovery, no heavy lifting for nearly a year afterward, so if their job required any physical exertion, they'll be on disability during the recovery period. These costs are substantial.

Sorry, but it's the healthy people who aren't causing health care costs to skyrocket, even if that means they might live a few extra years.

Edited February 1, 2013 by Lincolns mullet

[Karee 4,189]

Do you have any idea what the medical costs from the consequences of smoking are? Spend some time in a hospital ICU and you'll be dumbfounded by the wide range of ailments caused by smoking that don't necessarily kill someone off before they have a chance at collecting the Social Security benefits.

I would say just in the CVICU of our hospital, at least 80% of our open heart patients are or once were smokers. Do you want take a stab at how much open heart surgery costs? These patients have to go through a long recovery, no heavy lifting for nearly a year afterward, so if their job required any physical exertion, they'll be on disability during the recovery period. These costs are substantial.

Sorry, but it's the healthy people who aren't causing health care costs to skyrocket, even if that means they might live a few extra years.

You must not have read the whole thread. We covered the above already.

[james&olya 1,121]

What you are failing to take into consideration is the amount of money that will be saved on the health insurance/medical expenses end by people living healthier lives. Those savings, in my opinion, will more than offset any extra money needed for social security disbursements. Take that money saved and apply it to the social security program. In other words, we're already paying the money needed for the social security program, but we're paying it into health care costs for people who livce unhealthy, high risk lifestyles.

Possibly. Most health care expenditures occur at the very end of a person's life. I am not sure we have evidence that those end of life costs are any different for the disease processes that take someone's life at age 60 compared to those at age 90. I suspect that the ultimate costs to insurance are not significantly different but I would be interested to know if there is any good data out there to prove otherwise. I do think it is very much worth it to people individually and society collectively to encourage healthy life-style choices even if it costs us more in social security benefits!

[Teddy B 17,251]

Possibly. Most health care expenditures occur at the very end of a person's life. I am not sure we have evidence that those end of life costs are any different for the disease processes that take someone's life at age 60 compared to those at age 90. I suspect that the ultimate costs to insurance are not significantly different but I would be interested to know if there is any good data out there to prove otherwise. I do think it is very much worth it to people individually and society collectively to encourage healthy life-style choices even if it costs us more in social security benefits!

Agree 100% that no matter what the end cost would be in dollars for people to live healthier lifestyles, the benefit to society as a whole would be substantial.