If the government is generous enough to give you something that costs them a lot of money for free, the least you could do is not abuse the privilege. I agree with Mafoo here completely.

Thanks!

But just to make a point. Nothing cost the government anything. They pay for nothing. All the money to pay for programs come from the people.

Nothings free.

neither

my company and the employees pay taxes, and in return, get free access to healthcare regardless, but you already know that i would do this, so its kinda moot to ask me.

so far as i am aware, the NHS in this regard already works this way, theyre not allowed to turn people down if theyre ill, dosent matter why there ill.

essentially, (assuming, it works as i said above) i wouldnt change a thing about this element of the NHS if elected.

Way to not answer the question.

Well, you get my point. It's money they could be spending on other things.

I think that a big part of growing up and becoming an adult is being responsible for your own well-being, and being courteous when people are generous to you. You should be responsible for your own health (up to a point, there are some things people can't always control, such as cancer), and you should have some courtesy. Little kids aren't always grateful for what they have because of just that, they're kids. You can't blame them. But full grown adults should respect what the government is doing for them in this case, and not use it as a crutch for their own unhealthy lifestyle.

There are still some left-wing programs I support, but nonetheless, it sickens me to think that there are people who take advantage of these privileges and freedoms that other people worked for and won't put forth their part.

Your first post asked a question about something nobody was talking about.

Your second and third posts were questioning how you could know what people do in their day to day lives...when nobody cares what they specifically are doing, it only matters how healthy they are.  Nobody is talking about survellience or big brother.   We are talking about a doctor and scientific medical tests (the ones people already take when they go to the doctor) being used to assess your health risks, and thus your costs to insure.  You can tell if someone smokes, drinks, is addicted to drugs, etc.. pretty easily from some basic tests among a myriad of other risk factors.

Your third posts asks why doing something that isn't illegal should punished.  To which I have to ask...What are you smoking?    They aren't being punished..they are paying for their healthcare. If you go into a McDonalds and order everything on the menu should you pay more than someone who orders a Happy meal?  Of course you should...and the same applies here.  An unhealthy person will need more medical treatment and thus their costs are higher than that of the fit person who needs less treatment.  It's not punishment...its paying for what you get.

Your most recent post (quoted above) is just avoiding the issue and adding static to the thread about healthcare plans that aren't the subject of discussion here.  We are discussing a health insurance methodology that can reduce costs by promoting healthy behavior.  If you don't want to discuss it and give an answer to Mafoo's question then don't...but don't ignore it and interject unrelated subjects to distract from the topic at hand.

I don't think SciFiBoy knows what Free means.

Well, one problem I see with this plan is that it is immediately biased against poorer Americans because if it is based on risky health behaviors like whether or not a person is obese -- there are a lot of obese poor people because the types of foods they can most afford to buy is often full of sugars, carbs, and other unhealthy things that can lead to unhealthy lifestyles.

I do think there are huge (potential) benefits for having a cost associated to people who are living lives which are generally unhealthy; and I think charging higher insurance priemums based on a person's health is much more fair than charging tax on unhealthy foods because healthy people often will compensate for unhealthy eating and be in an (overall) fairly positive position.

Another thought I have been having lately is an organization/company that should exist which could (dramatically) impact the price of health insurance ...

What I was thinking of is a computerized benefits exchange where a company or individual (or both) would put in the money they were planning on devoting to employment benefits and the employee would be given the choice on how to allocate that money. If a person was making choices about how much money they wanted to devote to Health Insurance (protection against high cost illnesses), Health Benefits (Check-ups and other minor procedures), Dental Benefits, a Drug Plan, Vision Care, Preventitive care (Gym Membership), Alternative Medicine (Chiropractor) and Healthcare savings accounts (or whatever companies dream up) the costs for most people should come down because they could make rational choices and companies could target their needs more specifically.

I could be wrong but I suspect you would see several benefits from this:

1. Households with two working adults would be in the position to combine their health benefits in a way that ensured they had a better (overall) package
2. Low income and part time employees would be far more likely to get benefits if it meant that the company provided $0.50 to $2.00 per hour towards benefits than if it meant that employers have to pay $10,000 for a benefit plan.
3. People with decent wages and inadequate benefits could top-up their plan to get the kinds of benefits they wanted.
4. Since people were designing their benefits around their needs the total cost of their plan would better reflect their total cost on the entire system.

Car insurance - Get a discount for being a safe driver. Get tickets for moving vehicle violations and your costs go up.

Why is this concept so difficult to understand with heath care?