Should non-smokers have to pay the same insurance rate as smokers? Obviously not, according to the insurance companies. After all, people choose to smoke. How 'bout obese people? Should we share in the cost of treating disease caused by fats? We'll see, it's the next frontier. But as smoking and smokers are eradicated, as obesity is the next battlefront, why on earth should any of us pay for the complications someone suffers from taking a pharmaceutical that has side effects? I think the pharmaceutical companies should start reimbursing insurers for the cost of treating conditions (side effects) produced by or traceable to their drugs. Take any drug out of your cabinet, read the possible side effects. This list of possible side effects serves as your INFORMED consent if you choose to pop that pill, same as if someone lights up a cigarette or takes a drink or eats a burger.
Now you go to the doctor. If you get through the list once, think of the last time you went to your doctor--chances are whatever you suffered from was part of the list (or volumes) of possible side effects from your pharmaceutical. So why am I paying for your issues? You CHOSE to take those meds. Let's say anti-depressants, read the possible side effects. If I don't eat fatty foods I don't want to pay for your health care cause you chose to be fat and if I don't take anti-depressants I don't want to pay for the cost of your swelling, sexual issues or insomnia caused by your anti-depressants. The Daily Telegraph on 11/11/07 as quoted at http://v.mercola.com/blogs/public_blog/Nearly-40-Percent-of-Smokers reported that nearly 40% of smokers in Australia are mentally ill. What we all have known forever, whether it's coffee, tea, alcohol or even eating is that people self-medicate, trying to cope with their own human condition. Well, when you get prescribed a magic pill instead of self-medicating, your choice to medicate is the same as anyone else's, if you suffer from one of those listed possible side effects, why should everyone else's insurance rates have to absorb and distribute the cost of treating your lifestyle choice? And you know what, if you pop that pill and then say you don't want to pay for the alcoholic's treatment for the side effects of his alcoholism then you know what, I don't think he should have to pay for your choice to pop pills.
Truthfully, insurance companies have gotten rich taking premiums, paying out for certain events certain and distributing the cost of covering these events for their subscribers. But somewhere the greediness has changed insurance coverage into bargain basement shopping, how much did your insurance cost you? rather than what is covered. In the bargain basement world of shopping remember that the best price is nothing--but of course you get nothing for nothing. But when it comes to insurance on the cheap, what have you really gotten? Instead of frowning at the fat person in the booth next to you at the same restaurant you are eating at, opt out of distinguishing yourself from your fellow humans and demand that insurance companies provide affordability, accessability, and availability of medical care for every person, regardless of lifestyle, because the next claim denied may be you.
