Earlier quoted context omitted.
How do you know that I would save peanuts while someone else has to pay disproportionately more? I already get a decent chunk of change ($700) just for annual preventative physical, flu shot, dental exam, blood test, and eye exam, which are all free. There is a spectrum. ACA excluded tobacco users' risk from using tobacco, but left alcohol and sugar and saturated fats in? Why subsidize the latter 3 and not tobacco? S…
>How do you know that I would save peanuts while someone else has to pay disproportionately more? The point is, no insurance is just going to say you pay next to nothing because of... Instead, they will say you are in the lowest risk category, and here's your rate. >Why subsidize the latter 3 and not tobacco? Big Tobacco was sued and lost in court, so they are easy to "pick on". Nobody has sued Big Sugar. We've alrea…
It was never claimed that the insurance would cost nothing. There are, of course, uncountable health risks that are still in play.
>Big Tobacco was sued and lost in court, so they are easy to "pick on". Nobody has sued Big Sugar.
I do not know what this has to do with anything, nor what "sued in court" means as specific lawsuits have specific claims. It is correct that tobacco was separated probably because, politically, it is difficult to argue that people should pay for other people's smoking. And that is my point, that the risks we choose to subsidize and not subsidize are based on politics.
Hence, alcohol and sugar get a pass because lots of voters like those and want the smaller portion of people who do not consume as much alcohol and sugar to pick up the tab for those who cannot. Smokers do not have the numbers to result in sufficient political power to force others to pick up that tab.
>We've already seen what strict rules on alcohol does to the country, and doubtful anyone is ready to do that again.
I never claimed society should stop anyone from consuming alcohol or sugar.