Arizona Medicaid considers tax on smokers, obese
BY MARK CARLSON (Associated Press)
Originally Published: Friday, April 01, 2011
Updated: Friday, April 01, 2011
PHOENIX (AP) — Arizona's cash-strapped Medicaid program is considering charging patients $50 a year if they smoke, have diabetes or are overweight.
A spokeswoman for the Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System said Friday that the fee is intended to rein in health care costs by pushing patients to keep themselves healthy.
"It engages the consumer to start having a greater awareness of how they fit into the bigger health care puzzle," said Monica Coury, spokeswoman for AHCCCS. "We want to be able to provide health care to people. And we want to stretch our dollars as far as we can. Part of that is engaging people to take better care of themselves."
Some private employers and state governments have instituted higher insurance premiums for workers who are overweight or smoke, but Arizona's plan would mark the first time a state-federal health care program for low-income residents has charged people for unhealthy lifestyles.
The fee would apply only to certain childless adults.
http://www.reliablenews.com/e69901-ariz … bese?cat=6
are are other states considering moves similar to this such as drug testing..etc
is this fair?
I can see charging them if they smoke. Charging them if they have diabetes is dumb. You can't charge someone extra for having an illness. They want to keep people from getting sick. Why punish those who already are. They can't do anything about their condition now.
Charging people for obesity is tricky. How would they determine if someone is obese? There is the body mass index, but that isn't accurate.
If they could then there would have to be some recognition for people improving their health. At any rate this could violate someones' rights. It would be very interesting to see if this goes through and if any lawsuits are filed.
Why not? After all, smokers already pay enough extra tax to cover any health problems they might incur - it just goes into general funds instead of extra health care.
Just another step to prevent individual freedoms by utilizing govt. fees and taxes. If you don't like someone doing something tax and penalize them until they can't afford it anymore.
Interesting that they would charge fat people, though. How would they determine what is too fat? 10# over ideal body weight as determined by govt panel of "experts"? That way heavily muscled people in perfect could be charged as well, once more increasing govt coffers. Heck, at that weight even normal Americans could be forced to pay extra. $$$$ coming in!
How about those with poor posture? Not enough fiber in their diet? People who drink more than 2 units of alcohol a day? Don't exercise at least 30 minutes a day? Drive a car that pollutes the environment? Don't get the regulation 8 hours a night sleep? Wear sunglasses that are not polarized? Spend too long in the sun? Live near electrical power plants? etc etc etc...........
Pretty sure only 3 people will qualify for Medicaid.
No, no Mark. We must eat this elephant one bite at a time. Today it's smokers and now fat people. The others will have to wait until tomorrow when the current battle is won and attention can be turned to something else we don't like.
Polarized sun glasses? Absolutely - it will not only "help" people to live right, but provide more jobs. Maybe we'll work on that one tomorrow.
The UK takes more taxes from smokers than it spends treating smoking related illnesses.
The biggest killer is of course obesity. Heres a thought, rather than taxing the man on the street, whose simple pleasures after a 12 hour shift for little money may be a big mac, a couple of beers, and a 10 pack of Marlboro, why not take more money from Marlboro, McDonalds and Budweiser?
Or is that too ideological? Making it more expensive for the consumer rather than scraping a bit off of the multi-billion dollar profit margins?
Or would that be unfair? Because some of the shareholders may be healthy living non-smoking teetotal church going upstanding citizens of the United States?
The biggest problem, to my mind, is that the (American at least) tax code has become a tool for social engineering instead of a method to raise necessary money for government operations. It has become a combination of "force someone else to pay more than I do" and "you should not do this or that and I will force you to stop by increasing your cost".
Nor will raising taxes of McDonalds or Budweiser make any real difference. It just raises the price to the consumer who must, in the long run, pay for all govt spending anyway.
by Susan Reid 5 years ago
If you are insured through your employer, the answer is no. If you are an individual or small business owner, please share your thoughts.Did you know there will be online health care insurance marketplaces (exchanges) in every state?Is your state running its own exchange ... ...or is it...
by Ralph Schwartz 4 months ago
I'd like to express my thanks to everyone here on HP and on many other sites across the nation. Most days we get engaged in the "topic of the day," and we debate it until there are no talking points left to ponder. Other days, we prognosticate and make predictions about how...
by Peeples 6 years ago
Curious as to what people who are against everyone having healthcare think should be done for those who really can't afford healthcare. What are the other options? Continue down the same road we are on now?
by Alexander A. Villarasa 5 years ago
What does one expect of a piece of legislation that was voted on, and passed both by the Senate and Congress, signed into law by Pres. Obama, and certified by the Supreme Court as being constitutional? High Hopes of course, but in the case of the Affordabe Health Care Act (popularly...
by Doug Hughes 8 years ago
There is a provision in the Health Care Reform Law that clearly and explicitly allows states to opt-out of the Federal Health Care System, and they can cancel the individual mandate if it suits them to do so. There is a catch. They have to set up a health care system that meets the standards and...
by tobey100 8 years ago
The Federal government has sued a sovereign state, Arizona, claiming its law and policy regarding illegal immigration usurps the authority of the Federal government and violates Federal Law and guidlines. At the same time the Federal Government turns a blind eye to those illegal immigrants...
Copyright © 2019 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|