A couple weeks ago, I “attacked” a young lady who agreed to be interviewed and quoted by name in the StarTribune. She was objecting to health questions posed by her employer (who pays for some or all of her and her coworkers’ health insurance) regarding her personal habits.

She and her husband are on a rightful mission to repeal the Smoking Ban, a government intrusion on a slippery-slope and an infringement on the rights of hospitality-business owners and their patrons. But apparently they have confused the legitimacy of their cause with the burden that smoking and obesity, predominantly the products of personal choice and lifestyle, are to our health care system.

This is no small issue given the rising amplitude of liberal chatter to socialize our health care system, which would undoubtedly remove any elements of personal accountability.

Be not confused. The two issues are separate. Smoking is legal and smoking is conducive to poor health – for the smoker and her hapless bystanders. We all pay higher health care costs because of it.

Nonetheless, I don’t begrudge smokers’ personal choices nor business owners’ right to allow patrons to enjoy a perfectly legal activity in their establishments. But keep your smoke off my body, and don’t make me pay for your personal choice. An assertion not usually lost on liberals or conservatives.

As the system is organized, we’re all in this together which means the system has an interest in the degree you have chosen vis a vie your habits or lack thereof, to be a burden to it, statistically at least.

I drive fast and get more speeding tickets than most motorists. I don’t expect you to pay for my actuarial increment.

Let’s be clear on this too. The argument that tobacco taxes mitigate the incremental cost to society is naive. Look no further, all moneys collected by the biggest Ponzi scheme in history The Social Security Administration over the years are accumulating at interest for your retirement, too.

The Syllogism? Contrary to the logic “I’ve smoked three packs a day for eleventeen years and haven’t been hospitalized or died (yet),” ipso facto smoking isn’t bad for your health:

1. Among other issues, smoking causes heart attacks.

A smoking ban in one Colorado city led to a dramatic drop in heart attack hospitalizations within three years, a sign of just how serious a health threat secondhand smoke is, government researchers said Wednesday. The study, the longest-running of its kind, showed the rate of hospitalized cases dropped 41 percent in the three years after the ban of workplace smoking in Pueblo, Colo., took effect. There was no such drop in two neighboring areas, and researchers believe it’s a clear sign the ban was responsible.

The study suggests that secondhand smoke may be a terrible and under-recognized cause of heart attack deaths in this country, said one of its authors, Terry Pechacek of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

At least eight earlier studies have linked smoking bans to decreased heart attacks, but none ran as long as three years. The new study looked at heart attack hospitalizations for three years following the July 1, 2003 enactment of Pueblo’s ban, and found declines as great or greater than those in earlier research.

2. Heart attacks are expensive. Billions are spent on devices and medications for the prevention and prevention of heart attacks.

3. We all pay for the aggregate expense as subscribers to group health insurance plans and via Medicare and Medicaid.

4. Hence, if I don’t smoke, and you do, the system is making me pay for your poor personal choices; the basis for my “attack.” That fact and the pressure of rising costs has incented health care providers and employers to rightfully seek to separate and quantify those who make good choices from those who don’t.

Because it’s fair. Because it’s good business. Risk classes should be separated and held accountable to the degree they are a burden to the system. Please don’t come crying to me if you’ve drawn the short straw by your own volition.

It’s an intrusion of your rights only to the extent that the way health care is delivered, via your employer, is also broken – so the system isn’t perfect.

…and if “We The People” don’t fix the system, the government will.

Put that in your pipe and smoke it.

As long as health insurance is predominantly accessed through a third-party payer – employers – most Americans will have to rely on their them to shop for them. This has been a great deal for those who suffer from preexisting conditions as the insurance provider takes on the employer group in toto.

It’s also been a great deal for those whose conditions are of their own volition, or lack thereof as it were, as they are able to average in their morbidity and get a break.

Politicians talk of a health care crisis and how a country as prosperous as ours should not allow anyone to be without health care. It’s a right, not a privilege; a matter of dignity.

Fact is, our national health care “crisis” is not being caused solely by the insurance companies, nor the current delivery system but rather by the insureds themselves. In a way, our prosperity is our downfall. Everyone can afford Twinkies and smokes.

Experts say that upwards of 40 percent of U.S. medical costs are linked to obesity, smoking and other lifestyle factors — a statistic not lost on the nation’s employers. As a result, more than half of large corporations now use incentives to get employees to shape up, a 2008 survey found.

America is fat, and still surprisingly smoky too. Health insurers have been prodding consumers to get off their duffs, join clubs and live healthier lifestyles to no avail. Have you seen the insipid television commercials?

Now employers want a crack at it.

Sheila Kromer doesn’t want any help.

She enjoys smoking and she doesn’t want to quit.

Nor does she want advice on how to eat right. Or how to exercise. “I’m smart enough to take care of myself,” she says.

As a chemist at 3M, she’s had plenty of chances to join health and fitness programs on the job. But like many Minnesotans, she’s simply chosen not to.

Smart is as smart does. As it stands Sheila, you’re a jackass, and you’re gonna pay for it. Now and later.

(more…)

I had a conversation with a very intelligent acquaintance last week. He’s from the UK. We were talking about financial planning and the topic of college costs and health care came up.

He moved here to marry an American and has been here long enough to offer a personal comparison between costs and accessibility for college and health care here and in the UK.

He was extolling the virtues of near-free college and universal (read socialized) health care in the UK.

Coincidentally, I came across this today (from the Telegraph in the UK):

High earners face increased National Insurance payments and a new supertax under a raft of measures announced in today’s pre-Budget report.

Okay, so Superman, he’s a champion of good, not evil. Supertramp; a favorite 70’s band. Super Bowl: a clash of the best in the NFL. Supermodels. All good.

And yet…supertax? That can’t be good. Now that my acquaintance is making that kind of dough, here in the rebel states I might add, I wonder if his comparison would be so glowing?

As widely predicted, Alistair Darling (he’s the [liberal] dude with the eybrows-JR) introduced a new top level of tax, which will be imposed on people earning over £150,000 a year. They will pay 45p in the pound, up from 40p, from April 2011.

That’s a nice little holiday gift. A five percent tax hike. As of this writing, $1 trades for $1.5166 Pounds. So £150,000 a year is about $230,000 a year in the US.

Hey, we should nationalize health care so we can join the other taxed up the wazoo nations of the world that pay more to stand in line for crappy health care – and soon everything else as socialism bleeds their economies dry.

Another timely coincidence:

Today I finally went to the doctor to see about the pain in my shoulder that commenced during a volleyball match in August and has sustained a searing continuum. My doctor referred me to TRIA Orthopaedic Center a couple weeks back (this is not a veiled endorsement of Tria by the way). I was advised an appointment was’t necessary. Just show up and they would see me.

If I learned anything today (other than that thankfully surgery wasn’t indicated) was that health care in America can be a lot better and TRIA, from my vantage point, is the standard.

Bear in mind, it was one visit, to one provider; behold:

1. I arrived at Tria at 2:30 PM; a walk-in.
2. The decor was bright, modern and pleasant
3. I was greeted by a concierge (really) who asked for my name and why I was visiting
4. She walked me to the elevator, pushed the button for the second floor, rode up with me and walked me to the desk where I would get started with my visit
5. I had nary the time to fill out the medical questionnaire and my name was called
6. Five minutes later and I was getting x-rays done
7. Five more minutes later and the doctor came in and told me I have tendonitis and he would like to prescribe a shot of Cortisone and a couple subsequent physical therapy visits
8. Thirty seconds later a nurse handed a shot of Cortisone to the doctor
9. After a pleasant visit regarding my condition and the doctor’s prognosis, I put my shirt back on
10. I was out the door five minutes later

All in, I was there for little more than a half hour. It was pleasant, efficient and I got the feeling, inexpensive; as health care goes any way. An extraordinarily well-choreographed experience. And they were busy.

As for my chap from the UK, he was selling it. I wasn’t buying it. Plus I pretty much believe the exact opposite of anything Michael Moore flaps his flaccid jowls about.

Contrast my experience today with anything run by the government (save the military – those guys are so cool plus they have bravery, guns and bombs and stuff).

Is one experience, one day, with one health care provider proof of anything? Yes. That healthcare can be done right and without the government.

My shoulder feels better already.