Anyone care to wager that some politico down the line argues that the government should mandate what you eat, drink, and smoke (more than they already do) because of ObamaCare?

You may not be interested in the Food Gestapo, but they are interested in you.

Right? This is just so wrong on so many levels.

@IRA: Anyone care to wager that some politico down the line argues that the government should mandate what you eat, drink, and smoke (more than they already do) because of ObamaCare?

What you pay for private health insurance is already impacted by your lifestyle habits. But I can picture it getting far worse. Does anyone care to wager that some regulatory agency will set in place dietary and lifestyle rules that all insurers (or the government) will have to follow in determining your rates or what care you receive?

Does anyone care to wager that these rules will be driven by whatever the latest "scientific" fads are, with a healthy dose of special interest palm greasing thrown in?

Does anyone care to wager our Lovely Hostess will be dropped by her health insurer due to her unhealthy diet?

And what about the dare-devils? I used to work with a guy in perfect glowing health that climbed mountains, bungee-jumped, rode in motocross and spelunked, etc. He spent way more time at the hospital than any of the fat ladies or sedentary smokers did. Head injuries are expensive.

Government mandates Employer provide health insurance.

Employer now involved in mandating "healthy" choices (eat your carbs per government pie chart) to Employee to help control costs.

Employee complains to government about Employer involvement in their health care.

Government mandates how/why/when/what/where Employer provides health insurance.

Repeat until Singularity of complete Government responsibility for "citizens" health care achieved.

Does anyone care to wager our Lovely Hostess will be dropped by her health insurer due to her unhealthy diet?

Isn't that a pre-existing condition?

And what about the dare-devils?

They'll get pain pills.

Repeat until Singularity of complete Government responsibility for "citizens" health care achieved.

Thread winner.

And of course, none of this would be an issue if...

Pay cash. It's the only way to be sure.

The federal government continues to explore macroeconomics by doing massive experiments on the populace of peasant guinea pigs.

Consider an employer of more than 50 full-time workers. The penalty supposedly "on the employer" for not providing health insurance is a complicated brew, up to $2,000 per employee. Soon, we will be able to measure experimentally the comparative elasticity of labor supply, labor demand, and investment demand. In simpler terms, we will find out how much of the penalty produces lower wages, a lower return on investment (and less investment in new jobs), and/or produces higher prices. The data will be a boon to economics professors, who will study it for years.

It may seem that the employer is paying for most of health insurance. But, all costs of employing people, including health insurance, are paid for out of the production of the employee. If the employer did not pay for health insurance, then that part of employee compensation would be paid in cash to the employee, through competition for workers. This has been studied (at the link below).

The penalty, supposedly on employers, will mostly reduce the employee's benefits and cash wage by $2,000 yearly. Any increase in insurance costs mandated by ObamaCare will also mostly reduce cash wages. Companies are finding ways to limit their costs under ObamaCare because they don't want to directly reduce wages and they want to stay in business.

Ironically, if an employer-provided health benefit now costs more than $2,000, the employee's salary will go up by the savings. But, the employee will then have to buy insurance privately at an exchange. The employee is effectively taxed $2,000 at work, possibly to be given a subsidy at the exchange. People will never understand this complexity.

Many employers want to entirely escape these taxes which must fall on the worker. Their workers can't afford the reduction in cash salary which would result from participation in Obamacare. Their workers would quit to work for some other company who could offer a larger salary, to work for a company of less than 50 full-time employees.

ObamaCare is designed to put the employer in the middle, so that workers will be angry at the employer for any problems. This is part of the anti-business stance of Team Obama. The eventual failure of ObamaCare will be blamed on supposedly greedy businessmen who would not supply reasonable insurance to their employees. But, it is entirely a government failure.

Company Paid Health Insurance is Part of Your Salary
The employee earns his health benefits as part of what he is paid. The employer merely writes the check for him.

"True, what I eat doesn't correspond with the non-evidence-based diet doctors recommend. But, I'm healthy as fuck."

Of course I was being facetious. The point I was making was that if the government makes the rules, they get to decide what the "science" behind them is, too, objective facts notwithstanding.