Higher Insurance Premiums for Smokers?

[snider]

My employer sponsored healthcare plan just started charging employees who smoke $20 more a month. They provided free treatment to anyone who accepted it then had everyone sign a form stating if you smoked or not. I'll admit at first I was all for it, Why should I have to pay for people who don't take care of themselves. But something about it wasn't sitting right with me, then I realized, where does it stop. When will they try to charge me more for enjoying high risk sports? Or because I don't excersise 3 times a week?

I don't mind people who tax the system more to pay more, that's only fair right? I think they are taking the wrong approach though. If smokers rake up 50% more healthcare charges than the nonsmokers why not just tax cigarettes and put the tax money into healthcare? We know its a fact smoking is bad for you, so you can continue to smoke but you have to pay your extra healthcare costs rather than me pick up the slack. Hell, tax the bigmac and beer too. I like a beer every now and then, I don't have a problem paying a little more to drink one if my premiums are cheaper for it and I have the choice not to buy a beer. That's why I like the idea of a flat or fair tax. If you don't buy the things you don't pay the taxes, specifically you don't pay for everyone else.

[bubb2]

Do you eat red meat, cheese, and mayo? You should be charged higher premiums that vegetarians. The day is coming that you will be required to give a genetic sample so that a Insurance Co. can do testing and see if you have a gene that is a cancer marker or diabetes or Alzheimer's. You think I am joking, It's been talked about in the Insurance Industry for the last 20 years.

There is a old adage in the Insurance business. There is no such thing as a bad risk just a bad rate. But if you take the bad risks and rate the hell out of them, you are not denying access to anyone. It's not your problem they cannot afford you rate. It's another way to cherry pick your risks. But, these people will end up with the Obama Insurance plan and be covered. So if anyone thinks they are not going to pay for the next guy you are wrong and there is no way the Govt. Plan can be cheaper than private Insurance because less profitable risks will be priced out of private plans. Your tax dollars will be used to make the premiums affordable so that those do not have the ability to pay a higher rate are insured.

[gerrynj]

Smokers actually put LESS strain on the healthcare system. There was a study done in NJ a few years ago which concluded that as smokes on average live XXyears less than average, they use the healthcare system less as they die younger. Non-smokers area burden on the healthcare system as they live longer and it's in their older years when they use it the most.
So......smokers should pay LESS health insurance than non-smokers
Gerry

[gumbeau]

My employer has a much better solution.

He doesn't allow smokers to work for his company.

And that is certainly his right because it is his company.

[snider]

Originally Posted by gerrynj

Smokers actually put LESS strain on the healthcare system. There was a study done in NJ a few years ago which concluded that as smokes on average live XXyears less than average, they use the healthcare system less as they die younger. Non-smokers area burden on the healthcare system as they live longer and it's in their older years when they use it the most.
So......smokers should pay LESS health insurance than non-smokers
Gerry

So we should all just start smoking to drive costs down!

Sorry dude I'll never buy that until you provide the study, even then I'd have a hard time believing that. Smokers tax the system so much more than nonsmokers even if they do die 10 years sooner. Smokers spend days longer on ventilators, sometimes requiring temporary trachs, Dr's visits, meds, extensive surgeries to remove cancerous lesions. That with the COPD and emphysema they have for years costs more than I've spent in 29 years and u probably more than I ever will.

I've heard the debate about genetic screening, scary stuff. All the more reason to phase out insurance companies.

[danjarch]

Snider, that was a well published study. It made the rounds about a year ago and has been held to be true. In the event of heart attack their more likely to die before you can even get them to a cardiologist for heart surgery, and so on. So averaged out smokers are cheaper to insure then now smokers. Not so true for life insurance though.

Smokers already pay high taxes for cigarettes. They just raised them again to help cover S-Chip. You can only raise them so high before you trigger smuggling. Which would mean a major loss of existing revenue and an added expense of trying to stop the smugglers.

[CGMojo]

Brandon: "I've heard the debate about genetic screening, scary stuff. All the more reason to phase out insurance companies."

Do you really think that the government WON'T do genetic screening when they are the only health care provider in the nation? The proposed health care bill already asks for full access to your medical and financial records. Full access could mean genetic screening if some bureaucrat thinks it's appropriate. An 1,000 page bill will generate 11,000 pages of regulations and 200,000 bureaucrats to interpret and enforce them.

[gerrynj]

well - i can give you 2 data points that smokers have a lower burden in the health care system:

mother - heavy smoker all her life; died at 79 - never used the health care system for smoking related illness;
father - non-smoker; still alive at 90; been in and out of hospital for 10 years with one old age related malady after another

Next door neighbour:
Wife - smoker - dies at 81 ?
Husband - still alive (over 90) - suffered debilatating stoke 4 years ago - is under constant medical supervision - been in and our of hospital for a long time.

[snider]

Originally Posted by CGMojo

The proposed health care bill already asks for full access to your medical and financial records.

All Lies. The fear mongers at work.

Until I see evidence based research no way do I buy the claim that nonsmokers tax the healthcare system more than nonsmokers. 95% of the hemoraghic stroke pt's I see in the ICU are smokers, and that's just one disease process. No way nonsmokers cost more.

Do you think they are raising premiums on smokers because they cost less to insure? Seems kinda backwards to me.

[St Anna]

1. Higher risk = higher premium
2. try a user pays on healthcare - smokers in general are a poorer bet
3. smokers are addicts.
4. They expect the rest of us to breathe their foul 2nd hand air and to foot the bill for the consequences of their inconsiderate addiction. Why should we?