Insurance costs pressure smokers

The idea of making cigarette smokers pay extra for their health insurance is catching on with employers and spurring debates about worker freedom, but one key question remains in doubt: Do such incentives ...

[Thomas]

Instead of charging more for smokers how about giving non smokers a rebate.

[Thomas]

Are they also going to charge more for homosexuals who are far more likely to get AIDS and require extensive treatments that are very expensive.

Why just single out the smokers and the obese.

[Joey]

How about people who ride motorcycles?

How about sky-diving?

Mountain climbing?

Shouldn't women pay more since their lifestyle choice of having children increases costs?(Both near-term and long-term with adding new people on the insurance.)

Various ethnic groups who tend to have a greater incidence of certain diseases?

People over 40?

It never ends, does it?

[John]

Before these jerks are done, no one will even qualify to get affordable medical insurance. If you don't fit Big Brother's idea of health, just go crawl off and die. That's what they are saying. This ought to be a really fun thread, people defending insurance companies. They will show up.

[tlc]

what about adding incentives for DRINKERS!!!!!!!!!! they too have health problems.

[Rational Man]

How about fat people? People with family history's of certain diseases....

Joey is right -- the list never ends. Everyone does something that might qualify them for higher rates, from family genetic history to behavior.

The idea of GROUP coverage was to spread the risk over a group, making it less expensive on average.

Not to mention, now that I am 50+, after paying group rates all my life (which means I was paying higher than risk-generated rates when I was in my 20's and early 30's), now they want to change the rules? So I get penalized as a youth and as I get older? Really nice.....

[Thomas]

Joey wrote:

How about people who ride motorcycles?
How about sky-diving?
Mountain climbing?
Shouldn't women pay more since their lifestyle choice of having children increases costs?(Both near-term and long-term with adding new people on the insurance.)
Various ethnic groups who tend to have a greater incidence of certain diseases?
People over 40?
It never ends, does it?

You have obviously never tried to get private health insurance.

Skydiving & Mountain climbing, your excluded, motorcycle riding, excluded. I believe that women do pay more then men for their individual insurance. Quite a bit more.
Yes if you have a family history of disease you will be excluded.
Oh and being over 40 you will pay and pay and pay.

Oh and one last thing, any pre existing condition, even if minor, unless you are previoulsy covered under HIPAA you will be excluded.

So be thankful you never had to shop for private health insurance.

One last thing, unlike group insurance which resets every year, private plans increase there rate every six months.

PSA------ UNICARE worst company out there get insurance from anybody but them. You have a claim in the first year they will call it a pre exisiting condition.

[da otha Shoe]

Ok, so the smoker's fee for health/life insurance might be feasible (at least, as far as it's intended to be), but what about non-smokers who live with smokers?
SHS is an acknowledged health risk.
So, eventually then, if you're charging smokers extra,... an adult of or over the age of majority who elects to live with a smoker is making a choice that threatens their health and ought to pay more too.

[Mark Winshel]

Among those people who smoke, I suspect a very high percentage of them do since their parents smoked - and perhaps also other family members and such as their aunts, uncles, grandparents, and older brothers and sisters, etc.

In other words when the family got together for dinner, Thanksgiving, to watch football together on TV, etc, etc, etc, smoking was and is part of the culture. So the parents smoked, their children picked up the habit due to the influence of the parents, then the children had children, and eventually the grandchildren also began smoking.

Its a beyond horrible and extremely expensive habit that has no redeeming qualities whatsoever other than making the tobacco companies rich, And it's about time we made some strong efforts to break the habit, the trend, and the addiction, and especially since all of us have to pay the bills for health care and disability caused by those who smoke.

[Orland Park Bob]

Just TRY to take my smokes from me!!! Youll find a fist sanwich in your FACE!!!!

[LMH]

"all of us have to pay the bills for health care and disability caused by those who smoke."

And I don't want to pay the expense of all the people who outlive their use and end up drooling vegetables in nursing homes for a decade or more. Thise is way more expensive than the early deaths of smokers. They actually save us money in the long term.

[Smoke is Smoke]

Mark Winshel wrote:

Its a beyond horrible and extremely expensive habit that has no redeeming qualities whatsoever other than making the tobacco companies rich

It doesn't make tobacco companies as rich as it makes the government. Lucrative taxes my man, lucrative taxes.

[Pelon]

Simple solution here is to NOT hire smokers to begin with. Treat nicotine like an illegal drug! It is also easy to test for nicotine during drug tests!

Smoking is a privilege and NOT a right!

It also dirty, disgusting, nasty and harmful pollution! Plus, most smokers are "pigs" by throwing the cigerette butts on the ground, in flower beds, on beaches in the sand, etc.

Time to do away with this disgustiing habit once and for all. It should be treated like drunk drivers! Made illegal, PERIOD!

[ever]

"They [smokers] actually save us money in the long term [by dying early]."
Nope, they just end up in the nursing homes earlier.

[John]

Man, some of you like dictating others' lives. Don't hire smokers- sounds like discrimination. Smoking is not even close being the same as illegal drugs.
I'm a non-smoker, but get real people. Where did all you bitter anti-smokers come from.
My father died from smoking. He never blamed anyone,but himself for the bad habit. I have no issue with requiring smoking areas set aside for employees. I agree restaurants shouldn't have it- but would allow some places to have it as long as they post signs. Bars shouldn't be included in bans.
As others have explained, group insurance is designed to spread the risks over large groups. Charging individuals extra for smoking, being overweight, or any other risky behavior is stupid. Don't let insurance run your lives.

[Oh Susannah]

Mark Winshel wrote:

Among those people who smoke, I suspect a very high percentage of them do since their parents smoked - and perhaps also other family members and such as their aunts, uncles, grandparents, and older brothers and sisters, etc.
In other words when the family got together for dinner, Thanksgiving, to watch football together on TV, etc, etc, etc, smoking was and is part of the culture. So the parents smoked, their children picked up the habit due to the influence of the parents, then the children had children, and eventually the grandchildren also began smoking.
Its a beyond horrible and extremely expensive habit that has no redeeming qualities whatsoever other than making the tobacco companies rich, And it's about time we made some strong efforts to break the habit, the trend, and the addiction, and especially since all of us have to pay the bills for health care and disability caused by those who smoke.

BEYOND HORRIBLE??? There are a lot of things beyond horrible, war, famine, rape, etc. etc. in this world, but you are demonizing a LEGAL substance and the people who use it. Not all smokers want to quite, and not all smokers are ill. Smoking causes on average 400,000 deaths a year in America. That is a number so small in the grand scheme of things! I don't understand the animosity of the people of the United States of America. Watch out all you fat people..........you are next!

[Rational Man]

Pelon wrote:

Simple solution here is to NOT hire smokers to begin with. Treat nicotine like an illegal drug! It is also easy to test for nicotine during drug tests!
Smoking is a privilege and NOT a right!
It also dirty, disgusting, nasty and harmful pollution! Plus, most smokers are "pigs" by throwing the cigerette butts on the ground, in flower beds, on beaches in the sand, etc.
Time to do away with this disgustiing habit once and for all. It should be treated like drunk drivers! Made illegal, PERIOD!

Cigarettes are a legal product.

By all means -- if you can get the votes -- make them illegal. Prohibition works so well!

Besides, they will NEVER be made illegal. Why? Because government makes tons of money of the taxes.

Personally, I find alcohol to be a disgusting habit, and drunks to be annoying -- but I wouldn't think of imposing my viewpoint on others.

Ditto with obese people. It's disgusting to look at, and their smell!!!!

(In case you aren't smart enough to realize it, that is sarcasm.)

Most of us have habits that annoy at least one other person -- that doesn't mean it should be illegal. Why is your opinion (or mine, for that matter) the most important one in determining such things? It isn't.

We have FREEDOM in this country. You are free not to smoke. You are free not to patronize places that allow smoking. You are free to establish your own non-smoking business, if you think there is such a demand. You should not be free to impose your wishes on others. And, after all, this is a private property issue, no matter how many clouds of smoke obscure it.

Freedom doesn't mean YOU get to impose your will on others. We call that a dictatorship.

[Rational Man]

ever wrote:

"They [smokers] actually save us money in the long term [by dying early]."
Nope, they just end up in the nursing homes earlier.

Your first statement is correct, your second is incorrect.

Studies show smokers are a net profit for the government, using far fewer benefits and healthcare than non-smokers (because they die younger). Smokers also are less subject to alzheimers (weird, huh?) than non-smokers.

Overall, between the taxes collected at time of sale, and the earlier average death, smokers contribute far more to the overall pool of money than do non-smokers.

There are lots of reasons to be against smoking -- but cost to the taxpayer is not one of them.

[Rational Man]

Oh Susannah wrote:

<quoted text>
BEYOND HORRIBLE??? There are a lot of things beyond horrible, war, famine, rape, etc. etc. in this world, but you are demonizing a LEGAL substance and the people who use it. Not all smokers want to quite, and not all smokers are ill. Smoking causes on average 400,000 deaths a year in America. That is a number so small in the grand scheme of things! I don't understand the animosity of the people of the United States of America. Watch out all you fat people..........you are next!

Good post.

[Pete]

Pelon wrote:

Simple solution here is to NOT hire smokers to begin with. Treat nicotine like an illegal drug! It is also easy to test for nicotine during drug tests!
Smoking is a privilege and NOT a right!
It also dirty, disgusting, nasty and harmful pollution! Plus, most smokers are "pigs" by throwing the cigerette butts on the ground, in flower beds, on beaches in the sand, etc.
Time to do away with this disgustiing habit once and for all. It should be treated like drunk drivers! Made illegal, PERIOD!

Whiners like you with their "simple" solutions are much more harmful to America than every smoker combined.