Thought Provoking, Testing for Smokers

[wvjules]

My guess is that the only people that would have an issue with being tested for smoking and charged accordingly are those that smoke because it will cost them money.

Non-smoker here so you are wrong with your assumption.

 

[ccgirl]

Ok then lets make sure all overweight individuals pay more for their premiums as well and also get their cholesterol, sugar, etc checked since that is also a choice THEY are making.

Oh wait, scratch that! Everyone should get tested for EVERYTHING and have their premiums and coverage based on that.

ETA: couldn't they also not cover illnesses that are a direct result of the sin they are commiting?

We had to go thru a physical as part of getting my company health insurance. Weight, cholesterol, etc. did come into play. Not saying it is right. The fact of the matter is people in these categories to end up costing more.

 

[mamacatnv]

At what point in time have donuts or doritos been considered good for you?What's next? All I'm saying is that if one high risk behavior warrants a higher premium then all of them should.

If a carrier wants to exlude covering an illness or injury that is a direct result of the smoking then fine but there are some smokers out there that have NEVER had a smoking related illness like there are overweight people that are as healthy as thinner people.

Probably never but what about coffee or red wine or certain types of fats or dairy products or carbs etc.....
I don't think smoking has ever been considered on the good scale but some will argue that the items I listed were good, then bad or some consider good and others consider bad. Smoking was bad when I was a kid, is still bad today and like I said as far as I know it has no known health benefits.

 

[kt_mom]

Thats really two seperate issues, your choice to purchase a pack of smokes, or a large pepsi only effect you, so the tax you pay in a way punishes you. Your choice to smoke or only drink pepsi puts you at a higher risk for health problems, which we all help pay for through our insurance premiums. There is a difference between expecting someone to pay their "fair" share of the cost to treat any medical complications that come from their own vice, and to be punished with an extra tax because they happen to have that vice.

I know one could argue that the extra taxes collected go to help pay for health coverage for all of those getting help from the State, but unless that money is directly paying that and not going into a general fund I don't believe thats really the case, at least in my State.

I realize the difference. My point is that the insurance companies will follow the same path as the government in that once they realize they can make money off of it they will find the next thing to go after and the next thing. Everyone will be all in favor of them charging more to the dreaded smokers and their evil ways. But what's next? Your donuts, or coke. Maybe that steak you'd like to have or bike you like to ride. I'm sure somone could make an argument as to the amount of money spent because of bike accidents.

Just because its not your vice doesn't mean it won't affect you down the road in some way. They may come after what you enjoy next. Smoking is just the cool thing to dislike right now. It will be something else next.

 

[wvjules]

This thread is making me want a steak. But I can't until atleast Thursday.

I'm actually not opposed to a health profile for everyone. All factors should be looked at, family history, past claims, weight, blood tests, nicotene, etc. My opposition is with singling out one group of people, no matter what their high risk 'addiction' is.

 

[joviroxx]

There are many personal choices made by the population in this country that end up costing tax payers, insurance companies and the like money. Open the door for this and you open the door for all.

For the record, Im not a smoker , not a drinker and am now a healthy BMI after losing 96 pounds. Smoking is just the "in" thing to dislike.

 

[PrincessKsMom]

There are many personal choices made by the population in this country that end up costing tax payers, insurance companies and the like money. Open the door for this and you open the door for all.

For the record, Im not a smoker , not a drinker and am now a healthy BMI after losing 96 pounds. Smoking is just the "in" thing to dislike.

Like living near a river, living in tornado alley... there's no way around any of it. We're all taking something out of the insurance pot.

 

[mamacatnv]

There are many personal choices made by the population in this country that end up costing tax payers, insurance companies and the like money. Open the door for this and you open the door for all.

For the record, Im not a smoker , not a drinker and am now a healthy BMI after losing 96 pounds. Smoking is just the "in" thing to dislike.

The slippery slope is a true concern, I do understand that argument.

I don't agree that smoking is the in thing to dislike, that sounds like its the thing for the moment.
As far back as I can remember it has been a habit that is disliked and known to be unhealthy. The same cannot be said of many other things but smoking has remained a constant for many many years.

 

[luvmy3]

I realize the difference. My point is that the insurance companies will follow the same path as the government in that once they realize they can make money off of it they will find the next thing to go after and the next thing. Everyone will be all in favor of them charging more to the dreaded smokers and their evil ways. But what's next? Your donuts, or coke. Maybe that steak you'd like to have or bike you like to ride. I'm sure somone could make an argument as to the amount of money spent because of bike accidents.

Just because its not your vice doesn't mean it won't affect you down the road in some way. They may come after what you enjoy next. Smoking is just the cool thing to dislike right now. It will be something else next.

I wasn't disagreeing with you, I was just ranting on the State making someone pay more (and increasingly more) taxes because they have a certain vice. A smoker already pays tax on what they buy, the State makes money on those sales already. It only seems like punishment to keep increasing the taxes on those vice items. I disagree with that

I actually don't have a problem having to pay more for health insurance if what I choose to do puts me in a higher risk group.

 

[FireDancer]

Like living near a river, living in tornado alley... there's no way around any of it. We're all taking something out of the insurance pot.

That is true but those things are taken into account when it comes to insurance. When I lived in FL I paid way more for renters insurance than I did in Ohio because in FL I lived in an area that was vulnerable to hurricanes. It's just how the industry works.

 

[PrincessKsMom]

That is true but those things are taken into account when it comes to insurance. When I lived in FL I paid way more for renters insurance than I did in Ohio because in FL I lived in an area that was vulnerable to hurricanes. It's just how the industry works.

I understand the higher premiums but realistically do the premiums ever cover the losses? We all pay for someone else somehow and someone else pays for us. Recently in NJ we've had severe flooding. I believe it was the third time many of these homeowners were flooded out in the past two or three years. Regardless of premiums, how do you continue to allow them to rebuild and put in claims year after year? By taking someone else's premium to pay for it. Same for healthcare. Regardless of the poor choices we all make, we're all putting in claims and we're all paying for someone else.

 

[joviroxx]

Do people really, truly believe that all this coming down on smoker's is because of health issues? Because it cost more to cover them? I don't. If cigarettes are sooo bad, they would be illegal like other drugs are illegal. Drugs are taken off the market quickly when the FDA deems they are dangerous.

No, the tobacco companies are big and obviously there are reasons why they are allowed to continue to produce cigarettes. Think about it folks, this is about business and politics and money. not our health, no matter how much you would like to believe otherwise. Im not going to get more into it as it will break the politics rule on the board, but don't kid yourselves. We are being used as pawns in this "war".

While quitting smoking , no doubt, can be beneficial, I certainly see beyond it.

 

[LisaNJ25]

Why shouldn't premiums be based on the number of persons covered? That makes perfect sense.

Why shouldn't someone needing 6 persons covered pay more than someone needing only 1 person covered?

Normally it it is. I have always see single, single parent with child and than family plans. Cheaper ofcourse for the single person. I have never seen one charging for the amount of kids you have.

 

[mamacatnv]

Normally it it is. I have always see single, single parent with child and than family plans. Cheaper ofcourse for the single person. I have never seen one charging for the amount of kids you have.

The cost to cover dependent children varies from carrier to carrier. I have seen some that are per kid but the majority are for all. Now that "kids" are covered to the age of 26 it would not surprise me to see this structure change

 

[luvmy3]

I understand the higher premiums but realistically do the premiums ever cover the losses? We all pay for someone else somehow and someone else pays for us. Recently in NJ we've had severe flooding. I believe it was the third time many of these homeowners were flooded out in the past two or three years. Regardless of premiums, how do you continue to allow them to rebuild and put in claims year after year? By taking someone else's premium to pay for it. Same for healthcare. Regardless of the poor choices we all make, we're all putting in claims and we're all paying for someone else.

Do you not have to have seperate flood insurance in order for the insurance company to cover the damages? Flood insurance is not included in my homeowners, I would have to pay extra for that, and its optional. If I choose to live in a flood zone and I don't pay extra for it, I'm SOL. So those people putting in multiple claims for flooding would be paying more (of their share) for it than the rest of us. Why shouldn't/couldn't health insurance work the same

 

[NikitaZee]

There are many personal choices made by the population in this country that end up costing tax payers, insurance companies and the like money. Open the door for this and you open the door for all.

I agree with this.

 

[PrincessKsMom]

Do you not have to have seperate flood insurance in order for the insurance company to cover the damages? Flood insurance is not included in my homeowners, I would have to pay extra for that, and its optional. If I choose to live in a flood zone and I don't pay extra for it, I'm SOL. So those people putting in multiple claims for flooding would be paying more (of their share) for it than the rest of us. Why shouldn't/couldn't health insurance work the same

Flood insurance is separate. However, don't States claim disaster emergency funding from the Federal government? And do you really pay that much in premiums to be able to cover the cost of $5-$10k 3x in the past 2 years? Even people who don't have insurance, I believe, wind up getting something once an area has been declared an emergency don't they? And the emergency funding from the Federal government comes from taxes, so we're all paying. That's all I'm trying to say is at some point everyone is claiming something, i.e., health, flood, home insurance...

 

[Free4Life11]

There are many personal choices made by the population in this country that end up costing tax payers, insurance companies and the like money. Open the door for this and you open the door for all.

Exactly.

Anyway, people who live a healthy lifestyle and make good choices should already get a "discount" in a sense, by paying less co-payments and less co-insurance due to fewer hospital visits, etc.

Yes some plans pay 100% but most people still have co-pays and co-insurance on top of premiums.

 

[Guy Incognito]

Do people really, truly believe that all this coming down on smoker's is because of health issues? Because it cost more to cover them? I don't. If cigarettes are sooo bad, they would be illegal like other drugs are illegal. Drugs are taken off the market quickly when the FDA deems they are dangerous.

No, the tobacco companies are big and obviously there are reasons why they are allowed to continue to produce cigarettes. Think about it folks, this is about business and politics and money. not our health, no matter how much you would like to believe otherwise. Im not going to get more into it as it will break the politics rule on the board, but don't kid yourselves. We are being used as pawns in this "war".

While quitting smoking , no doubt, can be beneficial, I certainly see beyond it.

to expand on that thought a bit, isn't that what it's all about across the board? If we were all healthy eating, regular exercising, non-smoking, fit people; there'd be no money to be made in a multitude of areas. You've already mentioned tobacco companies making money off us with their products. If we stopped eating garbage, who would make money pushing the fatty, processed, artificial foods at us that keep us fat and unhealthy? If we're not fat/unhealthy, the drug companies/healthcare industry wouldn't be able to make money off us by creating the latest "miracle pill" that will alieviate our symptoms (not "cure", mind you, there's more money to be made by having you take their pill indefinately). Not to mention the billion dollar weightloss industry to help you 'melt away the pounds without changing your lifestyle'.... and, of course, they all tie into gov't with their lobbyists making sure their prefered brand of poison remains in 'good standing'....


of course, that's part of having freedom of choice.... no one is forcing us to buy cigarettes, bad food, etc.... there's more than enough information out there that everyone knows what's bad for them. If they choose to do it anyway, they should be ready to pay the consequences themsevles later on.

 

[luvmy3]

Flood insurance is separate. However, don't States claim disaster emergency funding from the Federal government? And do you really pay that much in premiums to be able to cover the cost of $5-$10k 3x in the past 2 years? Even people who don't have insurance, I believe, wind up getting something once an area has been declared an emergency don't they? And the emergency funding from the Federal government comes from taxes, so we're all paying. That's all I'm trying to say is at some point everyone is claiming something, i.e., health, flood, home insurance...

What you pay depends on how long you have been paying in,so that really depends on the homeowner whether or not they have paid enough to cover their damages. Also, I assume that if you continue to submit claims, your premium goes up or your contract is not renewed (although I don't know if thats legal). I have heard horror stories of people trying to find HOI if they had previously filed claims, so it may be.
Emergency funding from the state, does that happen in every case? I'm sure there are requirements to be met in order for that, so again individual circumstances may come into play. I don't think the State will be declaring any emergencies because my local creek flooded and 100 homes were damaged. A larger scale flood, like the river, maybe but I don't really know.

I agree, that we all put in, and there are many people who pay into the system who never need to use what they do, some use it all and then some. That still doesn't mean there is something wrong with expecting those people who choose to put themselves at a higher risk of having to use the system, pay more because of that choice.