Thought Provoking, Testing for Smokers

[mamacatnv]

http://www.foxnews.com/health/2011/03/15/arizona-county-workers-tested-nicotine-use/?test=latestnews

I'm okay with the nicotine testing and the resulting premium increases to the employee.
It is a known fact that smokers have more health issues and thus if they CHOOSE to smoke I don't see an issue with them paying more for their healthcare due to a CHOICE they are making.

I'm not talking about pre-existing health conditions that one cannot prevent but in this case, this scenario of increased premiums for smokers, I have no issue.
For the record, I smoked for 25 years, quit 3 years ago so I can empathise both sides.

 

[wvjules]

http://www.foxnews.com/health/2011/03/15/arizona-county-workers-tested-nicotine-use/?test=latestnews

I'm okay with the nicotine testing and the resulting premium increases to the employee.
It is a known fact that smokers have more health issues and thus if they CHOOSE to smoke I don't see an issue with them paying more for their healthcare due to a CHOICE they are making.

I'm not talking about pre-existing health conditions that one cannot prevent but in this case, this scenario of increased premiums for smokers, I have no issue.
For the record, I smoked for 25 years, quit 3 years ago so I can empathise both sides.

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?

 

[Megan_J]

The really awful insurance that my company uses (not even worth getting) also makes people who are overweight pay more money, and to get to a lower premium bracket they have to prove that they are making an effort to lose weight. They are judging it on the BMI chart I think, which is known to be off.

 

[Megan_J]

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.

Some insurance companies are already doing that.

 

[MickeySP]

My only problem is this opens a door we may not want to open & will be hard to close.

 

[LisaNJ25]

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

My smoking husband and my overweight self would be in trouble.

I am lucky to see my dr 2 times a year and dh even less. Meanwhile I have seen non smoking/average weight friends end up with a heart attacks.

You just dont what will happen.

 

[joviroxx]

Can't wait for the "If you don't eat the correct protein:carbs:fat ratio , your health is at risk and you must pay higher premiums". Or how about alcohol and bad livers... etc. etc. etc.

Opening this door is scary..

 

[kt_mom]

Maybe after that they will test for fast food or candy or alcohol. Maybe people that eat uncooked or undercooked meats or seafood or any "unhealthy" food. Or maybe they will come up with a way to test people to see if they are into any kind of sports where they could get injured, or need some kind of medical care. Maybe women that are of child bearing age should have a higher rate imposed since they are more likely to need additional medical care.

There are all kinds of things that people "choose" to do that can/do increase health issues.

I'm not saying smoking isn't bad or that it doesn't cause health problems. Just that lots of things do.

 

[PaulaSB12]

The really awful insurance that my company uses (not even worth getting) also makes people who are overweight pay more money, and to get to a lower premium bracket they have to prove that they are making an effort to lose weight. They are judging it on the BMI chart I think, which is known to be off.

BMI is not just off its the biggest pile of bull.
http://thewaron********.com/2009/08/10/bmi/
To summarize their arguments, the BMI is a 200-year-old mathematical hack, created by a man who wasn’t even versed in the anatomical sciences of the day, let alone what we know now. It is not a meaningful measure of fitness, obesity or anything else, and is only still in use because it sounds scientific (because there’s a formula), it’s easy to calculate and it makes it easier for insurance companies to charge fit people as if they are obese.

Someone put a group of flikr pictures here is one (since its already on flikr I doubt the mind yet another link to it)
http://www.flickr.com/photos/77367764@N00/1459239412/in/set-72157602199008819/
Now does anyone really think this woman is obese?

 

[mamacatnv]

What's wrong with just limiting this to tobacco use?

When it comes to weight, I do believe that genetics play into things, same with some of the other noted issues.

The same cannot be said of tobacco use. You are not born with it, you can control it and using it is a choice.

 

[LisaNJ25]

Can't wait for the "If you don't eat the correct protein:carbs:fat ratio , your health is at risk and you must pay higher premiums". Or how about alcohol and bad livers... etc. etc. etc.

Opening this door is scary..

or dont forget.. dont have to many kids either since thats costs more.

 

[PrincessKsMom]

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?

I agree somewhat. I am overweight, no medical excuses. And maybe it's just me justifying, but you NEED to eat to survive (no you don't need to eat donuts and junk). However, you do not NEED to drink alcohol, smoke pot or smoke cigarettes to survive. I smoked for 16 years and quit cold turkey. It was probably the hardest thing I've ever done, but honestly, dieting is harder for me. Bad habits learned over the course of a lifetime compounded by having to eat in order to survive. At least with cigarettes I don't get the constant temptation. It's like telling a nicotine addict to only have 3 cigarettes a day, or an alcoholic to only have 3 drinks a day. JMHO.

As for not covering illnesses directly related, what about kids with asthma whose parents smoke? Or workers who work around asbestos or chemicals? Should they not be covered too?

 

[JaneBanks]

What's wrong with just limiting this to tobacco use?

When it comes to weight, I do believe that genetics play into things, same with some of the other noted issues.

The same cannot be said of tobacco use. You are not born with it, you can control it and using it is a choice.

So is drinking alcohol. Should they charge drinkers extra as well?

 

[kt_mom]

What's wrong with just limiting this to tobacco use?

When it comes to weight, I do believe that genetics play into things, same with some of the other noted issues.

The same cannot be said of tobacco use. You are not born with it, you can control it and using it is a choice.

So is having a cocktail at happy hour, or a big mac for lunch. All choices that can cause additional health problems. Not all obesity is genetic. Some people are just overweight because they overeat. Its a choice.

Like someone else said, its just not a door we want to open. You don't know where it will lead. But probably not where you want it to.

 

[MickeySP]

What's wrong with just limiting this to tobacco use?

When it comes to weight, I do believe that genetics play into things, same with some of the other noted issues.

The same cannot be said of tobacco use. You are not born with it, you can control it and using it is a choice.

If you could that would be fine but you can't, especially if you use he "bad for you - costs mor arguement" So many things fall into it.

Are you ready to have the insurance company dictate all things in your lifestyle? And if this starts why not test for genetic predispositions? We can just cull the population bit by bit of bad habits , hmmm sounds so familiar.

 

[FireDancer]

I was under the impression that the insurance companies use advanced algorithms to determine what each individual should cost to insure. Since they are a for-profit company they want to make sure that in the long run they make a profit on each person they insure.

I would imagine lifestyle (which includes smoking and obesity) would be included in the algorithm along with family medical history, personal medical history, the area you live in, your race, gender, etc. An obese smoker with a family history of cancer would be more likely to cost the insurer more long-term than a person who has never smoked, is in the normal range for body fat, and who's family normally lives into their 90's and their insurance cost would be adjusted accordingly. There will always be exceptions on both sides (the smoker who lives to 100 and the athlete that drops dead at 25) but they don't base these things on outliers.

I don't have a problem with your insurance cost being based on what the insurance companies expect to have to pay out based on their algorithms. If they want to give me a full medical and do blood work before insuring me go right ahead.

 

[mamacatnv]

I agree somewhat. I am overweight, no medical excuses. And maybe it's just me justifying, but you NEED to eat to survive (no you don't need to eat donuts and junk). However, you do not NEED to drink alcohol, smoke pot or smoke cigarettes to survive. I smoked for 16 years and quit cold turkey. It was probably the hardest thing I've ever done, but honestly, dieting is harder for me. Bad habits learned over the course of a lifetime compounded by having to eat in order to survive. At least with cigarettes I don't get the constant temptation. It's like telling a nicotine addict to only have 3 cigarettes a day, or an alcoholic to only have 3 drinks a day. JMHO.

Interesting angle.

 

[SC Minnie]

With our insurance, smokers pay an extra $100/month unless they check that they are willing to go into a smoker cessation program. There is no testing to verify you are telling the truth about smoking (but if it was found out you lied you could be fired) and there is no follow through to make sure you stuck with the cessation program. And the company is paying for the cessation programs.

If they wanted to increase by premium because I'm over weight but offered Weight Watchers at work to lower it I would go in a heart beat. We actually had an at work WW group for a while but it go to be expensive for some and we couldn't keep the minumum numbers of people. Some of our locations pay for WW to come in and we are trying to get our location to do that.

 

[IdesOmarch]

What if you're like Charlie Sheen and the drugs, alcohol and cigs have absolutely NO, zero effect on you. That is the case with me, I smoke some (not a heavy smoker) and last Dr. visit, he could not even tell I smoked when he listened to my chest. Because I'm me, I'm on a drug called IdesOmarch and thats just how I roll.

 

[luvmy3]

Instead of charging a higher premium they should make it so that if you incur medical expenses as a direct result of your choice to do something like smoke, over indulge at McDs every week, skydive, drink, etc, the percentage of what the insurance company pays decreases and your personal responsiblity for the cost increases.

Its definitely a slippery slope, and I admit I'm on the fence. If your choices put you at higher risk then I don't see a problem with expecting you to pay more. However its the door that allowing that opens for the future, where the things you cannot control, like family history, would be scrutinized and billed higher for that concerns me.