Thought Provoking, Testing for Smokers

[PaulaSB12]

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. 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.

So what happens if you don't fall in the normal range for weight but have never yet made any health claims? Does that make it a bit cheaper like car insurance less payments for no claims.

 

[PrincessKsMom]

Interesting angle.

No angle.

 

[DizBelle]

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

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?

 

[mamacatnv]

No angle.

Thought process..........of the discussion.
One has to eat. One does not have to smoke. Your points regarding the two were interesting to me and put a different light on the discussion thus my comment of a different angle - that means to see it from another way

 

[IdesOmarch]

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.

/QUOTE]

You can actually do just that. I smoke typically 1 to sometimes 3 cigarettes a day. I don't drink alcohol every day, but when I do, its typically 3 to 4 drinks. And with eating, I've had to cut down on intake and only eat 2 meals a day typically, maybe one small desert at night. My biggest problem is that I like milk too much, and milk is very fattening, the most fat out of my diet. If I could just cut out all the milk I would lose more weight. But moderation can be done on all levels.

 

[FireDancer]

So what happens if you don't fall in the normal range for weight but have never yet made any health claims? Does that make it a bit cheaper like car insurance less payments for no claims.

It would depend on how much they weighed all the different variables. If personal medical history is weighted higher than weight than it would be more important, if weight was weighted higher than it would be more important.

They have all the payout histories of their insured clients they can use to determine what is more likely to increase their exposure to risk and can adjust the algorithm accordingly. It's how the insurance game works whether it is health insurance, boat insurance, or car insurance.

 

[wvjules]

Thought process..........of the discussion.
One has to eat. One does not have to smoke. Her points regarding the two were interesting to me and put a different light on the discussion thus my comment of a different angle

But one does not have to eat Dunkin Donuts, a porterhouse steak, Burger King, pizza, Doritos, etc.

If someone is going to base premuims on choices it should be on ALL health choices, just not ONLY the scapegoat smoker.

 

[kt_mom]

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?

With every company I've worked for its been this way. You pay one price for employee, a little higher for employee/spouse or employee/children and the highest is for employee/family. Of course you pay the same whether its a family of 3 or a family of 10.

 

[MickeySP]

I do love that my insurance companiy cannot have my medical history

I was adopted in the 60's before they kept "family histories" so they gotta roll the dice with me.

 

[kt_mom]

But one does not have to eat Dunkin Donuts, a porterhouse steak, Burger King, pizza, Doritos, etc.

If someone is going to base premuims on choices it should be on ALL health choices, just not ONLY the scapegoat smoker.

I agree

Once they have taxed and charged us as much as they can on this vice they will move on to the next one.

The extra tax on cigarettes and alcohol is a perfect example. Now they want to tax fast food and/or soda. Insurance companies would follow the same logic and start charging more for all sorts of "choices" people make.

 

[FireDancer]

But one does not have to eat Dunkin Donuts, a porterhouse steak, Burger King, pizza, Doritos, etc.

If someone is going to base premiums on choices it should be on ALL health choices, just not ONLY the scapegoat smoker.

I don't think it should be all choice but all choices that demonstrate a statistically significant change to long term cost. Diet, excercise or lack thereof, smoking, etc.

Our insurance at work tries to address some of these things by paying for gym memberships, having an in-service health day (which is actually tomorrow) to do testing and teaching of good habits, having a health coach come to each office once a month to answer questions and provide information and advice. It is cheaper on average to prevent illness as opposed to treat illness.

ETA: Think about it this way. Lets say that you were going to decide whether or not to split all of my future health care costs with me in exchange for a monthly payment starting now. Wouldn't you want to know everything you could about my lifestyle, family history, and personal history before you decided what that monthly payment should be so you know you aren't going to lose your shirt down the road? I sure as heck would in the reverse situation. In reality, that is exactly what the health insurance companies are doing. They are trying to determine how much we are likely to cost them down the road so they can charge us accordingly now.

 

[mamacatnv]

But one does not have to eat Dunkin Donuts, a porterhouse steak, Burger King, pizza, Doritos, etc.

If someone is going to base premuims on choices it should be on ALL health choices, just not ONLY the scapegoat smoker.

Everytime we turn around some "expert" deems some food item, or weight loss system, or body weight, or chemical level in ones bloodstream to be good when it was bad or bad when it used to be good.

The same cannot be said of smoking. It is known to be bad, this has not changed, it is known to cause health problems and to the best of my knowledge there are no known health rewards from smoking.

 

[PrincessKsMom]

Thought process..........of the discussion.
One has to eat. One does not have to smoke. Your points regarding the two were interesting to me and put a different light on the discussion thus my comment of a different angle - that means to see it from another way

I know what it means. I just thought you meant that I was trying to excuse my choices by working an angle, so to speak, which I had already mentioned might just be the case.

 

[DizBelle]

With every company I've worked for its been this way. You pay one price for employee, a little higher for employee/spouse or employee/children and the highest is for employee/family. Of course you pay the same whether its a family of 3 or a family of 10.

Just because they do it that way doesn't make it right or fair.

 

[DizBelle]

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.

 

[luvmy3]

I agree

Once they have taxed and charged us as much as they can on this vice they will move on to the next one.

The extra tax on cigarettes and alcohol is a perfect example. Now they want to tax fast food and/or soda. Insurance companies would follow the same logic and start charging more for all sorts of "choices" people make.

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.

 

[PrincessKsMom]

With every company I've worked for its been this way. You pay one price for employee, a little higher for employee/spouse or employee/children and the highest is for employee/family. Of course you pay the same whether its a family of 3 or a family of 10.

My company does it the same way.

What bugs me is DH's company. The company pays medical 100%. I was on DH's medical, but a few years ago they said anyone whose spouse works and has medical available to them, must use that as their primary. I have to pay for mine now. DH said to them, so if my wife works she has to take her company's medical, even if it's not as good as ours, but if Joe Smith's wife chooses not to work and have 12 kids, you'll cover her and the 12 kids? Of course the answer was Yes!

 

[mamacatnv]

I know what it means. I just thought you meant that I was trying to excuse my choices by working an angle, so to speak, which I had already mentioned might just be the case.

LOL no not at all.
I have issues with food too but like you said I can completely avoid tobacco. In this day and age I rarely have to deal with it and depending on where one lives and what one does some may never have to encounter a situation where there are people smoking. The same cannot be said of food at all. Very interesting and thought provoking

 

[wvjules]

Everytime we turn around some "expert" deems some food item, or weight loss system, or body weight, or chemical level in ones bloodstream to be good when it was bad or bad when it used to be good.

The same cannot be said of smoking. It is known to be bad, this has not changed, it is known to cause health problems and to the best of my knowledge there are no known health rewards from smoking.

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.

 

[PrincessKsMom]

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.

How do you test for poor driving? Or how often do you test for alcohol or illegal drugs? How often do you test cholesterol?