Should health insurance premiums be higher for smokers?

[kenny]

DC says, "NO!"
Why? ... Gotta protect poor people's right to smoke!!!
So if rich folks were more likely to smoke than poor they vote the other way?
Last time I checked cancer cells didn't care how much money I make.

SNIP:
The board charged with implementing federal health care reforms in the District (of Columbia) has voted to prohibit insurance companies from charging higher premiums to cigarette smokers, adding the city to a handful of states rejecting such surcharges because of the effect they have on poor families who are more likely to smoke.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/apr/9/insurers-cant-charge-more-smokers-health-exchanges/#ixzz2Q5vRpWRr

 

[iLander]

They already are higher, at least in my state. Always were.

One of the 5,000 reasons I finally quit.

But be careful, the insurance companies took away the rights of smokers, and they will soon go after the rights of overweight people and those that drink. After all, aren't they "choosing to slowly kill themselves" too?

Then what? The insurance companies, even more desperate to avoid paying any claims, EVER, will look at all those old people (who need MAJOR care when they get sick) and decide it's time to set limits. Oh, wait, there are already policies with "lifetime coverage limits" . . .

It's a slippery slope.

 

[ksinger]

They already are higher, at least in my state. Always were.

One of the 5,000 reasons I finally quit.

But be careful, the insurance companies took away the rights of smokers, and they will soon go after the rights of overweight people and those that drink. After all, aren't they "choosing to slowly kill themselves" too?

Then what? The insurance companies, even more desperate to avoid paying any claims, EVER, will look at all those old people (who need MAJOR care when they get sick) and decide it's time to set limits. Oh, wait, there are already policies with "lifetime coverage limits" . . .

It's a slippery slope.

Yep. Life is invariably fatal, and we all usually help it end sooner, one way or another.

If the whole point of the ACA is it being affordable, then I can see why they would think that way. If insurers get to charge more for smokers, why shouldn't they get to charge more if you have a pre-existing condition? (And seriously, why the heck are they allowed to even ask medical questions if this is going to essentially be a large "group" thing. Maybe someone with more recent experience in the insurance industry than I, will chime in. Surely they are not requiring an actual medical before issuing...what? an individual policy??) Many of those have a component of choice in them - some cancers, diabetes, heart disease. This pretty much is about ultimately chipping away at what the ACA was supposed to do in the first place. Most health care is already unavailable and unaffordable to the poor who are already unhealthier than the middle class or rich, and this would just perpetuate that.

 

[chemgirl]

Don't they already take smoking, weight, drinking habits into account when they insure a new person?

We have private benefits for our home business and there was a booklet of health related questions, weigh-in, and blood test before we could be insured. I somehow came back cheaper than my husband. His policy doesn't cover stress related illness because he saw a psychologist at the end of his last relationship. I thought this was normal?

 

[kenny]

People, read the link.

 

[ksinger]

People, read the link.

Well, I will confess I skimmed it and thus missed the part about the 50% surcharge being allowed. Which is kinda bizarre, actually. That isn't how "group" insurance generally works. I had assumed that since the ACA was supposed to be a pool, that it would operate like a large group plan, which typically don't allow medical questions to be asked of individuals - either all are insured or none are.

I guess the ACA is designed to not achieve its goals, by its very provisions. Like iLander, I think the insurance companies will try to squeeze more blood out of that "exception" turnip in the long run.

 

[AprilBaby]

They already are higher, at least in my state. Always were.

One of the 5,000 reasons I finally quit.

But be careful, the insurance companies took away the rights of smokers, and they will soon go after the rights of overweight people and those that drink. After all, aren't they "choosing to slowly kill themselves" too?

Then what? The insurance companies, even more desperate to avoid paying any claims, EVER, will look at all those old people (who need MAJOR care when they get sick) and decide it's time to set limits. Oh, wait, there are already policies with "lifetime coverage limits" . . .

It's a slippery slope.

Agreed with this too! Pick on one group and you open it up to every group.

 

[cm366]

Seems like a pretty straightforward incentive to lie to your doctor - if the patient says they've only used tobacco 3 times a week to get under the 4 use limitation, there's no way to disprove their statement.

 

[Dee*Jay]

Maybe the tobacco companies should just be required to pay for the health care expenses related to smoking. "Oh, grandma's got emphasema -- send the bill to Philip Morris!"

But that begs the question of the slippery slope problem for other conditions; do the healthcare expenses of overweight people then get paid by McDonalds or Burger King? Or what if you're big wine AND beer drinker -- Coppola vineyards or Anheuser Busch... ?

 

[MichelleCarmen]

Don't they already take smoking, weight, drinking habits into account when they insure a new person?

We have private benefits for our home business and there was a booklet of health related questions, weigh-in, and blood test before we could be insured. I somehow came back cheaper than my husband. His policy doesn't cover stress related illness because he saw a psychologist at the end of his last relationship. I thought this was normal?

They don't always take smoking, weight, etc., into account. We have health & life insurance through my DH's work and the company didn't ask us anything or check our weights, etc. But, we have seperate life insurance policies in addition to the work one and for that, we had a full blood panel, weight, blood pressure, etc., however, that was because of the amount the policies are for.

 

[MichelleCarmen]

DC says, "NO!"
Why? ... Gotta protect poor people's right to smoke!!!
So if rich folks were more likely to smoke than poor they vote the other way?
Last time I checked cancer cells didn't care how much money I make.

SNIP:
The board charged with implementing federal health care reforms in the District (of Columbia) has voted to prohibit insurance companies from charging higher premiums to cigarette smokers, adding the city to a handful of states rejecting such surcharges because of the effect they have on poor families who are more likely to smoke.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/apr/9/insurers-cant-charge-more-smokers-health-exchanges/#ixzz2Q5vRpWRr

If poor people are more likely to smoke, then how do they afford such a habit, plus buy food, etc? Maybe people on wellfare should be tested for tabacco... Is it right that taxpayers are contributing to the wellfare system for foodstamp programs so people can smoke? I would like for their premiums to be higher IF it means that non-smokers can have slightly lower premiums. And, this whole thing bugs me because there are people who hold signs asking for rent or food money while also smoking cigarrettes.

 

[ksinger]

Don't they already take smoking, weight, drinking habits into account when they insure a new person?

We have private benefits for our home business and there was a booklet of health related questions, weigh-in, and blood test before we could be insured. I somehow came back cheaper than my husband. His policy doesn't cover stress related illness because he saw a psychologist at the end of his last relationship. I thought this was normal?

They don't always take smoking, weight, etc., into account. We have health & life insurance through my DH's work and the company didn't ask us anything or check our weights, etc. But, we have seperate life insurance policies in addition to the work one and for that, we had a full blood panel, weight, blood pressure, etc., however, that was because of the amount the policies are for.

Disclaimer: I worked in life insurance, but it has been quite awhile and things change in that business, which can be a very dirty one, IMO.

That said, you just described the difference between group insurance and individual policies. The group plans offered by companies as a benefit to their employees typically (maybe this is changing, I don't know) don't require medicals, either questionnaire, or exam. And they absolutely can NOT charge different premiums for people with health issues. I worked for a company in the pre-HIPPA days, who tried to do just that with 2 employees - one of whom had a child with CF, and the other had a wife with MS. They attempted to get the employees to go on individual plans apart from the group, plans that excluded the ill family member. The company lost that battle, because they were attempting something illegal. I'm actually proud to say I was the little voice in my fellow employees ears on that one, because they really thought they had to do this, when in reality the company was trying to pull one over on them. Grrr. Made me furious.

So, by the ACA allowing medical questions, it is acting very much like individual policies, which I find...weird. It's a group...but it's not.


As I said above, insurance - of ANY kind, is mostly a very dirty business.

 

[ksinger]

DC says, "NO!"
Why? ... Gotta protect poor people's right to smoke!!!
So if rich folks were more likely to smoke than poor they vote the other way?
Last time I checked cancer cells didn't care how much money I make.

SNIP:
The board charged with implementing federal health care reforms in the District (of Columbia) has voted to prohibit insurance companies from charging higher premiums to cigarette smokers, adding the city to a handful of states rejecting such surcharges because of the effect they have on poor families who are more likely to smoke.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/apr/9/insurers-cant-charge-more-smokers-health-exchanges/#ixzz2Q5vRpWRr

If poor people are more likely to smoke, then how do they afford such a habit, plus buy food, etc? Maybe people on wellfare should be tested for tabacco... Is it right that taxpayers are contributing to the wellfare system for foodstamp programs so people can smoke? I would like for their premiums to be higher IF it means that non-smokers can have slightly lower premiums. And, this whole thing bugs me because there are people who hold signs asking for rent or food money while also smoking cigarrettes.

You're forgetting what a powerful, powerful addiction cigarettes are. Ask anyone who has quit, and they will tell you the temptation will be with them for the rest of their lives. You're indignant because you're casting smoking as a moral failing, like they are constantly choosing cigarettes over other things, when the reality is they actively chose cigarettes maybe once or twice, maybe even as a child or young teen, and from then on, the cigarettes chose THEM.

As for testing welfare recipients for drug use, well, the core assumptions about who is actually receiving TAANF benefits aside, it's pretty much been shown to not be effective - with a rate of about maybe 2%? of those receiving public assistance being on something, while the cost of all that testing - at about $50 a pop (the testing labs are slavering at the mere thought) ends up putting the whole thing in the red as far as any real savings. But it does transfer public funds to private business, and since that is the trend right now, especially in the other really big outlay - education - it could be seen as a success by some factions I suppose.

*ETA - I really need to check the numbers on that. Two percent may be low, but I do recall that as far as the drugs for which they test, those on TAANF, actually had a LOWER incidence than the general population, which is about ....(memory don't fail me) 9%? I'll check the numbers and get back. Gotta go to work!!