Should insurance companies charge smokers?

chunkiedunker

Being a former smoker as of a few months ago and an obese person no i dont think they should be charged more. But i dont think anyone should. When u think about it, insurance companies are a legal form of thievery. They take ur money, and rarely pay out. U still get a bill most of the time and have to jump thru hoops to get them to pay. Car insurance is a joke. Someone hits u or a deer runs out infront of u. They fix ur new car with junkyard parts. They are crooked ppl and frankly i pay more than enough each year without them charging me more.

lachesissss

Honestly, I don't think they should charge smokers more, but give incentives and provide services (which most insurances companies provide) to encourage healthy lifestyle choices, of which cessation of smoking could be the focus.

Do I think it will work, and people will utilize these resources? No. But I think they should be provided nonetheless.

Ruger2506

it was a joke but i'll play. what if they outlawed a certain type of gun and there was no grandfather clause. what if after your refusal to turn them in they(ATF?) came to collect them...would you really die for those guns? or would you hand them over?

Fair enough, I would hope it was a joke.

I'll let the cat out of the bag. I have often believed as things become illegal I will be stocking up before hand. Currently there is no gun registry in this country. The gov't does not know what guns I have..if any.

Items that become illegal would be stock piled, secured and hidden somewhere I have access to.

magj0y

You know obesity costs more and kills more, right?

How about changing extra to - everyone - who doesn't fit into healthy parameters.

The problem is there are in fact some legitimate genetic and health variables that can cause obesity. Smoking is just easy because it is an active bad choice.

"some " just because you're predisposed to being large doesn't mean you should give up and eat for crap. A physical and a few tests will show whether you're overweight because you choose to or not. If you choose to live outside healthy parameters, then cough it up.

VelociMama

Honestly, I don't think they should charge smokers more, but give incentives and provide services (which most insurances companies provide) to encourage healthy lifestyle choices, of which cessation of smoking could be the focus.

Do I think it will work, and people will utilize these resources? No. But I think they should be provided nonetheless.

Just FYI, most health insurance companies have been doing that for years with very little return on the money they've invested in paying for and subsidizing those programs.

I have no problem with insurance companies charging more for smoking. I also have no problem with them charging more for people who are obese without sufficient medical documentation to prove that the obesity was caused be some medical problem.

dsmboy1991

So what happens if and when it becomes illegal in the future? Will you tread on the rights of those who don't smoke?

Do people that smoke marijuana which is illegal tread on your rights now? And if you answer is yes then please explain what right is being tread upon?

Personally I couldn't care less if you smoked crack. But I'll bite. You're basis for this argument is that you don't believe that insurance costs should be raised because smoking is legal. Well, what about taxes? If you continue to smoke (and I assume you will) if and when it becomes illegal, you my friend will cause tax increase. Just as marijuana is a cost to tax payers. Do you have any idea what is costs in law enforcment to try and stop the marijuana market? Billions. That would increase substantially if you would continue to smoke tobacco. (Again, if and when they make it illegal for tobacco.) So, if that would happen should I pay more in taxes for you to have a drag?

But doesn't matter. Making it illegal would never happen and marijuana being illegal will always be a burden to the economy in my opinion.

Carry on.

Ruger2506

"some " just because you're predisposed to being large doesn't mean you should give up and eat for crap. A physical and a few tests will show whether you're overweight because you choose to or not. If you choose to live outside healthy parameters, then cough it up.

Can't say I argue that point. Especially considering being "skinny fat" is rather easy.

tmanfromtexas

Those are your words not mine. I do not want my liberties being trampled on by others that think they know what is best for me and other smokers. As far as life insurance, if you want to discuss that maybe another thread should be started and that topic be taken there.

the theory holds for life or health insurance. you are saying a high risk individual(obese, smoker etc..) should pay the same as someone who doesnt have those factors. that screams socialism. treat everyone the same...everyone pays the same...

i dont want to be told what i can and cant do either but i understand that if i am doing something dangerous i should have to pay more. like if i rack up speeding tickets...i should pay more for car insurance right? or is that an area where everyone should pay the same no matter what as well.

Now that post makes sense. Thanks for the clarification. The question today is about smokers. What about the others, people who drink arent charged more for personal insurance, should they be? What about motorcycle riders? I ride but my personal insurance doesnt reflect that. Why pick on smokers? Is it because it is the easiest thing to work on first?

Laces_0ut

it was a joke but i'll play. what if they outlawed a certain type of gun and there was no grandfather clause. what if after your refusal to turn them in they(ATF?) came to collect them...would you really die for those guns? or would you hand them over?

Fair enough, I would hope it was a joke.

I'll let the cat out of the bag. I have often believed as things become illegal I will be stocking up before hand. Currently there is no gun registry in this country. The gov't does not know what guns I have..if any.

Items that become illegal would be stock piled, secured and hidden somewhere I have access to.

dont gun shops keep records of what guns they sell? in my hypo the govt outlaws a gun, lets call it the BFG9000, that you own. now they subpoena the stores that sold those guns...get your address....and here they come to get it back becaue they feel its too powerful for the general pop to have....you fight or hand it over?

lachesissss

Honestly, I don't think they should charge smokers more, but give incentives and provide services (which most insurances companies provide) to encourage healthy lifestyle choices, of which cessation of smoking could be the focus.

Do I think it will work, and people will utilize these resources? No. But I think they should be provided nonetheless.

Just FYI, most health insurance companies have been doing that for years with very little return on the money they've invested in paying for and subsidizing those programs.

I have no problem with insurance companies charging more for smoking. I also have no problem with them charging more for people who are obese without sufficient medical documentation to prove that the obesity was caused be some medical problem.

I know - I admitted that most Insurance companies already provide these services in the OP. Just like I freely admitted that I don't think these services would be utilized. But I appreciate the fact that they are available for those that should chose to use them.

Ruger2506

They have no proof I didn't sell it. They are not welcome in my home.

"Go away and come back with a warrant."

Laces_0ut

Those are your words not mine. I do not want my liberties being trampled on by others that think they know what is best for me and other smokers. As far as life insurance, if you want to discuss that maybe another thread should be started and that topic be taken there.

the theory holds for life or health insurance. you are saying a high risk individual(obese, smoker etc..) should pay the same as someone who doesnt have those factors. that screams socialism. treat everyone the same...everyone pays the same...

i dont want to be told what i can and cant do either but i understand that if i am doing something dangerous i should have to pay more. like if i rack up speeding tickets...i should pay more for car insurance right? or is that an area where everyone should pay the same no matter what as well.

Now that post makes sense. Thanks for the clarification. The question today is about smokers. What about the others, people who drink arent charged more for personal insurance, should they be? What about motorcycle riders? I ride but my personal insurance doesnt reflect that. Why pick on smokers? Is it because it is the easiest thing to work on first?

its not just smokers, its the obese as well. and im sure there are other things that factor into it as well. and since smoking and obesity are two of (if not the top two) biggest killers they should be the most obvious ones to target first.

magj0y

Those are your words not mine. I do not want my liberties being trampled on by others that think they know what is best for me and other smokers. As far as life insurance, if you want to discuss that maybe another thread should be started and that topic be taken there.

the theory holds for life or health insurance. you are saying a high risk individual(obese, smoker etc..) should pay the same as someone who doesnt have those factors. that screams socialism. treat everyone the same...everyone pays the same...

i dont want to be told what i can and cant do either but i understand that if i am doing something dangerous i should have to pay more. like if i rack up speeding tickets...i should pay more for car insurance right? or is that an area where everyone should pay the same no matter what as well.

Now that post makes sense. Thanks for the clarification. The question today is about smokers. What about the others, people who drink arent charged more for personal insurance, should they be? What about motorcycle riders? I ride but my personal insurance doesnt reflect that.



Why pick on smokers? Is it because it is the easiest thing to work on first?

Yes, because it's politically correct to pick on them. I wonder what group the will tax to death when you can't even afford to smoke

Dave198lbs

Being a former smoker as of a few months ago and an obese person no i dont think they should be charged more. But i dont think anyone should. When u think about it, insurance companies are a legal form of thievery. They take ur money, and rarely pay out. U still get a bill most of the time and have to jump thru hoops to get them to pay. Car insurance is a joke. Someone hits u or a deer runs out infront of u. They fix ur new car with junkyard parts. They are crooked ppl and frankly i pay more than enough each year without them charging me more.

insurance companies are just a business. there is no "right" to insurance. If you owned an insurance business your main goal is to make money. If someone wants to smoke and thereby increase the possibility that they will need medical care, why wouldnt the insurance company charge them more?

a better way to look at it is that the non smokers pay less because they are not increasing their risk level..

sammniamii

Once one thing gets added (smoking or obese) then who is make them stop at anything?

If you drink soda, extra
Eat fast food, extra
Drive fast or recklessly...
If you have sex with more than 1 person, ever...
if you DRINK
Are you taking vitamins?

The list can go on forever....

And once we let them control this, they will start to control more.

Yes, it's a choice - just like everything else in this world. But it's a personal choice and as long as your not forcing your decision on someone unwilling, then it's your choice.

Having someone else dictate what you can and can not do, or better yet, punish you for what someone else considers a bad thing, is letting people have more control over your life that ANYBODY should be conformable with.

And as to Obamacare... it isn't a fix, it could be worse and there are some things that would benefit a lot of people. I am WAITING for 2014 so the preexisting condition clause is struck - then my genetic disorder that they found when I was 10 can be treated. I didn't cause it, I was BORN with it because of the genes my parents had, so kinda not my fault, but yet I'm punished for it.

(PS: i don't smoke, I am loosing weight, i have a HMO thru my company because my hubby needs it for his disorder, I don't even get to use it)

Laces_0ut

They have no proof I didn't sell it. They are not welcome in my home.

"Go away and come back with a warrant."

they already have the warrant. you have not responded to their letters asking for you to turn it in. or you have told them that you will not...so they are coming to search your home.

i just want to know if you really would shoot it out over something like that. to do so would seem insane to me.

VelociMama

Honestly, I don't think they should charge smokers more, but give incentives and provide services (which most insurances companies provide) to encourage healthy lifestyle choices, of which cessation of smoking could be the focus.

Do I think it will work, and people will utilize these resources? No. But I think they should be provided nonetheless.

Just FYI, most health insurance companies have been doing that for years with very little return on the money they've invested in paying for and subsidizing those programs.

I have no problem with insurance companies charging more for smoking. I also have no problem with them charging more for people who are obese without sufficient medical documentation to prove that the obesity was caused be some medical problem.

I know - I admitted that most Insurance companies already provide these services in the OP. Just like I freely admitted that I don't think these services would be utilized. But I appreciate the fact that they are available for those that should chose to use them.

The point I was making that I didn't make very clearly in my reply is that health insurance companies are a for-profit business, so they aren't going to provide those services for long if they don't help in generating a profit (increasing revenue or reducing costs). This is why they are now going to the route of simply charging more for lifestyle choices that increase the likelihood of payout on the patient engaging in those behaviors.

stacierusk

There is tons of long term data available to show that smokers have higher incidence of poor health in one form or another: cardiovascular, pulmonary, etc. Even the families of those who smoke in the house or around their family members are sicker. I've known kids of smokers to have recurrent episodes of upper respiratory infections and other joys that just don't occur as often in families without a smoker. Obviously this is not an all inclusive rule, but observable all the same.

I don't agree with trying to tread on people's liberties. Allow people to smoke, keep their guns. But any financial advisor would tell an insurance company that the smokers are going to cost them extra. It is good business to increase rates on the smokers.

As far as obesity goes, yes....there are those that eat so poorly as to be solely responsible for their weight. There are those that truly struggle, and it would be a far more difficult case to prove responsibility. I don't work in insurance, so I don't know whether they ALL charge more for obesity, but I can see why there would be differences.

All occupations and recreational activities can be hazardous. At some point it just becomes "everyone breathing" as someone said above. So for health insurance I don't think that occupational/recreational factors should play. But life insurance.....if you routinely do something ridiculously hazardous then you have to expect them to charge more. Again....just smart business.

In the end, these are for-profit businesses. They need to pay employees, cover the rent, pay taxes, just like every other business.

JMO

leomom72

i am angry with this post, yet amused at the same time..i have a lot to say about it all, but i dont have energy for it all now (lucky you) all i wanna say is at my last job..all of them actually, smoking was most definitely a choice, and allowed, but only in designated areas, and had to be sprayed (lysol, cologne, etc) before the re-entered the building..maybe the price should be higher, but not by much..besides, doesnt insurance cost an @$$ of money, but when there is a car accident, or a death, the insureance doesnt pay much back ? i think its all a damn rip off, but its the law, so whatta ya gonna do ?

tellascott

My two cents, as a recently quit smoker. I don't think people should be penalized for having a habit, because where do you draw the line. If that is the case then drinking should be deemed the same.
I do agree with the smokers taking a zillion breaks, when i smoked i had my elevensies and my 3ish break and only ate lunch on the run while working, so those were my only breaks, but i have had part timers work for me who were ducking out every 20 minutes and their work would suffer, so i do agree with having to clock in and out for smoke breaks. As well i think smokers should make sure they don't reek of cigarette smoke since that also reflects on the company and who wants to deal with someone who completely smells.

Although as far as work banning it, I don't see how they can fire someone for smoking, it's not their business really, but my boss asked me to quit cause he is a health nut and when i finally did, he gave me incentive by giving me a raise for quitting and staying quit which I thought was really cool. I think if a company has a problem with a smoker like that other bosses should do the same type of incentive.