Employer charging smokers.. Thoughts?

Options
1235789

Replies

  • lbetancourt
    lbetancourt Posts: 522 Member
    Options

    My personal opinion is, don't make me lie to you by enacting such a dumb law.

    From an insurance company perspective, smoking a cigar once a week would not meet the criteria of a regular "smoker". You and your buddies are safe to puff away :).

    yes, we were told in a general session that this will meet the criteria as "tobacco" user.
  • poncho33
    poncho33 Posts: 1,511
    Options
    I think it's BS... if she's getting a clean bill of health from her doctor it's BS that they are charging her for something that could happen to her in her 40's 50's 60's 70's.... I haven't seen many 20 something's die from smoking cigs. And the way employment is today who is to say she will be working there long-term. Smoking has been demonized as a sin and there for that group can be targeted to be charged more. There are plenty of other groups that use more healthcare than the avg. but they are protected by claims of discrimination.


    Are they protected? My husband pays more for life insurance because of his weight. I think it makes sense and encourages a healthier lifestyle. I think if I make healthy choices, I should get the benefit of cheaper insurance. Trust me, just because you dont see 20 year olds dying from smoking, doesn't mean much. The health costs as they age are so much more, and you can't undo the damage of 20 years of smoking. I do see your point about them feeling targeted though. i'm just waiting for my pepsi drinking to be the next target. That sugar has to be a health risk--but boy do I love it!

    I think you are missing my overall point. Odds that she is going to have some serious medical problem from smoking at her current job in her current "group" insurance are pretty poor. In fact there could be a million other reasons something could happen to her. So why in her current health, would she be charged more in her current "group" insurance?? If we had full on socialized medicine I can see everyone's point that in the long run she would cost us more, but in her current circumstances I think it's BS.

    Should parents with kids in sports pay more?? They have a higher chance of getting a concussion that could lead to long-term medical problems.
  • gerbies
    gerbies Posts: 444 Member
    Options
    great idea...they should be charging overweight people too.

    I'm 5'10" 230"....

    does that in and of itself make me overweight?

    Yep. Enjoy your higher premiums for the way you choose to live your life.

    It's a sad day when people take the side of insurance companies over personal freedoms.

    It's not a "personal freedoms" issue. It's a "cost of doing business" issue. The same theory can be applied to other types of insurance. A 20 year-old driver will be charged a higher rate than a 40 year-old driver regardless of record because data has shown that the 20 year-old demographic has a much higher probability of being in an accident.

    Another example is having two people of the same age...one drives a Honda Accord and has had no speeding tickets or has never been in any accidents. The other driver drives an Audi A5 and had a speeding ticket 6 months ago, but has never been in an automobile accident. Though driver #2 hasn't cost the insurance company money, with driving a car that has an ability to go faster and a driver who already has illustrated a behavior that increases risk, the probability of a loss is increased, thus that driver will pay more in insurance premiums.

    The same theory can be applied to smoking. Smoking is a "risky behavior". The riskier behavior is shown to increase the likelihood of illness and thus insurance claims. It's all numbers.
  • ltkasmala
    ltkasmala Posts: 109 Member
    Options
    My daughter has a friend (she's actually her second "mom" on the east coast) who is self employed and has to pay her own insurance costs. She is being charged a higher rate for having her BMI not within THEIR limits... I also worked at Duke about five years ago when they were willing to pay for smokers to take Chantix in an attempt to stop smoking. They closed the smoking area to hopefully deter from the habit, so everyone went out in front of the hospital to smoke instead. The place looked truly ghetto at that point with the entire street lined with smokers! O_o I have never smoked and have lost 50 pounds over the past year and 4 months or so so I think if it's the insurance companies, I suppose they can do what they want and to keep rates down, employers will comply! I don't have a problem with it, but then I don't have any insurance at the moment either since I am in school.
  • melsmith612
    melsmith612 Posts: 727 Member
    Options
    Simplest solution? Look for another job where the benefits package actually benefits you instead of hurting you.

    I was job hunting a while back and got offered a position where they didn't give you actual "vacation" but you were offered "paid time off" that accrued as you worked. I turned down the position because of that one portion of their benefits package. In my mind it wasn't worth not knowing how much time I would get off up front and when. I stuck with my employer and went after a promotion.
  • gerbies
    gerbies Posts: 444 Member
    Options
    The insurance company charges those who smoke a higher premium. Your boss isn't ringing his hands making money of the choice of those who smoke. It's covering the cost of the higher premium. Insurance companies charge it because ultimately they have to pay more out in services to smokers. They also do charge those that are obese when it comes to life insurance. It costs nearly twice as much to take out a policy if you are not physically fit vs are.

    Most people who are in the obese category are declined life insurance...it's hard to get.
  • fbmandy55
    fbmandy55 Posts: 5,263 Member
    Options

    My personal opinion is, don't make me lie to you by enacting such a dumb law.

    From an insurance company perspective, smoking a cigar once a week would not meet the criteria of a regular "smoker". You and your buddies are safe to puff away :).

    yes, we were told in a general session that this will meet the criteria as "tobacco" user.

    I would just say you don't. That's pretty ridiculous. Besides, there are people there who NEVER smoke who are probably far more unhealthy or 'costly' than you with your rare cigarette and they will be paying nothing more.
  • Laces_0ut
    Laces_0ut Posts: 3,750 Member
    Options
    like someone else just said its no different than charging teens higher premiums for car insurance. higher risk...higher rate....blame the actuaries! :D
  • Becca_007
    Becca_007 Posts: 596 Member
    Options
    i only smoke when i drink... so, i dont take breaks to smoke at work. and, i dont know where this money goes, i will learn more later. in my head, why not charge folks that are obese with awful eating habits & that are sedentary.


    Never heard of someone getting fat sitting next to an overweight person.
    :laugh: I've never either. But have heard of ppl dying of 2nd hand smoke! I think smoking trumps someone overweight because the 2nd hand smoke kills others, a burger won't hurt you unless you're eating it yourself. Sorry OP but that line you posted above was a bit lame, particularly using it on MFP. :noway:
    like someone else just said its no different than charging teens higher premiums for car insurance. higher risk...higher rate....blame the actuaries! :D
    Well put!
  • magj0y
    magj0y Posts: 1,911 Member
    Options

    There are great benefits to having insurance coverage available through your employer. People have the freedom to smoke if they want to. Insurance companies have the freedom to charge a rate based on risk factors, which are based on science. No bullying, just data-based decisions.

    while it may not be classified as bullying, they're singling certain groups because it's PC. Imagine if all the obese people had to fork over extra cash? It would be a nightmare!
  • FoamyRiver
    FoamyRiver Posts: 276 Member
    Options
    I think this is becoming more and more common. My employer added an additional $10 per week to our insurance premiums about 8 years ago for those people that used any type of tobacco product. That cost has risen to $20 extra per week now. The extra charge was enough incentive that quite a few people quit using tobacco--or quit using tobacco at work at least. However, even though we have an insurance company that manages our claims, my employer pays 100% of the claims (after co-pays and deductibles) so they did it in an attempt to severely cut costs. That being said, I've never known them to monitor or police who is using versus who signed the waiver stating they were tobacco free.
  • StinkyWinkies
    StinkyWinkies Posts: 603 Member
    Options
    that is your insurance, not the employer, and this is not a 'new' thing.

    ^^^ this...when I smoked I paid more for health insurance via my job, when I didn't, I paid less or "got $ back." I am also aware that this has been a practice at many jobs for years for those who are obese, since a physical was required either for the job or the insurance.

    Also, it is worse to *only* smoke when you are drinking than it is to just smoke Or preferably, just not smoke; since the body starts to heal the lungs within 24hrs after your last cigarette...I was a 3, yes *3* pack a day smoker when I quit. If I can quit, anyone can quit.
  • beckajw
    beckajw Posts: 1,738 Member
    Options
    My opinion is it makes sense b/c smokers cost a company more in medical bills. I'm no doctor but I read that smokers will get sick easier than non-smokers, have a higher risk of developing cancers, heart disease (even if blood pressure is not high), and other diease that simply makes a smoker more expensive than an identical person who did not smoke.

    How do you figure? I smoked for 20 years and not once did I go to the hospital for anything "smoking" related.

    It's statistical. Maybe you yourself didn't. However, the average smoker costs an employer about $11,000 per year more than a non-smoker.
  • beckajw
    beckajw Posts: 1,738 Member
    Options

    There are great benefits to having insurance coverage available through your employer. People have the freedom to smoke if they want to. Insurance companies have the freedom to charge a rate based on risk factors, which are based on science. No bullying, just data-based decisions.

    while it may not be classified as bullying, they're singling certain groups because it's PC. Imagine if all the obese people had to fork over extra cash? It would be a nightmare!

    "They" are not singling out anyone. The Affordable Care Act permits employers to charge smokers more.
  • dragonfly74
    dragonfly74 Posts: 1,382 Member
    Options
    Sounds like its the insurance company charging it, not your employer. Most insurance companies do.

    My thoughts exactly. Has been this way as long as I know for quite some time.

    And yes, I am a former smoker.
  • secretlobster
    secretlobster Posts: 3,566 Member
    Options
    i only smoke when i drink... so, i dont take breaks to smoke at work. and, i dont know where this money goes, i will learn more later. in my head, why not charge folks that are obese with awful eating habits & that are sedentary.

    Start drinking at work
  • Chopshopcop
    Chopshopcop Posts: 37 Member
    Options

    My personal opinion is, don't make me lie to you by enacting such a dumb law.

    From an insurance company perspective, smoking a cigar once a week would not meet the criteria of a regular "smoker". You and your buddies are safe to puff away :).

    yes, we were told in a general session that this will meet the criteria as "tobacco" user.

    Again depends on the wording in the contract by the individual insurance company. Mine states quite clearly, Any Tobacco Use...smoking in any form, dip, chew, etc you will pay a penalty

    They also added a clause that states if a spouse of the employee has the OPPORTUNITY or ABILITY to get their own insurance coverage through their own employer but elect to stay on the spouses insurance anyway...higher premium
  • d_Mode
    d_Mode Posts: 880 Member
    Options
    Insurance companies suck. You pay them and they look for any excuse not to pay you or your medical bills. It should be you pay them...they pay when something goes wrong. REGARDLESS.

    You can't sit here and tell me they aren't making money. IT"S THEIR JOB!
  • monipie
    monipie Posts: 280 Member
    Options
    i only smoke when i drink... so, i dont take breaks to smoke at work. and, i dont know where this money goes, i will learn more later. in my head, why not charge folks that are obese with awful eating habits & that are sedentary.

    agree.
  • mello
    mello Posts: 817 Member
    Options
    Sorry, but no one is picking on only the smokers.

    My group health plan at work just last year began requiring that we have a wellness check (insurance company pays for) and if we do not fall within healthy ranges on cholesterol, fasting glucose, blood pressure etc then our premiums go up drastically. It was enough to push me to lose 135lbs, so no complaints at all. I just needed the swift kick because I wasn't paying an additional $240 month just because I couldn't control my eating habits or didn't want to get up and excercise. There are provisions for things such as type 1 diabetes, high cholesterol that is not weight related, but those cases are few and far in between.

Categories