Higher Insurance Cost for Smokers

this isn't new.  i've worked for employers in the past that charged smokers more money than non-smokers.

Yes it is. And by the way... Are you registered to vote? Would you like to be?

maybe it's new at your company, but it is NOT a new concept.  i've worked places that do this in the past.

So wait... a certain portion of the populace uses more healthcare than others, and you're upset that they pay more in insurance than anyone else?

Does this logic also apply to your thoughts on automobile insurance rates?  You'd be OK with a 16 year old boy paying the same insurance rates you pay for liability?  Or someone with a bad record and a couple DUIs?

I have no problem with this whatsoever.  Calculate my insurance rate based on a likelihood of needing services.  My BMI is normal.  I exercise regularly.  My BP is normal.  My resting heart rate is in the 50s.  I don't smoke.  I don't drink excessively.  I don't feel I should be paying the same rate as the other 41 year old guy who's 45lbs. overweight and is probably out in front of the building right now sucking on a cancer stick.

Not all teenage drivers have accidents, but enough do to justify insurance companies charging more to insure them.

If you look hard enough, there are exceptions to anything.  But generalizations become generalizations because they're generally true.  My parents were both smokers, and my Mom probably used up enough health care costs to fund a minor league hockey team by the time she died.  Multiple strokes, emphysema, etc.  In comparison, my Dad used very little since he died in his sleep from a heart attack.

As for the analogy about public schools, it's invalid.  I pay for public schools even though my kid doesn't go to one so I can live amongst an educated populace.  Though in Louisiana it's arguable as to what the value for my money is.

And yes, I do think there should be a component of calculating health insurance costs that is tied in with personal behavior.  I'm not sure where you're coming from to think that smoking and the risks associated with it aren't quantifiable.

Keep in mind that cigarettes are the only legally sold product in this country that will cause death to the user when used in their intended manner. 

I feel like I have to check my calendar to make sure it's 2013 and not 1983.

And no, it's not a fundamentally slippery slope.  The damage smoking does to the body is real.  It's been demonstrated and studied going back 60 years now.  It's the single worst health related decision someone can make.  Period. 

So no, I don't feel that adding a modifier to an insurance rate that accounts for smoking and tobacco use is bad.  If you smoke, statistically you are more likely to use more health care, and will therefore cost the insurance company more. 

To me, this isn't any sort of gross governmental overreach.  On the contrary, it's the market deciding what is and isn't acceptable in today's society. 

Maybe you're right.  I forget health insurance costs were flat from 1994 (when I started paying my own insurance) until 2009 when the ACA was passed.

And seriously, who smokes 2-3 cigarettes a day to "maintain body weight"?  That's the kind of crap you'd read on a back cover ad from a 1930's Ladies Home Journal.

It's crap and you know it.

(images.jpg)