I don't believe in smoking but......

[samintx]

http://www.denverpost.com/nationworld/ci...source=rss

[cbelt3]

Fortunately Colorodans can switch from smoking tobacco to smoking weed.

Yes.. it sucks. Next step will be BMI insurance rates.

FWIW.... individual insurance has always included health status in rate setting. Smoking is just one of the factors. I've got three 'chronic' conditions. I checked around, and a private insurance policy equivalent to what I've got through work would cost me about 2x the work policy cost.

[john dough]

Smoking costs everyone in higher rates so it does not seem unreasonable for those who willfully engage in smoking to pay more. I do not have a problem with this and it may be incentive for people to finally quit smoking which may help prolong their lives.

[Pam]

It's extremely wrong. People voluntarily ignore diet and exercise warnings resulting in diabetes, high blood pressure, high cholesterol, etc yet they'll single out smoking? Look at the obesity rate. But that's ok. Pop some pills, don't change your habits. There are far more people in that category than in the smoking category.

[OWC Jamie]

Tax the poor some more.
Tax the Walmart fatties too.
Show them how you care.

[Ted King]

I think that this is a part of the problem with the notion of thinking of health care primarily as being paid for via health insurance. Rate adjustments based on risk is what insurance companies do. If you are a smoker and you want to buy term life insurance it's probably going to cost your more. If you are older, term life insurance is going to cost you more. The risk that the life insurance company will have to pay out for you is greater so they will ask for a higher premium payment to compensate for the risk. It's not surprising that health insurance companies faced with ever rising costs would want to act like insurance companies. It's one of the reasons we should ditch the notion of getting general health care primarily paid for by insurance companies.

[Sam3]

I'd argue that if you want to use these penalties to engineer social change (which is what this seems to be doing), then raise the premiums on the younger smoker, the younger smoker won't be as addicted and may be able to get off of smoking quicker than an older person.

As Pam (and cbelt to a lesser extent) are saying, why is one group being singled out and not others? We have an obesity epidemic going on, if you want to do social engineering, then why not include them as well? If you are overweight, then you pay a premium. But singling out one group? That's a bit discriminatory.

[cbelt3]

Pam wrote:
It's extremely wrong. People voluntarily ignore diet and exercise warnings resulting in diabetes, high blood pressure, high cholesterol, etc yet they'll single out smoking? Look at the obesity rate. But that's ok. Pop some pills, don't change your habits. There are far more people in that category than in the smoking category.

Pam..

And yet... you have people like me. I'm not 'obese'. (OK, I'm not svelte either, but I'm in decent shape, walk a couple miles a day, etc..)

I have three chronic conditions. All through genetic heritage.
Asthma
Diabetes
Hypertension

Not everybody with Diabetes is a doughnut sucking Wal-Mart electric cart driving lazy pig. Not everybody with cholesterol is a bacon sucking beer swilling redneck.

BUT... Everybody who smokes made a specific decision to smoke. There's no 'genetic heritage' that gives you smoking-related health issues.

And THAT is why smoking is something that can be reasonably targeted. It's already being targeted.

Now.. I'll point out another factor.

Smokers are ALREADY taxed significantly. And the taxes are supposedly going to the cost of healthcare for smoking.

So we're double dipping these folks. NOT fair !

(Disclaimer: Mrs. cbelt3 smokes. Pack a day. I've tried and tried to help her quit. Nothing works..)

[samintx]

Pam wrote:
It's extremely wrong. People voluntarily ignore diet and exercise warnings resulting in diabetes, high blood pressure, high cholesterol, etc yet they'll single out smoking? Look at the obesity rate. But that's ok. Pop some pills, don't change your habits. There are far more people in that category than in the smoking category.

I see the fatties at the exercise pool and know why they are there...for joint stress and yet what they need first is a DIET to take off about 100 pounds. The stress on their joints would be greatly relieved but yet people just eat and eat. Texas is terrible about fat people. Sometimes I'm ashamed to admit I just stare and think "do you hat yourself so much?"

[rgG]

Pam wrote:
It's extremely wrong. People voluntarily ignore diet and exercise warnings resulting in diabetes, high blood pressure, high cholesterol, etc yet they'll single out smoking? Look at the obesity rate. But that's ok. Pop some pills, don't change your habits. There are far more people in that category than in the smoking category.

Looks like they are going after the obese, too.

Health Plan Costs For Obese And Smokers Could Rise After Supreme Court Ruling

A little-discussed ramification of Thursday's landmark Supreme Court health care decision is that it could make things harder for the nation's heaviest workers.

The decision upholding the Affordable Care Act has cleared the way for a planned increase in the penalties that employers can impose on workers who don't participate in company wellness programs and, in some cases, who don't meet certain health targets such as an appropriate body mass index. In other words, the obese may wind up paying penalties for being overweight. Smokers, too, may get hit.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/29...36139.html