Posted on 07/29/2009 12:24:01 AM PDT by Morgana
CHARLESTON, W.Va. (WSAZ) -- Back in 2000, it was a program that put West Virginia Public Employees Insurance Agency ahead of the pack. The idea of making smokers pay more for their benefits hasn't always been liked, but it has worked.
The fee started as $5 to $10 extra for workers who smoked. That cost has grown over the years. In July, the premium went up to $30 for single coverage and $50 for a family insurance plan.
"I do pay because I'm honest and I don't mind paying the extra money to smoke," said Maurice Washington.
Washington works for the Department of Highways. He says he worries that the rate hike may lead some smokers to lie to get a break.
"In this economy, if you can save a buck and get away with it I'm sure there are," Washington said.
For Department of Health and Human Resources employee Sterling Bare, cheating the system isn't worth it.
"I don't think it's worth the risk of being hospitalized and getting a major bill and then a review of the tests reveal I did in fact smoke, and the opportunity for them to disallow the claim," Sterling said.
PEIA does have the right to review medical records if they suspect that someone is lying about being a non-smoker.
More than 97,000 employees signed an affidavit this year claiming they are non-smokers. That number is up 4,000 people from last year. Nidia Henderson, PEIA Wellness Director , says that about 800 of them are people who have been with the plan who have decided to quit smoking.
"I think what's happening is there is a cultural change because of the clean indoor air act because of increasing taxes on tobacco products," Henderson said. "The reason our finance director's raised the rates was for their health. The health of the plan is dependent on the health of the members."
Along with keeping smokers on track, PEIA is offering a new incentive for all its members. The "Improve Your Score" program offers cash back rewards for people who have a clean bill of health during a workplace health screening.
Do they charge more for the guy who eats two whoppers for lunch each day or the gal who can’t keep her hands off the sweets and both of them are clinically obese? If they don’t then I would scream discrimination of picking on the smokers and not the eaters too.
Having said that I find this a slipper slope in terms of group health care.
If you make smokers pay more do you then make the overweight pay more?
If you make the overweight pay more do you make those with a family history of heart disease pay more?
If you make those with a family history of heart disease pay more do you make those with a family history of cancer pay more...
I do not eat two whoppers for lunch! I eat a double whopper with extra cheese which is pretty damn close to bliss thank you!
Not everyone who is clinically obese is so because they eat “whoppers” for lunch. There are many medications that will do so these days. Prednisone is one of those drugs, trust me, I know. There are countless others. I just don’t see how they are going to do this “fat tax” when many are on medication that makes them overweight. It is a harsh side effect, they should just start doing liposuction on every street corner, and use the fat to burn in cars, we would never have to drill for oil again.
That is the bad side of steroids.....you gain weight fast but drop is slow. I told the doctor about my weight gain when I was on it, for asthma, but he told me “you have to breathe”. He was correct you know. I am on Advair 500 now so I no longer have to take Prednisone, thank God, and I have lost the weight, S-L-0-W-L-Y. I was lucky however, I know a woman who was on the same drug, she did not gain an ounce but it turned her bones to powder. I took 3000mg of calcium a day on Prednisone, so I am in the clear. If you gain weight on Prednisone, really you are lucky if that is all it does to you. It’s side effects are very harsh.
Morgana & guitarplayer:
It really does not matter if you smoke or not... It is the idea of how and when they tax that should be the question. The question remains - Are you are overweight or not (determined by Congressional committee?)- may be genetic or environmental or just plain “always hungry folks”...just please don’t leave it to the government to decide.
I see much more to come regarding government regulation - after all, your health concerns all of us...geez. Won’t be long until they regulate all of our food selections along with how we “must” exercise... Sorry, too late to stop the train - both parties tend toward the same outcome - only the speed is different.
Idiots! Not you of course...
I always swore I knew when I would quit smoking. (Three days before my funeral). I was wrong, or my funeral is very late. I developed a heart problem almost a year ago, August 2 or 3, 2008.
I had no chest pain as everyone thinks constitutes a “heart attack”. Just suddenly, I felt I could not breathe. Walk two steps and gasp. By the time I got an appointment to see my MD, he could only discover fluid in my lungs, so, I assumed a lifetime of smoking had ruined my lungs.
Was not until after a hospitalization of several days and an exam by a cardiologist was I informed something had happened to my heart. For some reason, the cardiologist would not say I had a “heart attack”. But she did say my right ventricle was circulating blood at only about 25% efficiency. Some kind of damage was done instantly to my heart, thankfully without the horrendous chest pain.
However, the inability to breathe is a powerful aid in a smoking cessation program. So, I'm coming up on one year since I quit smoking. I did that once before. In that year, I gained about 20#, went up four inches in waist line. This time, I have managed to hold it to about a 15# weight gain and 3" waist gain. Unfortunately, as soon as I quit smoking, cholesterol elevated, so I have to pay as much for drugs as I used to pay for cigarettes. Everyday,I have the urge to buy a pack and light up, but I still remember the time when I could not breathe, and have decided breathing is even better than smoking. However, I will keep in mind that smoking might be effective as a way to commit suicide.
While an nice confession...
Smoking may or may not have caused your problems. Yes, smoking can destroy the lungs but takes many, many years. If you do not realize that smoking harms your lungs and heart by now, you are an idiot!
So, I also know that the idiot Doctors tend to emphasize the possibilities of smoking rather than the actual effects long term. If you listen to Doctors, you would think that breathing second-hand smoke is more harmful than smoking itself! This is what we have come to in this debate - Don’t smoke (it’s bad for your health), but for goodness sakes, don’t breathe second-hand smoke - it’s a killer!
Such nonsense has continued to prevail for the last few years and will continue to be a major “cause” for many non-smokers. It has come from normal use to individuals aghast if you smoke (major outsider). So, no, I don’t believe halve the crap pushed by medical Doctors (if you listened to them for at least 10 years, you know they are strictly politic rather than medical). Actually, this extends to almost all of medicine (by experience).
If you want to be healthy - don’t see a Doctor and for goodness sakes - stay out of Hospitals.
If I sound like a strange character - just know that I have lived a lot longer than you and know the past.
Smoking can increase the chance or not be related. It depends on the actual case.
Good for him. The state will save on retirement cost in the future. Plus the states will receive mucho bucks from the tobacco tax. </sarcasm>
I have always been what many would call a health ‘enthusiast’. I still train for, and compete in, triathlons. My doctor has said on more than one occasion that at my age (42) I’m about as healthy as anyone could possibly be. So, could the smokers here that disgree with an elevated premium for smokers (and yes, the obese as well) please explain to me why I should subsidize them? but before you answer, replace ‘smoker’ with ‘unemployed’ or ‘minority’ or even ‘too big to fail’ and also replace ‘insurance premium’ with ‘taxes’ or ‘stimulus’.
Progressives and liberals who want to control everyone’s life use “perfectionism” as a weapon.
Whether it is smoking or eating or whatever, if you are not PERFECT in your private personal life then you must pay more money and cede more power to the state.
Liberty and individual responsibility for one’s own life is the answer. As is voting out “progressive perfectionists.”
If you gain weight on Prednisone, really you are lucky if that is all it does to you.
The worse part is Prednisone cures nothing. It only masks the inflammatory symptoms of an underlying problem.
Although I no longer smoke I would agree to pay a premium for that particular voluntary activity.
But what would you do in these scenarios, especially since it is so common and very few regular folk have the time and discipline that you have to run triathalons, etc.:
You have a normal BMI but smoke. You quite smoking. You gain weight as a result (this happens to almost everyone who quits) and now become out of normal range. Do you now have to pay more because you are overweight?
You are genetically predisposed to clinical depression and have normal BMI. You seek medical advice and start taking anti-depressants. You gain weight and now are out of normal bounds (this is extremely common.) Do you think that person should have to pay the increased rates, particularly if they are on disability and clinically unmotivated to exercise due to their depression?
You are confusing personal choice with a preexisting condition or genetic predisposal.
How is this any different from me having a trampoline, pitbull or wood stove in my home? They are all seen as high risk items for my insurance company thus they charge me more if I choose to have them. They are not saying I can’t have them, I’m just going to pay more because the risk is higher.
Decision = Consequence
That type of logic and reason isn’t allowed here. ;)
Seriously, what they fail to understand is that nobody is telling them they can’t smoke or be fat. There are just consequences if they choose to do so and for a supposedly pro-personal responsibility group they don’t want to deal with the consequences.
If you do not realize I know that, you are an idiot, and someone without reading comprehension.
Was talking general public - NOT you...
Yes, they should all pay the increased rate
OK. I kinda thought you'd say that.
Someone who participates in triathalons runs a much, much higher risk of musculo-skeleto damage requiring expensive surgery on, for instance, the knees and shoulders.
I submit that you should pay higher premiums based on your voluntary activity which puts you into a higher risk category. After all, why should we have to subsidize your extreme actions??? That kind of injury is preventable. Expensive surgeries put pressure on the health care system for everyone.
You see how this point of view can be manipulated politically so that eventually any lack of total perfection in one's private life, or any involvement in any activity beyond the "norm" can be categorized as risky. You then are required to cede money and power and control over your life to the state.
I still believe in "live and let live" and not in penalizing people for being unique individuals in their needs and desires.
It all has to do with that "life, liberty and pursuit of happiness" thing. The govt, constitutionally, has no business messing with that.
Oh...and just for a bit of clarification...
I am a long time heavy smoker and know what it may do to me in the long run...(retired and old), however...if I listen to Doctors, and others, I would think that I would be dead about 20 years ago.
My point is that people are different and problems that can occur are different for each person. Unfortunately, the worst problem I face today is the “anti smoking” attitude that seems to be everywhere now that it is advertised continuously..so, I have to smoke in private. Of course this was not only publicly accepted several years ago, but encouraged...ha. So...in effect, I see my life changing just because I smoke (yes, old and retired), and it does effect my attitude...especially toward non-smoking kooks (those that harass me even when I am not smoking)...
I agree 100% with this.
As long as these decisions are left in the private sector then the market will sort it out.
Once these decisions become controlled by the govt then I oppose them.
You know, smoking and obesity related diseases have been around for centuries. We had them in the last half of the 20th century and we didn't have a health care crisis. This means that the situation can be controlled without the govt sticking its nose into our personal lives and mandating cheap "one-size-fits-all" solutions to an almost unlimited variety of individual circumstances.
The private market is uniquely suited to sorting this kind of thing out over time. The founding Fathers were wise to keep the govt limited in its ability to coerce the population "for the greater good."
IMHO govt run healthcare is both unconstitutional and very, very unhelpful and potentially cruel and inhuman.
Retired golfer? Does that mean you retired from employment and now just golf? Or, used to golf, but retired from that?
Much older than me? Apparently a little older. I got out out of college in 1968, put in my 30 years as a tax accountant, retired TO golf and fishing in 1998.
Probably played my last round this summer. (Bulging vertebral discs, and severe arthritis in hip joints). Very difficult to plant a tee in the ground or retrieve a ball from a cup. Plus, my pacemaker restricts my back-swing, and general weakness from lack of ability to engage in strenuous physical activity has knocked the crap out of my driving distance. Would be too embarrassed to have my old golf buddies see me playing from the “red” tees.
I never got a double eagle, either. Narrowly missed twice: one on a short par 4, once on a par five. Ended up about a foot directly behind the cup each time.
I do have four career aces on par three holes to my credit.
Then you and I agree my friend.
Government should never dictate decisions regarding health and one just needs to look at the VA or Medicare/Medicaid to see how badly government can screw up healthcare.
Personally, I’ve lost almost 50lbs since January. I decided to make some lifestyle changes since I’m in the years of my life that will influence my health the most when I’m in my 50’s and later.
I’ve never smoked however I don’t believe it should be banned. That said, if private citizens want to ban smoking in public places via public referendum I don’t see the problem since it is democracy at work and not the government forcing the issue. Smokers of course vehemently disagree though the process is a democratic as it gets...
I'm glad we agree. It was unclear whether this thread was about rates in general or govt control and now we know.
If -10bama wanted to save some serious dough he could go after medicare waste, fraud and abuse but he doesn't seem too interested in that now, does he?
Even though I am on disability I would agree that it could be more limited. But the problem is that the destruction of the "nuclear" family has ruptured the larger family structure that individuals would need to forgo the govt help.
The problem is figuring out how to reverse that trend so that the public "safety net" no longer includes those that can rely on family and friends.
Another problem is that Social Security Disability Insurance is just that, insurance. I get SSDI now because I PAID for it when I was able to work. I can't anymore and so I deserve the insurance payments that I paid for. I have never accepted welfare or any of that kind of thing.
My point is that the simple existence of Social Security complicates things and makes it difficult to see how we can put the toothpaste back in the tube.
I'm a bit torn on this one. If a private insurance company wants to put limitations and conditions on their policies then well I guess its OK. However when ALL insurance companies go down that road then its a little frightening. (And that doesn't even count the issue of Obamascare)
I remember watching a House Hunters a year or so ago about someone buying a house in France I think it was. You couldn't get a mortgage if you were overweight! Think about that one!
Why would government workers have to worry about the economy?
I took no offense whatsoever. :0)
Personally, I don't have a problem with the things you are suggesting. I just think that it will always be a mess until and unless the govt gets out of our lives. This is not about to happen, however, and a true needs-based "safety net" for the truly unfortunate is a humanitarian necessity.
Churches and other organizations can provide this but maybe the govt should help with at least a small percentage of GDP for "charity"? I don't know, I'm kinda using old-fashioned ideas here.
If I were forced to I could do without the $1000 a month I get in SSDI but I would still have to rely on family and friends to do so. I made good money before my disability so I have plenty of incentive to get off SSDI.
It would not really help for me to stuff envelopes because of certain logistics in my personal situation. Not to mention that if I were doing that then I'd probably be taking away a minimum wage job from some uneducated or inexperienced but able-bodied person. This is true for a great many on disability. (Yes, I'm kind of ignoring the fraud right now.) Again, my point is that this situation is a complicated mess.
Plus, the bureaucracy needed to monitor all those 8 hour disabled work schedules would cost much more than the minimum wage work itself generates in benefit to whatever organization (including the govt) the work is done for. Should we pay a unionized govt bureaucrat $60,000 a year including benefits to manage a small team of people that, given their best efforts, cannot provide as much value as a fit high schooler? Who would manage it, the unemployment people who allegedly know where the jobs are?
The principle of doing something to earn your money is good but in real life becomes impractical in many, many cases. It's just not financially viable.
I have no answers. Just examples of the mess. I wish I were more helpful.
She should be allowed to pay less into any retirement plan, including SS without a reduction in yearly benefits, as she isn't expected to live as long.
One without the other is simply mean-spiritedness.
“Anyone under 60 who is not severely disabled should be required to do some kind of work for a minimum of 8 hours each week. Stuff envelopes, take phone calls, etc...”
Kind of a control freak huh?
“No, I just think people should, GASP!, work for a living.”
So do I, however I believe in individual liberty as well as individual responsibility.
“Although I no longer smoke I would agree to pay a premium for that particular voluntary activity.
But what would you do in these scenarios, especially since it is so common and very few regular folk have the time and discipline that you have to run triathalons, etc.:
You have a normal BMI but smoke. You quite smoking. You gain weight as a result (this happens to almost everyone who quits) and now become out of normal range. Do you now have to pay more because you are overweight?
You are genetically predisposed to clinical depression and have normal BMI. You seek medical advice and start taking anti-depressants. You gain weight and now are out of normal bounds (this is extremely common.) Do you think that person should have to pay the increased rates, particularly if they are on disability and clinically unmotivated to exercise due to their depression?”
In the first scenario where the smoker of normal BMI quits and gains weight - self inflicted wounds, no sympathy here, higher premiums.
Second case, “genetically predisposed”, well what can I say? that’s the cards you were dealt, play them the best you can, I still don’t see why everyone else should be expected to carry you so yeah, higher premiums - much higher by the sound of it. I’m the first to admit that it sounds heartless because it is, but sometimes it’s best to cull the weak. As we all know, that’s how markets work and the insurance market is no different.
What the hell does that have to do with collecting SS for disability?
You have ignored my point that you are voluntarily engaging in risky behavior and you, yourself - following your own logic - should pay higher fees based on your own choices.
If a genetic condition which is not preventable results in higher fees, so much more voluntary activities such as you pursue.
“You have ignored my point that you are voluntarily engaging in risky behavior and you, yourself - following your own logic - should pay higher fees based on your own choices.
If a genetic condition which is not preventable results in higher fees, so much more voluntary activities such as you pursue.”
I agree that if the NET effect is an increase in risk then if I were running an insurance co there would be an appropriate increase in premiums. I think you’ll find that statistically the total reduced costs of healthcare of a fit and active person is lower in the long run than that of a smoker or over eater, and that is reflected in the premiums. Some insurance companies here have incetive schemes where they will contribute to a percentage of gym memberships, cost of running shoes, etc.
“You have ignored my point that you are voluntarily engaging in risky behavior and you, yourself - following your own logic - should pay higher fees based on your own choices.
If a genetic condition which is not preventable results in higher fees, so much more voluntary activities such as you pursue.”
I agree that if the NET effect is an increase in risk then if I were running an insurance co there would be an appropriate increase in premiums. I think you’ll find that statistically the total reduced costs of healthcare of a fit and active person is lower in the long run than that of a smoker or over eater, and that is reflected in the premiums. Some insurance companies here have incetive schemes where they will contribute to a percentage of gym memberships, cost of running shoes, etc.
Hey fellow, I apologize if you took that the wrong way... I am a heavy smoker - so can’t say anything against you. Was just giving the generic answer to the situation - and I am realizing the truth more and more these days.
Professional writer - apparently not...heh. retired at 55 and took up golf full time. Was always good but not good enough for the tour - takes more mental discipline than I had available. Worked mostly in Telecommunications - repair, programming, etc., but eventually moved to programming full time (fun to do and could work at home). Fishing...well, use to love it, but with all the licenses requires these days, I gave it up.
Sorry to hear about your “golfing” problems - they do tend to come with age. It is still fun and good exercise...
You do have a couple of aces on me...only two here...so I guess that makes you the champ... I have also come very close several times (in my long driving youth) but never quite made that DE... Oh well, I will NOT go to my grave
worrying about it...heh. Hope you don’t either!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.