If they can't squeeze enough out of current or past smokers, they'll start asking if you've ever been in a bar that allowed smoking, or passed someone on the street who was smoking. Even seeing someone smoke in a movie or on TV is enough to justify jacking your rates up a few hundred/month... it's just that dangerous you know.
I don’t have an answer for you. I think that’s one way to look at it. I don’t think that’s the only way to look at it.
It does seem reasonable for an insurance company to look at their broad body of insureds, and take notice of which groups are costing them consistently higher outlays.
It may seem to you like the insurance company is unfair. On the other hand, non-smokers may think the insurance company would be unfair, if they didn’t look at who costs them more, and make them pay more for their policies.
Should non-smokers pick up a part of the cost of smoker’s elevated needs?
I’ll be honest, I haven’t read reports on the heath needs of people who smoked many years prior. It had been my understanding that after quitting, a person’s risk reduced considerably over time, and almost returned to normal. That may be somewhat of a myth though.
Perhaps instances of cancers in patients who smoked many years ago, are more prevalent. I’m not sure.
Just to be clear, I think the anti-smoking hysteria is way out of control. You can’t even go outside to smoke in some instances. Good freakin’ grief.
I’ve notice that focus groups go absolutely nuts at times, and I think the anti-smoking hysteria-naughts are excellent examples.