Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Cementjungle

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.


51 posted on 01/27/2014 11:19:28 PM PST by DoughtyOne (Obama, the Islamic answer to how the U. S. would be ruled by an Islamic Cleric.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies ]


To: DoughtyOne
Should non-smokers pick up a part of the cost of smoker’s elevated needs?

Smokers pay more in insurance premiums, and also pay a fortune in cigarette taxes (which were allegedly enacted to offset the added "costs"). I've also never heard of insurers telling smokers that the extra they have paid into the system over the years can actually be applied to their out of pocket costs if they do get sick... their deductibles/costs are just the same as for folks who didn't pay extra all those years.

It could be argued that smokers die off quicker than their healthier counterparts, saving insurers/society in the long run by missing out on decades of life-saving treatments for other old-age illnesses.

Additionally, I could argue that other groups cost society more in a shorter time than smokers... the obese, the alcoholics being two major groups who have to contribute nothing financially to offset their lifestyles. Unlike smokers, these two groups tend to cost society in lost productivity on top of the medical costs.

61 posted on 01/28/2014 7:11:26 AM PST by Cementjungle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson