Should smokers pay a larger part of their health care costs because they will need more medical care?

Question

because they will need care in the long run? and is this a form of discrimination?

Answer 1

Its not discrimination. It is an INCENTIVE to be healthier. They charge you less to be healthier. No, not everyone who smokes ends up with cancer or heart disease, and yes, non smokers can be just as unhealthy as smokers. But, no matter how unhealthy you are, a smoker will always be healthier after they quit smoking. Charging you more for smoking is an incintive to get you to quit so you dont have to pay that much. Think of it as a discount of non smokers, rather than a premium for smokers.

I am surprised that they havnt started these 'incentives' for other categories such as weight and cholestrol. Then again, those other categories can be caused by other illnesses. Smoking is pretty much a habit you CHOOSE to do. Yes, you may be addicted, but you CAN quit if you have enough INCENTIVE to.

Also, it is not good to lie to your insurance about whether you smoke. I know some ppl who do bc their employer doesnt require a physical exam. Problem there is anything that can be dagnosed and has a link to smoking can be investigated. If it is something big like cancer, or a workers comp claim, they have breathing test and blood tests that can determine the amount of nicotine and carbon monoxide in your body. They can tell you how much you smoke, and when you had your last cig. Im not sure what the time frame is though. (They often use these tests in workers comp claims for worker's pneumeconiosis (sp), but I have also heard of med insurance companies doing it) Anyways, if they prove that you have been smoking when you reported you werent, they can refuse to pay the claim.

Answer 2

The thing is, a lot of people do things that can have negative effects on their health (smoke, don't exercise, eat unhealthy food or too much, have risky hobbies etc.), so if you insist that one group pay more, soon more groups will be included and at the end of the day most people would be paying extra. And who should be the judge of whether or not the person chose to do things that carry a health risk or whether their condition is a result of something else? Where to draw the line?

I don't think that's a good idea.

Answer 3

First yoru post is WAY too long Second anyone can get anecdotal evidence from newspapers etc to support any side of any argument Third last I heard we were not going for a british style system. Stop being negative and start looking for a way that the citizens of the greatest nation in the world don't have to face bankruptcy and loss of their homes because a family member came down with a devastating illness. Back in the good old conservative fifties health care was affordable and if you got in too deep, your hospital and your local bankers helped you with a payment plan. Really. Remove the greed from the equation and miracles can happen.

Answer 4

What about the fatties who eat too much? Shouldn't they have to pay for more health care? They can get high blood pressure, diabeties, bad knees, poor blood circulation. I know a guy who was so fat, blood would pool in his feet, he eventually had to get them cut off becasue they turned black. Now he needs a wheelchair and a care giver....who pays for that? Oh, his insurance. He doesn't smoke-he could have prevented this by not eating two dinners a night.

Yes, I believe its discrimination. Because totally 'healthy' people who don't smoke, get nasty, deadly diseases and have bad medical problems that also need to be paid for.

Answer 5

Yes, and in fact, many employers pass on a greater burden for health insurance premiums to employees who smoke. It's a good idea to consider all risk behaviors, however, not just smoking. I'm sure I'd find a way to quickly lose a little more weight if it would mean paying less for insurance.

But that's the real problem, isn't it? Our system doesn't really emphasize preventative care.

Answer 6

No they shouldn't.Who says they need more care in the long run? I've been a smoker for over 30 years and I don't even go to the doctor as I am never sick.People who continually abuse the system by going to the doctor every time they have a little ache or a runny nose should be paying more.

Answer 7

No it's not discrimination. Don't we tax all people who live a lifestyle that increases their health risk? Don't we already tax sugar because it leads to diabetes? And how about overweight people who have high cholesterol and increased chances of heart problems. Don't we tax red meat and butter and other unhealthy foods.
Being homosexual greatly increases your risk of AIDS so don't we tax them extra? Driving a car leads to an increased risk of being in a car accident so don't we have an increased tax on drivers?
So you see it's not discrimination as long as we cheat everyone equally.

Answer 8

..what are they gona do next, track ppl that eat to many cheese burgers and make them pay more because they are more likely to have heart problems? Or maybe spy on you to make sure you dont have to many lovers because that might increase your chances of getting HIV?? Singling smokers out is just wrong and im sick and damn tired of it. The government makes its money off smoking addiction ..its all they care about...they are the ones that should pay for the rise in cost ..if there is any..if any other product was on the market that killed ppl they would ban it ..

Answer 9

yes, if a person engages in a harmful activity, then they should have to pay more. But if this is true, then why don't homosexuals have to pay more for their insurance? They are actually favored by the government instead of discriminated against right now, if they get aids then it's a free ride from here on out. why should people with aids get a free ride and not people with cancer?

Answer 10

Yes, of course. Many insurance companies do this, and it makes perfect sense.


It's just like auto insurance. If you drive dangerous, you pay more.