Making smokers pay

[Highwayman]

Gannett Co. Inc.'s employees this month are receiving a notice that tells them to kick their nicotine habit or pay an extra $50 for their health insurance each month next year.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/busin...2724-6484r.htm

I know there are a lot of nonsmokers out there that will cheer these actions. Before you get started, think about down the road. Corporations are always looking for ways to shift health care costs to the employees and this is just one way to do that. The article points out that “consumer-advocacy groups are concerned the measures could expand to people who drink alcoholic beverages or are obese.” Given the rumblings about lawsuits against the fast food business, overweight folks will be high on the radar for the next round of cutting expenses. Gun owners have been the target of some health care providers for years. Whatever vice is chosen, money comes out of the workers pocket and finds it’s way to the companies bottom line. When it comes around to something that affects you, objections will fall on deaf ears. They will have been doing it to smokers for years and the precedent will be established.

[wordsmythe]

Yeah!

This has been so proven to be true.

Like when the tobacco companies were sued and lost and that started the whole slippery slope of lawsuits. Like the people who started suing fast food places because they are fat and that was allowed...

Oh wait a second those kinds of lawsuits AREN'T going forward now.

Nevermind.

Smoke up, Pay up.

[Detector]

Personally, I believe drinking cost American's far more a year than smoking, but your insurance will never go up just because you drink.

I'd much rather be hit by second hand smoke than a drunk driver.

[Tee]

First off, I am an ex smoker who still sneaks a puff from time to time when around other smokers. I agree with smokers right to smoke and in establishments owners have delegated as smoking allowed.

I do think it is appropriate for insurance companies to charge me more on my homeowners insurance if I have a wood burning stove in my home. I would understand why they would charge me more for insuring a semi-truck than for my Volkswagen beetle. It is obvious why a 90 yr old person pays more for life insurance. It's all about risk. Shouldn't they be able to charge more to those in a higher risk group. I realize it is a taboo subject that can be taken too far. For example, would gays pay higher rates because of aids? Would catholics pay higher rates because they don't believe in birth control, therefore they may have more children? Would blacks pay a rate hike because of a higher tendency to die of a violent crime? At what point would we start testing children or adults for the presence of a fat gene or diabetes gene in order to evaluate risk? It's definitely a Pandora's box, but then again, if you are a person who is very health conscience and you work out and stay fit and don't drink or smoke, shouldn't you have the benefit of lower rates due to your lower health risk? Automobile owners enjoy the same benefit from safe driving classes or clean records.... It's a tough call. How do you balance unfair profiling with fair risk assessment?

Is it fair for the employer to pass on the higher rates for those who elect to engage in risky behavoir? I can't answer that, because where do you stop? What about people who play sports or like to skydive on the weekends? I don't proclaim to have the answer.

[K C Muffin]

[quote=Tee]It's a tough call. How do you balance unfair profiling with fair risk assessment?
QUOTE]

You seem to have a good handle on risk assessment, Tee. Where did you get your training? The reason I ask is because most people don't know what factors are important to companies when determining their rates. This is exactly the kind of things that face insurance underwriters every day. It's a tough call, but usually there's one factor that ouweighs the others pretty handily and makes the ultimate decision fairly easy. Thanks for a great post!

[lurker]

Another factor is ones' credit rating.

[Highwayman]

Tee, you may not have answers, but you’re asking the right questions. However you left out motorcycle riders and the other, single largest reason for lost productivity in companies that employ mostly young, healthy people. Maternity leaves. Imagine telling female employees that they will pay more unless they submit proof of having their tubes tied. Remember big companies don’t give a plump rodent’s behind about your health unless it affects their bottom line. Especially if they pay pensions.

The way this stuff happens is some ambitious management type gets a wild hair and draws up a business case that claims to save the company $$$$ and presents it hoping for a nice bonus. It’s easier to go after smokers than young women that might be planning to start a family because so many more anti-smokers are cheering them on then there are anti-family cheerleaders.

I really look for companies to go after overweight folks. Remember this isn’t about lawsuits against fast food. It’s called “conditions of employment”. If you don’t like it, quit. Has anyone looked at a BMI (body mass index) lately? Folks if you ain’t skin and bones you’re overweight. I’ll bet every player in the NFL is downright obese. Look around at your coworkers and in the mirror. See anyone with a little gut? So companies target overweight folks to pay extra on insurance and the company gets to pocket the difference. It’s established practice. They do it to smokes.

[wordsmythe]

So the best argument against this here is the FEAR that it MIGHT be used in other areas of life SOMEDAY?

Lemme get this straight...

You want to be free to smoke, even if it causes me harm.
You don't want your taxes to go up to pay for the damage you do to yourself and others in higher medical costs for all of us.
And you don't want to pay your fair share when it comes to a group health insurance policy?
You don't want laws regulating things you like but you do want them to stop things you don't like. (i.e. Make laws to stop abortions but not to stop me from smoking in places where it harms others.)
You think Big Business should get big tax breaks, keep the minimum wage from going up...

[TexKan]

Originally Posted by Tee

would gays pay higher rates because of aids? Would catholics pay higher rates because they don't believe in birth control, therefore they may have more children? Would blacks pay a rate hike because of a higher tendency to die of a violent crime? At what point would we start testing children or adults for the presence of a fat gene or diabetes gene in order to evaluate risk? It's definitely a Pandora's box,

Aghhhh..... Tee - Great post BUT I must add........ Heterosexuals have a higher rate of new HIV infxn than gay's. I think what you have written is very insightful - truth is I do smoke - started paying higher rates in 1980 sumthin when I worked for the "state". Oddly enough now I'm with the health Dist. and they didn't ask if I smoke. Strange. I know that folks die from complications from obesity LONG before someone with COPD dies. So who to say who is the unhealthy one. I'm just glad they haven't asked for my weight yet....LOL I don't believe smokers are the cause of all the high insurance rates.... have you looked at what CEO's of the insurance industry make lately? I've been in medicine for 30 years - it's a money makin business........ I'll pay my premiums and go take my smoke breaks when I can. We all chose our own way - I say live and let live - if it costs me more than a non smoker then I will either pay it or find me a company that doesn't charge more because I smoke. Hell we are all gonna be broke sooner or later anyway. Bottom line is if you got the letter - the decision has ALREADY been made at some committee level that you weren't invited to. Your option is to pay or find another company.

[Highwayman]

Originally Posted by wordsmythe

Lemme get this straight...

I wish you would get it straight Wordy.

I’ve never said you need to be forced to be exposed to second hand smoke. I have suggested reasonable compromises which you reject.

My taxes are already inflated because I buy highly overtaxed tobacco. As for the medical costs, ask the legislature where all the money they get from excess taxes and the tobacco settlement goes.

Group health insurance is just that. A group. The concept is everyone throws money in the pot and whoever needs it gets it. When you start to single out groups of folks as high risk you open the door for all risk factors. Being overweight with high blood pressure. Having a family history of heart problems or cancer. If you don’t have any risk factors or health issues, maybe you should save money by not having insurance.

(i.e. Make laws to stop abortions but not to stop me from smoking in places where it harms others.)

I would never stop you from smoking if you chose to start.

This isn’t about fear. It’s based on 30 years of observation and understanding how corporations think and run. If they can cut costs or shift expenses to the worker without getting a lot of bad publicity or discrimination lawsuits, they will. When they are successful with smokers, their lawyers will be looking for the next group.