blog.bioethics.net

How about Jim Clark's comment in this article? Comparing smoking to a dress code?? Is this guy for real? When did what color of shirt you wear kill you or subject others to your toxic pollution? Bravo to the employers - it is a well known fact that smokers health care costs are significantly higher than non smokers. This seems to be the addiction with the most free resources available to quit. Then again, it's freedom of choice. If you choose, your employer and others shouldn't have to pay the price.

- by Jayne Nick on Feb 22, 2006 at 1:15 PM | link

That is what insurance companies should have been doing years ago - once research has shown the link between smoking and developing cancer.
Unfortunately, I highly doubt that this additional premium will deter smokers. Smokers have the same level of loyalty to cigarettes like the fans of the Cleveland Browns!
I'm a regular visitor of your blog, and I have to tell you, you guys do a great job!

- by LaVon Rutledge Jr on Feb 22, 2006 at 4:00 PM | link

On the other hand, the biggest problems in the ER and even in my Family Practice office were not cigarette-related. They were the problems from alcohol- and food-abuse.
I've never heard a policeman complain about the troubles smokers cause them,but every law enforcement officer and doctor I've talked to has a few stories about a drunk or groups of drunks.
Alcohol should be at least as closely monitored as cigarettes. And I would adjust health insurance for all risky behavior.

- by Beverly on Feb 23, 2006 at 1:42 PM | link

Actually, if you read the article carefully, it's not insurance companies that are charging more. It's employers.

- by Sue Trinidad on Feb 23, 2006 at 1:54 PM | link

This should have happened years ago. It is a proven fact that smokers health costs are more expensive than non-smokers. Smokers have many resources available to them to quit smoking. Many are free of charge. My employer offers free classes along with videos to view to help them quit. I know it is their choice but it is the choice of the health care providers to raise the costs. MAybe the smokers will think twice when they go to purchase that next pack of smokes.

- by Stacey on Feb 23, 2006 at 10:50 PM | link

Bravo to the insurance companies, It is about time that non-smokers stopped paying for those that choose to destroy their health. I love living in a state that is smoke free, I only wish the feds would make it a nationwide thing. It stinks ( literally) when you travel and are forced to inhale someone's smoke while you are trying to enjoy your meal. I don't choose to smoke,I don't think I should be subjected to it in public areas.

- by Angie on Feb 24, 2006 at 12:46 PM | link

I happen to smoke and I don't think it's anyone's business whether I smoke or not. When's the last time you ever heard of someone getting in their car and killing someone because they were smoking? I know using cellphones and drinking and driving are directly r/t MVA's and even death, no one's charging more for insurance for these two risk factors. I don't believe it is a proven fact that smoking results in cancer 100% of the time, because it doesn't. Yes, it is a carcinogenic and it does significantly increase the risk but many variables exist. How much, how long, familial inheritance of genetic factors that increase soeone's risk for cancer, environmental factors, food choices, I could go on & on. There are many multifactorial reasons someone gets cancer, maybe someone's just more susceptible? The fact is they haven't figured it out yet, otherwise there would be a cure and a timeframe of, for istance, after you smoke 1 pk. a day for 10 years you will have the development of cancerous cells. How do they explain all those variables of when, who and what type of cancer someone gets? It's a lottery, some win, some don't? The fact is, my lifespan is pretermined, the choices I make may alter that lifespan but it's my choice. If I choose to smoke to get through the daily stresses of life, it's my choice, it's my life, maybe I should take up drinking instead, apparently there's no social stigma related to that crutch! How about charging people who overeat more for their insurance? Again, I could go on & on with this subject matter. I don't feel this should be legal, everyone should pay a flat fee, otherwise it's discriminatory! If they do this, then every other person that causes even a one cent increase for their insurance co. should also be charged more. For example, being a bad parent, child abuse, working in a coal mine, etc,etc. I agree that other people don't have to be exposed to your smoke, i.e. public places but that's all I will ackowledge. It is absolutely ridiculous!

- by C.E. on Feb 24, 2006 at 2:42 PM | link

I think that this give smokers another great incentive to quit. If they want to possibly hinder their health they why not help pay for the bill. My employer does a great job making smoking cessation classes very cheap like at the most $10-15 after their refund. In addition, not smoking is better for individuals as well as their loved ones. I think this is a great way for employers to get thier attention of their employees who smoke.
However, couple of things--could this be discrimination? what about people who use smokeless tobacco?

- by Alicia on Feb 25, 2006 at 4:59 PM | link

This is another great incentive for people to quit smoking. I think that many employers are trying to do what is best for thier employees. I think that they also need to come up with a plan for people who have problems with alcohol, drugs, and food. We all need to work together to make a healthier environment. It is better for everyone.
Just a couple of thoughts--could this be discrimination? what about smokeless tobacco?

- by Alicia on Feb 25, 2006 at 5:19 PM | link

So...health insurance companies only want to insure the healthy? Not a new approach, I've heard this bantered for years and it's just a regurgitated way of sticking it to the people who already pay to much for health insurance. The obese, hypertensives, diabetics, cardiacs and ANY and ALL others with any kind of adverse health history better line up for the the further fleecing of their wallets. FYI, I do not smoke. My father died when I was very young from lung CA (awful death) and I'm looking to walk the same path, not intentionally anyway.

- by pmcclain on Feb 25, 2006 at 9:21 PM | link

While I am against smoking, I'm not sure it is fair for the insurance companies to be charging smokers extra money. Unless you're an aerobic instructor, eating a balanced diet every day, and have strict control of your environment, almost everyone has some vice that isn't healthy for them. Are they going to increase the rates for overweight, underweight, genetically predisposed, or sedentary people? Where do you draw the line? I like the idea that some companies are offering rewards to those who exercise regularly. I think rewarding someone will work better than penalizing someone.

- by charlotte on Feb 25, 2006 at 9:36 PM | link

Actually, I have something else to say on this matter. Do you know how many type 2 diabetics I have taken care of that are on many, multiple medications, like antidiabetic meds, insulin to keep their blood sugar under control? This is one of the fastest growing medical conditions in the US. Most of the time it can be controlled with diet and excercise. But did you know that the majority of them aren't interested in that road, they'd rather spend hundreds of dollars for antidiabetic meds evry month and eat what they want, when they want. Who eats the cost of all the diabetic supplies and meds, diabetic complications ie. skin & circulatory problems, kidney problems, vision problems. Diabetes affects every organ in your body but these people don't get it either but no one is raising there insurance. So, I think everyone ought to just lay off the smokers! There should be a worldwide health change but not just one group of people singled out! Everyone's health needs to improve.

- by C.E. on Feb 26, 2006 at 2:04 AM | link

I think that smokers should have to pay additional costs towards their health care, they are not only at greater risks for health problems but also for more severe and long term health problems. I feel that there is plently of education to inform smokers of the health risks and if they are still willing to light up a cigarette then they should be willing to pay for the extra charges. Their illnesses are self inflicted and they have a choice to prevent such illnesses so why should I pay for their voluntary actions.

- by Desiree on Feb 27, 2006 at 9:43 AM | link

While as a haelthcare practitioner, I understand companies charging employees higher premiums I worry there is my end. Many illnesses are genttic based and out of the control of the patient. Should we charge extra to everyone who uses their insurance on a regular basis. What about the person who stopped smoking many years ago, but now needs treatment for cancer? These are viewed an incentives, but what assistance are they giving to quit? Am I going to get a refund if I do not use my insurance? Does the marathon runner get a better rate? Many health situation can be traced to lifestyle choices. I worry about where it will end.

- by Lori on Feb 27, 2006 at 6:34 PM | link

I totally agree. It is a shame that after years of warnings, diagnoses of cancer, emphysema and heart disease there are still people who smoke. What does it take to make people realize that smoking is lethal. Maybe this will make people stop and think.

- by Cindy on Feb 27, 2006 at 10:31 PM | link

I am not a smoker, but I must come to their defense. I understand that smoking is a self-inflicted habit and is bad for your health, but so is obesity. Where do we draw the line? I am suprised employers are able to single out only smokers. Diabetes, heart disease, and hypertension along with their complications can be astronomical in terms of cost for a health insurance company. I understand theses diseases are not self afflicting. People in the workplace addicted to drugs and alcohol must be given a chance at rehabilitation before they are dismissed. Slapping someone on their hand for a bad habit is not the answer. Employers should consider offering smoking sessation classes on the job and offer incentives for those who quit. Try reaching out to others in need instead of punishing them. I have never been addicted to nicotine, have you?

- by Erika on Feb 28, 2006 at 3:31 AM | link

I understand the viewpoints of smokers who think that this is a ridiculous issue, however how many would quit if they knew that there insurance would increase. However there is fact that obesity and alcoholism also play a role, then maybe these issues should also be evaluated and there premiums increased as well, think of how many problems come with cigarrettes-cancer, copd, then the treatments, hospitalizations, outpatient care-smoking costs insurance companies a pretty penny-however if they are going to increase premiums then they also need to cover smoking cessations aides and classes for their clients who wish to quit.

- by Kasey O'Neil on Feb 28, 2006 at 12:05 PM | link

It is proven that second-hand smoke can cause major harm to non-smokers. So, smoking is not just SELF inflicted, it is affecting everyone that you are forcing to inhale your smoke as you go out to dinner or walk down the street. I take great pains to ensure that I am healthy. Of course I understand that I could possibly be killed by a drunk driver, but if I'm just trying to enjoy a nice evening out with friends, I should at least feel free to breathe the air at my local restaurant. Smokers should be singled out to pay more for health insurance. They are knowingly taking a health risk every time they lift a cigarette to their lips. It has been proven that cigarette smoking causes cancer, and no, I have never been addicted to nicotine because I would never subject my body to such a poison. Personally, I am tired of having to switch tables in a restaurant or even go so far as to leave an establishment because I am being forced to breathe in the cancer-causing secondhand smoke. It's time that smokers are accountable for the habit that will likely cause them health problems at some point in their lives.

- by Rebecca R. on Feb 28, 2006 at 1:13 PM | link

It is proven that secondhand smoke can cause cancer to nonsmokers, so smoking cigarettes is not just SELF inflicted. I take great pains to ensure my health, so I should not be subjected to the possibility that someone else's bad habit could possibly cause me harm. Of course I realize that everyday I could be subject to harm, but, if I'm dining in a restaurant or walking down the street, I should not have to worry about the next person's bad habit ruining my evening. Smokers should have to pay more for health insurance. Everytime they choose to light up their cigarettes, they are knowingly causing harm to their own bodies ( and, unfortunately, anyone within their field of air). I am tired of avoiding situations in a public place because someone is smoking in my area. And, no, I have never been addicted to nicotine because I value my life and my loved one's lives way to much to subject myself or them to those poisons. Smokers will make every excuse to validate their choice and "right" to smoke. How can smokers claim that they have the right to put other's health at risk? As a healthcare professional, I can often see a common thread among the majority of my patients, and that is cigarette smoking.

- by Rebecca R. on Feb 28, 2006 at 1:24 PM | link

As a nonsmoker, I am tired of listening to smokers and their "right" to smoke wherever they want to. Secondhand smoke is proven to harm nonsmokers, so, as far as I am concerned, smokers have no right to harm me! Smokers should pay more for health insurance. As a healthcare professional, I see a common thread in the majority of my patients, and that is cigarette smoking. Smoking is not just SELF inflicted, it is inflicting anyone who is forced to breathe in the same room. Yes, we all face risks when we walk out of our doors, but at least give me the opportunity to enjoy an evening with friends without having to risk cancer from secondhand smoke. Every single time a smoker lights up a cigarette, they are knowingly putting their health at risk. If smoking is worth it to these people, then they should be prepared to pay for the consequences.

- by Rebecca R. on Feb 28, 2006 at 1:31 PM | link