Does it make sense to provide health insurance to smokers and drug users?

[BATMANs]

I was listening to a few friends argue about that this morning while getting Starbucks and it was quite interesting to hear both sides debate.

One person was arguing that smokers raises not only that person's rates, but others as well (to offset medical costs).

The analogy that was pointed out was people who drive and break traffic rules usually have their rates go up or are booted out and forced to insurance companies designed for "special needs" drivers.

I don't smoke or do drugs and drink very little.

I must admit that I'm biased against those that choose to engage in such indulges to harm their bodies.

Not to mention the least, smoking ages you fast:

Discuss

 

[SilverStone05]

Here's my take.

I used to work in the insurance industry. I sold health insurance amongst other things. Way more often than not, I ran into people who didn't WANT to afford health insurance, rather than those who *couldn't* afford it.

Here's some food for thought.....HALF.....yes HALF....of the the 2.2 trillion spent on healthcare every year in the U.S. is directly caused by 4 things:

Poor diet.
No exercise.
Smoking.
Alcohol intake.

4 *completely* controllable lifestyle changes.

But we don't want to change our lifestyle or pay our own premiums. We'd rather have someone making 500K a year subsidize our healthcare....because they can "afford" it.

You ask 1 million people what their main concern with Health Care is and they'll tell you the price...

Unfortunately, this administration's quest to "reform" healthcare has *NOTHING* to do with reducing costs....but everything to do with extending coverage to everyone.

Isn't that counter intuitive? No, it's Socialism at its best...farming votes at its best.

Extend healthcare to everyone....demand goes up with supply the same...you get a shift...resulting in DING DING DING....higher prices for everyone!

Extend "FREE" healthcare to some....and of course...they'll overuse it. DING DING DING, demand shoots up, higher prices for everyone!

Lastly, taking away an insurance company's ability to properly price risk... who do they charge?......DING DING DING- higher premiums for everyone else. You saw what happened with the credit card reform....just you wait till this travesty is enacted.

Get rid of frivolous law suits, get rid of government red tape that dictates where insurance companies can operate, and reward folks who live healthy lifestyles....

That's the answer.

God help us all.

 

[NSXrunner]

I say no. That's sort of like a guy who jogs to keep in shape, then has a smoke right after. What's the point??

2 cents.

 

[tosugrad]

Im with SilverStone on this 100%. Excellent points.

 

[Jimbo]

It might be appropriate for to have higher insurance premiums for those people who engage in risky behaviors. Like smoking, eating Twinkies and french fries, etc.

You want lower insurance rates? Well, perhaps you have to maintain a certain weight or A1C number or take a drug/urine test or prove you don't smoke, etc.

But in any case (and I also agree with SilverStone) keep the government out of the equation. Let the free market decide.

 

[drtruong]

The same question I would like to ask: Does does it make sense to provide health to FAT PEOPLE who are too fat to walk and has to use the electric scooter (cost $5K each) to move around?

 

[BATMANs]

The same question I would like to ask: Does does it make sense to provide health to FAT PEOPLE who are too fat to walk and has to use the electric scooter (cost $5K each) to move around?

Nope.

 

[quack]

you guys are talking about group coverage (can't deny coverage), but group coverage is already 2-3 times more in cost than individual because you are paying for people with all kinds of conditions. If you try to get private insurance in general they don't cover people that have problems, health issues or even a cold in the last year.

 

[NSXGMS]

you guys are talking about group coverage (can't deny coverage), but group coverage is already 2-3 times more in cost than individual because you are paying for people with all kinds of conditions. If you try to get private insurance in general they don't cover people that have problems, health issues or even a cold in the last year.

That's true but only because of the restrictions placed on insurance companies that restrict their ability to properly pool risk.

The answer is that yes, there is still profit to be made even insuring unhealthy people as long as the premiums are appropriate and risk is properly pooled.

If govt restrictions on interstate insurance, risk pooling, mandates and tax credits and subsidies for employer-based insurance were removed entirely the cost of private insurance would drop precipitously. I've seen estimates that the average premium would drop by 50% or more and insurance companies would be able to insure virtually everyone.

The premiums would drop even further, perhaps by two-thirds if Medicare and Medicaid were taken out of the picture. That means while the elderly technically might not get free care, per se, the premiums would still be affordable for them and the quality of care would rise.

Even further if the govt loosened the chokehold of the AMA and allowed more doctors to enter the system premiums would drop even further potentially reducing the cost of private insurance to possibly 20-30% of what it is currently. That's right, premiums would drop by 70% or more from where they are today and the quality of care would likely rise as a whole.

That would seem to solve the problem of health care in this country, wouldn't it? But when has the govt ever proposed a solution that involves reducing its power? No, they prefer breaking your leg to sell you a crutch.

 

[sahtt]

It makes perfect sense. In a democracy, you do whatever it takes to get 51% of the voting population on your side. To whatever degree you can entrench this loyalty is another consideration. Build a system that cannot be tore down for generations that ensures that 51% remain loyal, either through enslavement or gratitude, and you can do whatever you need to do to the other 49%.

So does it make sense.. no question. Is it right? Is it sustainable? Is it catastrophic to the economy? Is it a net loss to society? Does it avoid the problem almost entirely? Does it pour debt on our young people's shoulders without their fair representation? Are multi-decade obligations to be paid for by those who cannot even vote-perhaps do not yet exist-democratic?

Move along peasantry, nothing to see here... we will take care of you.

 

[DrVolkl]

Should we provide health insurance to those who take higher risks than others?

People who get frequent speeding tickets....
People who jump out of airplanes....
People who travel...
People who work more than 10 miles from home...
People who ski....
People who play soccer....
People who are genetically predisposed to cancer, heart conditions, etc

Where exactly would you draw the line?


Any insurance policy that I have EVER signed has asked up front if I smoke or not. You also have to take a physical exam for life insurance and see where you place. (blood work, height/weight, age, etc) and they base your $$$ on a scale.

I think they're pretty good at it.

 

[Jimbo]

Well, look at it another way...

What if an insurance company offered dramatically lower rates to those with a healthier "profile"?

 

[NSXLuvr]

I love the logic of giving out fines to people who don't sign up for the health plans. These are same people who probably couldn't "afford" insurance in the first place.

I also Really REALLY love the idea of taxing me(>$250K/yr) just to pay for insurance for others while at the same time cutting my income by 30%(Proposed medicare cuts).

UNBELIEVABLE!! Our country is truely of the brink of self-destruction!

 

[Zuerst]

...makes me wanna drop out of med school

hey, why work when you can get free handouts!!!

 

[steveny]

We should only provide free insurance to people who never go to the doctor and then die in their sleep.

 

[Da Hapa]

We should only provide free insurance to people who never go to the doctor and then die in their sleep.

That's friggin' terrible... but funny as hell at the same time.:tongue:

 

[steveny]

That's friggin' terrible... but funny as hell at the same time.:tongue:

Everyone is going to die from something and none of it is inexpensive. Holy-er than thou bible thumper non-drinker non-smokers will also die from something expensive and most likely horrible. What the system needs to be is, you use you pay, you can't pay you don't use. I bet if everyone had to pay my rates would not be 15,000.00 a year AND I have to still pay the first 6k of bills. It's ridiculous.

 

[MvM]

Let me chime in a little bit from overseas :smile:

First of all, from my perspective, if find it somewhat sad that the US, considered still by many to be the richest nation in the WORLD, has something like 40 MILLION people who have NO access to proper health care.

Providing health care to your citizens has NOTHING to do with socialism as such.
In my opinion, health care should be something available to everyone.
It is NOT (or should be) a commodity that like a car or a PC that only those with the money to buy it can afford.

From what I have been reading about the current health care system in the US (which is not that much), it seems to me that often health care companies are more concerned about keeping their profits healty instead of the people that are supposed to be taking care of.

And as far as prices going up, if EVERYONE has to pay their premium, prices should not necessarily go up.
Where I live (Netherlands), everyone is mandatory to have health-insurance. Everyone has the same basic healthcare and can choose to extent their coverage as they see fit.
And I wager that my premiums are very compatible with those in the US without getting anyone into problems.

 

[MvM]

As for the original topic:

EVERYONE should be insured.
There should be NO exception to the rule. PERIOD !!

Of course, I understand fully that some people would like to excempt certain people or groups of people based on their lifestyle, their age, their jobs etc. etc.
However, if you are going to start that discussion, you might find that you can practically exclude EVERYONE if you would really want to.

In the end, we will ALL have to get some health care sooner or later. It will happen to everyone. So better make sure you have the right system in place.

 

[steveny]

As for the original topic:

EVERYONE should be insured.
There should be NO exception to the rule. PERIOD !!

Of course, I understand fully that some people would like to excempt certain people or groups of people based on their lifestyle, their age, their jobs etc. etc.
However, if you are going to start that discussion, you might find that you can practically exclude EVERYONE if you would really want to.

In the end, we will ALL have to get some health care sooner or later. It will happen to everyone. So better make sure you have the right system in place.

No one should be excluded, everyone should pay.

 

[sahtt]

Let me chime in a little bit from overseas :smile:

First of all, from my perspective, if find it somewhat sad that the US, considered still by many to be the richest nation in the WORLD, has something like 40 MILLION people who have NO access to proper health care.

Providing health care to your citizens has NOTHING to do with socialism as such.
In my opinion, health care should be something available to everyone.
It is NOT (or should be) a commodity that like a car or a PC that only those with the money to buy it can afford.

From what I have been reading about the current health care system in the US (which is not that much), it seems to me that often health care companies are more concerned about keeping their profits healty instead of the people that are supposed to be taking care of.

And as far as prices going up, if EVERYONE has to pay their premium, prices should not necessarily go up.
Where I live (Netherlands), everyone is mandatory to have health-insurance. Everyone has the same basic healthcare and can choose to extent their coverage as they see fit.
And I wager that my premiums are very compatible with those in the US without getting anyone into problems.

The Netherlands and the United States have extremely different social structures. You might want to re think your confidence in suggesting it's somehow equally feasible to apply what works in your nation with here. It doesn't take a scholar to realize the differences in demographics, population growth rates, per capita GDP, etc. It's a lot easier to implement a plan in a nation with 5% of our population, less than 1% population growth, 1% of our land mass, and with 80+% of its country the same ethnicity.

Canada has to put forth a huge amount of effort and resources to make their system work and they have I believe about 8% of our population. If you are in our shoes and have seen taxes and government increase year after year, republican or democratic in the last few decades, imagining the damage this massive plan can cause is not difficult.

Remember friend, our medicare and social security obligations-which are essentially socialized medicine in one form or another-are so catastrophically bankrupt, festering with fraud, terribly well run, that even the richest country in the world's federal budget requires over HALF to pay JUST for these obligations. And it's not even paying them, they are all going bankrupt! So before considering any accusations.. take a walk in our shoes before you judge a people or person for not wanting to make the same disasterous mistake for the xth time.

Of course we want everyone to have great health care in a timely, affordable fashion. Then we realized we are not in Disney land and someone is going to have to pay for it. No one has paid for ANY of the things the government has been doing lately, given the record shattering deficit we are in that's continuing to grow. If they can ****ing pay for it, then let's do it. You guys have figured out a way to pay for it, which is nothing less than fantastic. But what's happening here is the people already paying high premiums are being shouldered to pay for those who refuse to pay theirs. Now the government is reinforcing this mantra.

 

[Jimbo]

Let me chime in a little bit from overseas :smile:

First of all, from my perspective, if find it somewhat sad that the US, considered still by many to be the richest nation in the WORLD, has something like 40 MILLION people who have NO access to proper health care.

Providing health care to your citizens has NOTHING to do with socialism as such.
In my opinion, health care should be something available to everyone.
It is NOT (or should be) a commodity that like a car or a PC that only those with the money to buy it can afford.

From what I have been reading about the current health care system in the US (which is not that much), it seems to me that often health care companies are more concerned about keeping their profits healty instead of the people that are supposed to be taking care of.

And as far as prices going up, if EVERYONE has to pay their premium, prices should not necessarily go up.
Where I live (Netherlands), everyone is mandatory to have health-insurance. Everyone has the same basic healthcare and can choose to extent their coverage as they see fit.
And I wager that my premiums are very compatible with those in the US without getting anyone into problems.

1. There are many people out of that so-called 40 million who can afford health care insurance but CHOOSE not to purchase it. Most of these people are 18-30 years old and think they'll never need health care or would rather spend the money elsewhere. This 40 million number is bogus and it is used by one political party here in the US to further their cause.

2. Health care insurance companies are among the lowest when it comes to profit margin. They simply don't make all that much money.

3. There are insurance reforms needed in the US to be sure, but many of us simply do not want (nor do we trust) our government to be involved. There are many things that could be done that would go a long way to solving the problem (i.e. tort reform, stupid inter-state regulations).

Finally...

Take a few moments and watch these videos...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3WnS96NVlMI

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nCInQF12QaY&NR=1

 

[steveny]

1. There are many people out of that so-called 40 million who can afford health care insurance but CHOOSE not to purchase it. Most of these people are 18-30 years old and think they'll never need health care or would rather spend the money elsewhere. This 40 million number is bogus and it is used by one political party here in the US to further their cause.

It's one thing to be 18-30 and choose not to buy insurance and use the money to start a business and then buy health insurance later. It's a whole different story to be a scumbag and leech off others and never get insurance... all the while buying disposable 3 dollar items at walmart. BUT unfortunately we need people to buy those 3 dollar items. They support the economy....

They talk about all the people who don't have insurance. They aren't talking about how the people who are currently insured are getting insurance. My buddy is a doc and he had 17 patients on his floor who were on either Medicaid or Medicare and 3 who actually paid their own insurance. What the government is trying to do is drop everyone in the same pool. Only those who currently pay will then pay for everyone who doesn't, not just the 40 million uninsured, but also all those on Medicare and Medicaid. It will get VERY expensive for those of us who pay out of our pocket. It's the only way they can balance the budget.

I currently pay FIFTEEN THOUSAND DOLLARS A YEAR. That is ludicrous, but here is the real stab in the eye. Renee had some problems last month and had to go to the hospital by ambulance, we just got ~4k in medical bills that are not going to be covered by insurance. So I pay 15k plus another 4k, WTF is that??? Not to mention thousands in other bills I paid over the year which were not covered. Meanwhile one of my tenants goes to the ER (by ambulance) FOR FREE just so they can get some drugs to sell on the street.

IT MAKES ME SICK JUST THINKING ABOUT IT BUT I CAN'T AFFORD TO BE SICK SO I AM GOING TO STOP THINKING ABOUT IT!!!!

 

[steveny]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3WnS96NVlMI

5:55-6:05 he is dead wrong, many people on Medicaid do try and get into the hospital to get free drugs everyday!

 

[sahtt]

You have to understand our current situation and what these proposed-and completely unfunded-programs will do to our overall well being.

Maybe this will help put things into the proper context in "concrete" terms as the NYT's said..

With the national debt now topping $12 trillion, the White House estimates that the government's tab for servicing the debt will exceed $700 billion a year in 2019, up from $202 billion this year, even if annual budget deficits shrink drastically. Other forecasters say the figure could be much higher.

In concrete terms, an additional $500 billion a year in interest expense would total more than the combined federal budgets this year for education, energy, homeland security and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.


We have ZERO fiscal control. We are worried about whether or not we should spend the extra fifty bucks to buy halogen light bulbs to save 3 dollars annually on electric bills while we have 600 grand in credit card debt and the whole neighborhood is in stage 9 foreclosure.