PDA

View Full Version : What do you think of this - health insurance/smoking



aneisu
05-17-2005, 01:49 PM
This is happening more and more across the country - what do you think? As a nonsmoker I'm glad I wouldn't have to pay - but... I'm just not sure its a good idea.

http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/metro/0505/12smoke.html

State workers who smoke will pay more for insurance

By NANCY BADERTSCHER, JAMES SALZER
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Published on: 05/12/05
Teachers and other state employees who smoke will have to pay $40 a month more for health insurance starting July 1.

Employees are fuming over the surcharge, which hits state workers, public school teachers and their families who admit to smoking or using tobacco in the past 12 months.

Laurie Reid, a secretary with the Board of Pardons and Paroles and a smoker, said her insurance was jumping from $74 to $117 a month.

"That's a lot of money for many state employees," she said. "Our hands are tied. We have to have health insurance. What are we to do?"

About 650,000 people are on the state health insurance plan.

Three states — West Virginia, Alabama and Kentucky — are already imposing a surcharge on health insurance for employees who smoke, a trend that has been sweeping private industry as well.

In Georgia, state employees are expected to abide by the honor system when they sign up for insurance coverage and are asked whether they use tobacco, said Tim Burgess, commissioner of the Georgia Department of Community Health. Those caught lying will lose their insurance for a year, he said.

Senate Majority Leader Tommie Williams (R-Lyons) said the surcharge, which helps limit the increase in premiums for state employees, was adopted to fill a projected $400 million shortfall in the insurance fund. Gov. Sonny Perdue proposed a 13 percent rise in premiums, but lawmakers dropped it to 9.5 percent.

"Smokers are very expensive. In the private sector, you pay more if you are a smoker and you pay more for your spouse," Williams said.

Williams said many state employees didn't realize the insurance system was self-insured, meaning premiums must go up to meet rising health costs and claims.

"Anytime your costs go up for a plan, people are going to grumble," Burgess said. "But I think what I ask state employees to remember is, the costs of the plan are outstripping our ability to pay for it."

Burgess said it's unclear exactly how much money the tobacco surcharge will raise because the state does not know how many of its employees or their spouses smoke. Perdue's initial recommendation of a $9 per month surcharge estimated a savings of $1.7 million in insurance costs. Legislators increased the surcharge to $27, which would have raised $5.1 million.

Budget gap plugged

Tim Connell, director of the state Office of Planning and Budget, said the surcharge was raised to $40 because the legislators' plan still left a $4 million hole in the health program's budget. The final decision was made by staffers in the governor's office, Community Health and Connell's office.

Employees upset about the higher payments were expected to attend a meeting today of the Department of Community Health's board.

Jerry Head, who has worked for the state for 30 years, said he had gotten accustomed to seeing his health insurance premiums go up every year.

"But the one thing that really ticks me is the smoking penalty," said Head, a non-smoker who works at Georgia Regional Hospital in Atlanta. His wife smokes and probably would have used the threat of having to pay more for health insurance as an incentive to quit, he said.

"But ? even should she quit today, we still must pay the penalty of $40 per month for the next year — in effect, penalizing us for a past action that had always been previously tolerated," he said.

During the last three years, state employees have experienced double-digit increases in their health insurance premiums and little in the way of pay increases.

"Basically, it's become a situation where the employer will provide the health insurance, but nobody can afford it," said Ralph Williams, president of the Service Employees International Union Local 198.

Rep. Alan Powell (D-Hartwell), a smoker who says he is trying to quit, thinks the surcharge is unfair.

"It's a legal product," Powell said. "If you want a surcharge, don't just put it on smoking. Why not do it based on weight? If you are going to put the surcharge on smoking, put it on that six-pack drinker."

moogle
05-17-2005, 02:05 PM
I wish all I paid for my health insurance was $117 a month!!!!
Must be nice!

I understand the jump in the price is a big one, but that is a whole
lot lower than I am paying for just me.....

Willow
05-17-2005, 02:07 PM
I will probably get flamed as they say but if they can afford to smoke at $5 a pack they can probably afford the extra $40 a month. No offense to the smokers. :D

Tasha405
05-17-2005, 02:11 PM
I will probably get flamed as they say but if they can afford to smoke at $5 a pack they can probably afford the extra $40 a month. No offense to the smokers. :D
No offense taken but I don't pay $5 a pack for mine. LOL I smoke the cheapies. :o

I think its crap but I'm also a smoker. lol

Tasha405
05-17-2005, 02:13 PM
During the last three years, state employees have experienced double-digit increases in their health insurance premiums and little in the way of pay increases.

"Basically, it's become a situation where the employer will provide the health insurance, but nobody can afford it," said Ralph Williams, president of the Service Employees International Union Local 198.



Sadly, that is so true.

Willow
05-17-2005, 02:28 PM
No offense taken but I don't pay $5 a pack for mine. LOL I smoke the cheapies. :o

I think its crap but I'm also a smoker. lol


If I smoked I would probably think it was crap too. :)

buglebe
05-17-2005, 04:00 PM
I lost my father to smoking cigarettes. My son and his wife smoke. My huband and I are both ex smokers. If people could just realize the significance of smoking on their health, they would all stop smoking today.
But so many think it won't happen to them. My son loved his grandfather and watched him die. My father asked him to stop smoking. His answer, when he started feeling sick, he would stop! Brilliant answer, right. That was 10 yrs ago. Son is now 32 and thinks he can't stop. Anyone can stop. My father stopped 10 yrs before he died and after smoking 56 yrs.
Yes smokers should pay more for their insurance. We are all paying for their health care when they reach their 50's and 60's and have all the irreversable health problems resulting from smoking. Anything to stop people from smoking is a good thing. Raising the price of cigarettes more is just going to go more to bootlegging cigarettes.
Our health insurance is much much higher than that quoted above. That sounds like a pretty good deal if you ask me.
When I was working we were penalized if our weight was higher than the insurance charts recommended for our height and if our BP was higher than it should be. What's fair? I didn't think it was fair to penalize me for my BP but I am sure the overweigh resented being penalized too. I am an RN so health was of course emphasized where I worked.

freebielover
05-17-2005, 04:16 PM
I think its a good idea but thats because I'm anti-smoking (NO OFFENSE to smokers in this post). I would hope by doing this smokers who want to stop might see this as an incentive to stop. On the other hand no one should be denied health insurance, or not be able to afford it. On the other hand if they can afford to smoke then they mustn't be THAT hard up for money or they would quit smoking lol I'm just talking myself in circles. Have you seen companies are starting to fire people for smoking??

queenangie
05-17-2005, 04:17 PM
This year, our insurance changed to work dividing the
smokers & nonsmokers.
The nonsmokers pay less on the monthly premiums.

Also, we have the smoke-free facility,
but have smoking 'huts' in three locations around
the hospital grounds. Nov., 05 those will be closed and
no smoking at all on hospital grounds.

Me? I've got asthma and am a nonsmoker.

llbriteyes
05-17-2005, 04:38 PM
From a smoker: Smoking DOES pose more risks than non-smokers. I wouldn't like to pay the increase, BUT I understand why its being done.

From a non-parachuter: Should your insurance go down if you aren't a risk taker?

Just a thought.

Linda

schsa
05-18-2005, 07:21 AM
Not only does smoking affect the smoker, but it affects all of the family members increasing their risk of related lung illnesses such as brochititis, pneumonia, etc. So chances are they are going to use their medical insurance more frequently than non-smokers.

As for parachuters: Most insurance does not cover injuries related to such hobbies as sky diving, racing cars or any other high risk activities. They look at it the same as a self inflicted injury.

Kelsey1224
05-18-2005, 08:02 AM
I agree with the increase for smokers because health insurance premiums are usually based on a usage. Statistically, smokers' have an increased risk of numerous health issues.

It is really no different than how private policies for health insurance are charged. The insurance company usually requires a health exam. And then one's premiums are based on your age, health...risk factors, etc. If you are over a certain age and have health issues (including being a smoker), then your premium would be higher than someone younger and without the health issues.

When you have group policies (i.e., through your employer)...the premiums are averaged based on the previous year's "claims experience". In other words, how much did the entire employee population use their health insurance. The claims experience is averaged over the entire employee population. So...the many people who have a few claims pay the same rate as the few who have large claims.

However...numerous studies have show that smokers (as a whole) have significantly more claims than non-smokers.

Thus dividing the covered population into two groups...smokers and non-smokers...makes the premiums more in line with usage. Plus...it gives an added incentive for smokers to stop smoking.

I think it is no different that auto insurance. If someone has a history of accidents, tickets...or lives in a high-risk geographic area...their premiums are higher.

lisahiser
05-18-2005, 08:25 AM
"It's a legal product," Powell said. "If you want a surcharge, don't just put it on smoking. Why not do it based on weight? If you are going to put the surcharge on smoking, put it on that six-pack drinker."

I agree with what this person said from the original post, why should insurance change just for the smokers, what about the person who is drinking a 6,12-,24-pack everyday, or what about the person who is sitting there on the couch all day eating junk food and clogging their heart. I am not saying any of this to offend anyone! but for some reason everytime there is a budget shortage somewhere, it seems that all the smokers and tobbacco users are the ones hit. Yes smoking and using tobacco is very bad for your health, but basically so is breathing in the air in some places. I just wonder what everyone will do when everyone stops smoking. Who will they tax or raise rates for then to make up for what they have lost?


once again did not say this to offend anyone! just making a point.

llbriteyes
05-18-2005, 09:13 AM
Interesting. I didn't know that.

Linda


Not only does smoking affect the smoker, but it affects all of the family members increasing their risk of related lung illnesses such as brochititis, pneumonia, etc. So chances are they are going to use their medical insurance more frequently than non-smokers.

As for parachuters: Most insurance does not cover injuries related to such hobbies as sky diving, racing cars or any other high risk activities. They look at it the same as a self inflicted injury.

llbriteyes
05-18-2005, 09:15 AM
I think if they took the money wasted and used it on education and prevention, insurance would be a heck of a lot less expensive for everyone.

Linda



I agree with what this person said from the original post, why should insurance change just for the smokers, what about the person who is drinking a 6,12-,24-pack everyday, or what about the person who is sitting there on the couch all day eating junk food and clogging their heart. I am not saying any of this to offend anyone! but for some reason everytime there is a budget shortage somewhere, it seems that all the smokers and tobbacco users are the ones hit. Yes smoking and using tobacco is very bad for your health, but basically so is breathing in the air in some places. I just wonder what everyone will do when everyone stops smoking. Who will they tax or raise rates for then to make up for what they have lost?


once again did not say this to offend anyone! just making a point.

schsa
05-18-2005, 10:52 AM
It's easier to spot a smoker than a drinker. And a person who drinks can drink for years before it affects their body. Smokers affect everyone in their family. Children of smokers have a higher risk of respiratory infections than children of non-smokers.

You will also find that some insurance companies give a break to people who go to health clubs and work out. They also give breaks to people who join Weight Watchers. So the fact that they are increasing rates for people who are endangering their health is not suprising.

adorkablex
05-18-2005, 10:57 AM
I think it's a good idea. As a non-smoker living with someone who smokes, maybe it'll deter people from smoking.

Another thing that gets me is even though cigarettes don't effect the brain like pot or beer or whatever does.. but I've seen people almost wreck trying to light a cigarette. If they outlaw people using cellphones while driving, why not cigarettes too? And food and drinks. Because you can't drive properly with a Big Mac stuffed infront of your face lol.