there should be no limits on smokers. There is no possible health benefit with smoking and as such penalizing them might get them quit. Many self insured companies already charge extra, 600 a year where I am. However for the money most make that isn't diddly, at least they don't think so
Vanderbilt University economist Kip Viscusi claims a net cost savings of 32 cents per pack sold [1]. It seems we're all going to die, and Alzheimer's isn't part of the quick and easy way out of healthcare cost. And at the ripe age of 125 or so, 100% suffer cancer.
Smoking could save money for society but it probably doesn't save money for individual insurers, who are much more worried about the shorter term. The private insurance you have when you're 30 isn't going to be paying for your nursing-home care when you're 90, but they are likely to end up paying for various smoking-related illnesses that kill you sooner.
We don't really have Health Insurance companies. Insurance is about risk management, and we have mandated health coverage. But, to your point, this is why real insurance companies manage their portfolios, aggregate. If they're losing money, it's not the responsibility of society to save them.
You're not wrong that there's a negative correlation between smoking and obesity or Parkinson's, but that is not a reason to take up smoking. You're far more likely to die of cancer or heart disease as a smoker than you are not to die from Parkinson's because you smoked.
Comments
there should be no limits on smokers. There is no possible health benefit with smoking and as such penalizing them might get them quit. Many self insured companies already charge extra, 600 a year where I am. However for the money most make that isn't diddly, at least they don't think so
Well, margin is a difficult concept to grep.
Vanderbilt University economist Kip Viscusi claims a net cost savings of 32 cents per pack sold [1]. It seems we're all going to die, and Alzheimer's isn't part of the quick and easy way out of healthcare cost. And at the ripe age of 125 or so, 100% suffer cancer.
1. http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/health/2009-04-08-fda-to...
Smoking could save money for society but it probably doesn't save money for individual insurers, who are much more worried about the shorter term. The private insurance you have when you're 30 isn't going to be paying for your nursing-home care when you're 90, but they are likely to end up paying for various smoking-related illnesses that kill you sooner.
We don't really have Health Insurance companies. Insurance is about risk management, and we have mandated health coverage. But, to your point, this is why real insurance companies manage their portfolios, aggregate. If they're losing money, it's not the responsibility of society to save them.
"no possible health benefit with smoking"...as usual, it's more complicated.
See, for example, http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/155/8/732.full
for the negative correlation between smoking and Parkinson's disease, and
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/87/4/801.full
for some insights into the negative correlation between smoking and obesity.
Not to say that smoking is a good idea, it's not (actuarial data are clear on that), but your view of its consequences is inaccurate.
You're not wrong that there's a negative correlation between smoking and obesity or Parkinson's, but that is not a reason to take up smoking. You're far more likely to die of cancer or heart disease as a smoker than you are not to die from Parkinson's because you smoked.
Americans are pretty likely to die from heart disease anyways, smoker or non-.
moralizers like yourself are why people should be very very afraid of data collection like this.