|
I feel they whould have to pay higher premiums at my employers they do and if you agree to quit they
cover most of the costs for your treatment however if you lie to them they come back and fine you
and in some cases fire you. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
It will make them quit |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Yes yes and... Yes... Everyone pretty much said what i can say. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Certainly, smokers should be asked to pay more. Smoking is entirely a matter of personal choice and
it is one of the choices most obviously associated with adverse health outcomes.
On the other side I see comparisons made between smokers and :-
Obese people. I think it should also be permissible for insurance companies to vary their rates
depending on some measure of obesity (obviously take things like height and sex into account). That
said, varying rates for obesity is arguably less defensible than varying rates for smoking. Smoking
is entirely a matter of personal choice, while obesity can be complicated by external factors, such
as genes and microbes. Smoking is also pure self-indulgence in that it is completely unnecessary,
serving no useful purpose, while eating is obviously essential. Nicotine addicts, or alcoholics, or
heroin addicts have the option of going cold turkey on their poison. Food addicts can't do that.
Participants in extreme sports :- I'm not sure but I believe normal life insurance policies, and
probably health insurance policies, do make an exception for participation in extreme sports.
Special policies are necessary to cover injuries arising from these activities, and that seems right
to me.
Those in high-risk jobs : Again, it seems perfectly reasonable that rates should be varied for
people depending on their occupation. Construction workers or Blackwater mercenaries should pay
more. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Of course they should— if they are more likely to cost the insurance company money then they
should pay more for the insurance— that's how insurance works |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Anyone who willingly endangers his own health -- be it with smoking or similar reckless behavior --
should subsidize his own health insurance. I applaud the trend of more and more businesses are
charging smokers extra premiums, in an effort to keep costs lower for all workers.
Why should all insurance premium payers support an addiction that leads to increased medical costs
and higher medical bills? The same argument goes for those digging their premature graves with a
fork by becoming obese. Why should I pay for your lack of self-control over addiction?
Smoking-related illnesses are also a major cause of work absenteeism, which drags down entire
economies. Smoking is also a major cause of premature births, the costs of which taxpayers must
often foot.
Nope, smokers can bleat all they want about how their rights are being trampled, but, luckily, that
argument falls on increasingly deaf ears. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Since smokers are more prone to lung and heart injuries thus it is advisable for the smokers to pay
more for health insurance because after a certain point of time in their life they will need more
medical care and help in order to survive. As we all know that an insurance policy is always there
to benefit you when you need financial aid and in situations like this it can often happen that a
patient needs more intensive medical health for which a financial aid is also very much required. In
such situations if a patient is having a strong insurance coverage then it can help the patient to
cover all expenses that he may need to incur in order to stay alive. Thus a smoker should keep in
mind and also should pay more to the health insurance to increase the chances of his living. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
That is an excellent idea to get them to stop and for the government. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Yes, because if people have to start paying for insurance to smoke than some people wont have the
money to pay for it so they will be forced to stop smoking. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
This is a good debate. I agree that smokers and drinkers should have to pay more money for health
care insurance. Their habits are unhealthy and every time they smoke or drink, they are risking
their lives. Their bad habits cause diseases such as lung cancer or liver damage and if the patient
never smoked or drank they may have never gotten their disease. They basically caused it literally.
This is something that they are doing to themselves. The related illnesses are not inherited or
acquired accidentally. I do believe that all people should have a right to fair and equal health
care; however, I strongly believe that if a patient caused an illness through their drinking or
smoking, then they should have to pay more money for their health care insurance premium. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Yes i believe they should because when they have gangrene they they will have enough money to pay
the bills if you didn't have as much you will not have enough money to pay it off |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
I agree smokers should pay more for health because smokers chose to do it nobody forced them know
that they're sick or dying let them face the consequences of their actions. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Absolutely a good idea! |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Smokers should be required to pay more for health insurance because they quite simply cost the
medical system and private companies more than patients without such a destructive habit. If some
insurance companies are hesitant to provide coverage at a reasonable rate to people with a range of
health conditions, or to elderly clients (all of which are factors that the consumer has no control
over), then those who smoke despite all the warnings and known dangers, should have to pay more.
Public institutions generally provide a range of programs aimed at helping smokers quit their habit,
so we cannot say that they are not offered help or assistance in this regard. As such, quitting
usually boils down to discipline and resolve. If smokers cannot muster up the strength to do this,
then it is entirely fair if insurance firms charge them a premium. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
People need to take responsibility for their actions. Smoking, like it or not, has a serious impact
on the health of the individual. There is no question that it increases the risk of cancer, heart
disease, lung disease, etc. Since insurance companies are weighing the cost of treatment against
the risk of needing treatment, it's only natural that they would charge people who are more at risk,
more money.
It isn't like smokers can't quit, this isn't a congenital disease, it's something they purposely do
to themselves and they need to be responsible for. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Smokers already have to pay more for life insurance, and if they choose to smoke (and as an
ex-smoker I feel qualified to say "choose"), they can pay extra for their health insurance too. It
is a choice. Why should my health insurance go up to pay for smoking related illnesses? By the way,
I am not against smoking, just me paying for someone to smoke. I also think people who don't wear
motorcycle helmets should pay more for insurance. Again, a choice. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Yes because when a person smokes
it is more likely for him or her to get a disease and have to go to the hospital.
Therefore the health insurance should cost more because of the more likelyness of having a problem
and going to the hospital |
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
 |
|
In the U.S. Overweight people consume more healthcare resources than smokers and drinkers combined.
(New England Journal of Medicine ... Sept 07) While I agree that the smokers should pay more the
fat should pay even more than them. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Smokers already pay more towards healthcare in the form of tobacco taxes. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
No. Why just smokers? What about those who eat the 'wrong' foods? What about those who play
dangerous sports? What about those who don't exercise? Etc. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Ok then people who live in Florida should pay more because they have a greater chance of getting
skin cancer. People who eat unhealthy food should also pay more for health insurance. Obese people
should pay more for health insurance. I can go on and on, you cannot choose 1 without all of the
rest. They are all choices we make in one way or another and to hold one group responsible means
you have to hold everyone responsible and until you are willing to do that, it is an unfair
situation. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Are we talking in the US or UK? In the UK the health care is free.(NHS) the government spends
millions each year to try and help people to stop smoking but a lot of the time it doesn't work.they
spend all this money and i bet half of it comes from the revenue of people buying cigarettes. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
So should we make people pay for being stupid too? Such and turing in front of a moving car when
they are on a bike and getting hurt? Or drinking themself to death but lingering with liver
problems till they pass? Don't just pick on smokers. Pick on society's bad habbits as a whole. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
I'm not a smoker, so i don't think that it would be fair for me to argue on this one, but i am going
to throw my opinion out there, i think that it is a bunch of bologna. Why just smokers??? It is not
always a gurantee that smokers are a liability, what about alcoholics??? They are the leading causes
of accidents around here, they kill others in the process of their addiction. What about drug users,
or if we're going with people that are a health liability, then we should go with everyone that eats
fast food at least 3 times a week. Smoking isn't the only health hazard we have around here, and to
raise their health insurance over an assumption like that would be unfair. There are so many
liabilities out there. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Why just smoker? I think charging more for health insurance in case of a smoker would be very unfair
when there are alcoholics and drug addicts who would not be facing any such extra charge for making
an unhealthy personal choice. After all alcohol is equally damaging for health and drugs cause
humans to rot literally while still alive so why penalize smokers only?
I am against the suggestion because it is biased and will lead to unnecessary complications on the
part of insurance companies. The current system treats everyone as an equal when it comes to health
insurance and that is how it should be. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
I am against any person with any specific disease/lifestyle having to pay extra for insurance. I
don't think it's fair to ridicule one specific group- smokers- because other diseases are brought on
by choice and lifestyle. If we start singleing out smokers... We need to single out the alcohoics,
obese, drug abusers, people who partake in extreme sports/activities, and people with hazardous
jobs, et al.
All the mentioned above persons are willingly putting their body as risk for disease and injury.
Should we raise insurance for skiiers who break their legs, rock climbers who fall from the cliff,
paramedics who are exposed to viral infections, alcoholics who develop cirrhosis, the obese who have
heart disease or knee replacements, or the drug abuser who ODs twice a month?
Singleing out any type of person's behavior/lifestyle would be prejudice. I don't think we'd be
able to do so without raising it for everyone. However, many people, those above... And with dx'ed
medical hx, already pay a higher premium. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
02 Feb 2008 05:37
Sign In
For and Against Recent Activity
