Obamacare to impose 50% increase to smokers

[regulator 0]

Obamacare bans higher premiums or the denial of health coverage because of pre-existing conditions. But one group will still find themselves penalized: smokers.

The new measures in the Affordable Care Act, which goes into effect next January, would allow health insurance companies to charge tobacco users up to 50% more for individual policies. And the costs of that rate hike would come entirely out of smokers’ pockets.

A recent Associated Press report notes those surcharges, nearly $4,250 a year on top of premiums for a 55-year-old smoker and close to $5,100 for a 60-year-old, could impose a heavy financial burden on individuals with a tobacco habit "at a time in life when smoking-related illnesses tend to emerge."

The ACA penalties could give added incentive to companies looking to sidestep smokers as potential employees.

Smoker protection laws already exist in 29 states and the District of Columbia, but that might be changing. Oklahoma, for example, is considering a bill that would repeal those laws. "These are the kinds of protections you’d think we have for race and gender, not smokers," State Sen. David Holt told KFOR-TV. "Just as a smoker has made a choice, employers ought to be able to make choices too."

Nearly 20% of people in the United States smoke. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says smoking also kills more than 440,000 people in the U.S. annually while costing the economy more than $193 billion each year in lost productivity and health care expenditures. And it says secondhand smoke costs -- from healthcare expenditures as well as illness and premature death -- amount to another $10 billion.

Analysts say those statistics, along with the ACA penalties, are causing the insurance industry to look even closer at smokers.

"If you are an insurer and there is a group of smokers you don't want in your pool, the ones you really don't want are the ones who have been smoking for 20 or 30 years," Karen Pollitz, insurance market expert with the Kaiser Family Foundation, told AP. "You would have the flexibility to discourage them."

But there is optimism the ACA measures could also help more smokers kick the habit. The CDC says more than two-thirds of all smokers want to quit completely. And the American Lung Association notes all new private insurance plans under the ACA must cover treatments to help smokers quit smoking.

And as the Washington Post’s Wonkblog points out,, ACA wouldn’t allow insurers to apply the full penalty against a smoker enrolled in a quit-smoking program.

"We don't want to create barriers for people to get health care coverage," California state Assemblyman Richard Pan told AP. "We want people who are smoking to get smoking cessation treatment.”

http://money.msn.com/now/post.aspx?post=4d0c1bda-98c3-4c2f-ab2b-d66160f6fe4d

[normiss 622]

Hmmm....wondering if the penalty for not submitting to the gooberment will be double the non-smoker penalty.

Unfair treatment of one group is unconstitutional.

[regulator 0]

First smokers

then the obese

then overweight people

whats next...morbidly tall people?

[normiss 622]

May depend on the mind reading political officers that we currently refer to as "Doctor".

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

May depend on the mind reading political officers that we currently refer to as "Doctor".

The Doctor

[ManagingPrime 0]

It's logical.

Another idea to ponder. CDC does research showing that gun owners are 15% more likely to end up needing emergency care vs. non gun owners. Insurance rates allowed to be increased for gun owners. Logical as well.

Ohhh the tangled webs we weave when people give up personal responsibility.

[regulator 0]

How many dr's do you know that have assistants that hot?

[baronn 111]

And yet smoking related health issues are the responsibilities of Who? We all function just fine on clean, non-smoke filled air. It's no secret that smoking is a cause of a whole slew of nasty unhealthy things. I don't smoke, don't want to breathe it in and certainly don't want to cover the added expense of this unnecessary habit. Don't wanna pay? No problem, QUIT. Want to continue your disgusting habit? A: don't do it around other's that don't want to breathe it B: Don't bitch about having to pay for it. Packs are already 5+ bucks anyway. You are the one throwing yer money and health away, nobody is forcing you. Don't force it on someone else.

[regulator 0]

I didnt divulge my stance on smoking. I know tobacco is one of the largest killers of people in the USA. However I dont like the fact that people can be singled out and forced to pay more. I just posted the article but I noticed you like to throw around the word YOU alot. What do YOU think about the government having control over the things you do? Will you be ok with it when skydiving is deemed unnecessary? Perhaps having all wine illegal? I didnt force anything on anyone. So stop pointing fingers.

[billvon 2,435]

>would allow health insurance companies to charge tobacco users up to 50% more for
>individual policies. And the costs of that rate hike would come entirely out of smokers’
>pockets.

Obamacare allows insurance companies to set their own rates for smokers? O the horror! Why can't some brave conservative pass a law that bans freedom in insurance company pricing schemes?

[regulator 0]

Just because I post an article doesnt mean I'm the smoke police.

Feel free to either smoke or not smoke.

[wmw999 2,151]

Do you agree with people in high-risk groups (e.g. teenaged boys) paying more car insurance? The chances of their costing the insurance more are high.

Should people who engage in high-risk activities cost more for health insurance as well?

Yes, I know that that can also apply to skydiving.

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[killler 2]

Drinking is a known health risk and the policies for drinker of more then two glass of wine per week should have to pay the same as smokers.... I think thats also fair... I don't smoke and don't drink... Why should I be paying for you drunks that are costing millions in extra health care costs... A weekly blood test should be used to make sure no one is drinking or smoking ....

Killler...

[Bertt 0]

Which pre-dated Star Trek by about a year. But Star Trek had two Doctors. America wins again !

You don't have to outrun the bear.

[rehmwa 2]

and you think that leveraging interstate commerce opened the flood gates of the busy bodies?

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[ClydeMcPhatter 0]

Quote

First smokers
then the obese
whats next...morbidly tall people?

And somewhere along the way they'll go after those who participate in high-risk sports, who use emergency rooms more than the couch potatoe population. Folks like skydivers.

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

Do you agree with people in high-risk groups (e.g. teenaged boys) paying more car insurance? The chances of their costing the insurance more are high.

Should people who engage in high-risk activities cost more for health insurance as well?

Yes, I know that that can also apply to skydiving. Wendy P.

This is a no-brainer to anyone who's ever worked in or with the insurance industry. Premiums correlate to risk. Basic underwriting investigates potential risk in order to set the premium.

Yes, that's an over-simplification, but it's a core, foundational truism of all insurance, and one ignores it at one's own peril, or silliness.

[yoink 321]

Quote

Quote

First smokers
then the obese
whats next...morbidly tall people?

And somewhere along the way they'll go after those who participate in high-risk sports, who use emergency rooms more than the couch potatoe population. Folks like skydivers.

And the same logic applies. If we're more likely to injure ourselves and require more than the average time and effort of a dr for doing something that is entirely voluntary, then we have to accept that it's only fair that we shoulder the additional burden.

Or would you have it that everyone else should pay for any additional cost that YOU incur.

If you personally want to pay standard rates for everything, be AVERAGE. Have a boring 9-5 desk job that doesn't require lots of commuting and take up jogging and watching TV for a hobby.
As with anything in life, exceptional things cost more, and that includes being part of a minority sport.

[quade 3]

Boo hoo.

There is NOTHING good that comes from cigarette smoke. Nothing. For the vast majority of users it is beyond simply being detrimental to their health and the health of others, it is a menace and all too frequently a death sentence.

Fuck the tobacco industry.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[StreetScooby 5]

Quote

And somewhere along the way they'll go after those who participate in high-risk sports, who use emergency rooms more than the couch potatoe population. Folks like skydivers.

Yep. +1

We are all engines of karma

[StreetScooby 5]

Quote

Premiums correlate to risk.

In a market.

Obamacare destroys that market. It will now choose itself who to favor. Maybe if all smokers start voting Democrat they won't be hit as hard.

We are all engines of karma

[billvon 2,435]

>And somewhere along the way they'll go after those who participate in high-risk
>sports

They already do; the insurance industry does indeed treat skydivers differently. (And pilots, and people who have drunk driving convictions etc.)

>who use emergency rooms more than the couch potatoe population.

Fine with me. You're paying for the insurance; nothing wrong with using it. That's what it's there for.

(And that's what ER's SHOULD be used for, rather than the sniffles.)

[kallend 1,651]

Good. Smoking is a self-inflicted injury by morons and I don't see why I should pay to support it.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[normiss 622]

Or the added risk of sports cars, high performance aircraft, jarts, alcohol, church on Sunday if it crosses through the bar district....blah blah blah.....

This is not a good path to go down.

I understand general commerce doing as they please, we can change businesses.
NOW, it's the government.

Scares me more when I see others blindly accepting that.

[grimmie 177]

Isn't Capitalism great