Yes, of course smokers covered by the state health plan should pay more, because they cost more.
But $25 a month? What is that, a joke? That’s not enough either to cover the added cost of their filthy habit, or to encourage them to quit. It’s desultory. As the story said:
State health insurance system officials said an extra $25 a month would
not cover the full cost of smoking-related expenses. It is more
effective, they said, to encourage smokers to quit.
And $25 a month won’t do that.
Who even notices a $25-a-month increase in insurance premiums, the way they go up these days? That’s less than the increase most of us deal with in most years, without engaging in stupid and harmful behavior.
Two cheers to the governor for supporting the increase, pathetic though it is.
footnote: I have a shorter answer to the question posed in the sidebar with this morning’s story, QUESTION: I’m a state employee. How will the state know I’m a smoker? Answer: By the smell.
Related Posts
Maybe a lot of your fears of tobacco are simply your hysteria. The actuaries of the insurance companies use real data to establish risk and the actual monetary value of that risk.
How about give the $25 a month to the Hollings Cancer Center to aid in establishing the future Lung Cancer Center, since none of the proceeds of the Master Tobacco Settlement fund provide for lung cancer research, or God forbid smoking cessation. 60% of the new cases of lung cancer are from non-smokers or those that may have quit decades ago. The stigma of smoking should help do something to fight lung cancer.
Less than 5% of the money from the Tobacco Settlement is being used on smoker education, and programs to stop smoking, medical research, etc.
That’s why the state didn’t need another tax on cigarettes for the legislature to siphon off to their pork projects.
Brad, I have to admit, i am kind of torn on this one. Insurance companies usually pool lots of data to come up with a “risk pool” and then make premiums from there. While on first glance this may seem “good” consider, the more things we focus on – I believe The State’s article on this correctly noted that some state programs (and I am sure many private insurance companies) are starting to add in obeisity with somking. Slowly but shorely, if at all possible, insurance companies – and I am not an “all insurance companies are evil” kind of person – will limit any risk they can. Black persons are more likely to get sicle cell anemia for instance, I don’t know, but would have to image that either men or women are more expensive in the long run based on gender predominate issues – like pregnancies, uterian issue, testicular cancer et cetera…why not charge more for that sex? And other ethniticies other disease. Then there are the obvious, congenital defects, which can be mightily expensive. What we do is slowly, but surely chip away at the “risk pool” to say. “O.K. if you are healthy and have no bad habits, no immutable proclivities because of your gender/race/region of the country, no prior history of asthma diabetes et cetera, and no dangerous hobbies, low coverage for you” – “On the other if you have anything to the contrary, your coverage will equate to your medical costs…deal?”
On first glance, raising rates for smokers, or any other group that chooses participate or be a member ANY activity/class of persons that may raise insurance costs (such as having unproteced sex, be it via children or getting an STD) should pay more for coverage. However, the more we do that, our system also strats to get away from the idea of pooling the risk, which is why we have insurances in the first place.
Just some ramblings from a disgustingly anonymous commenter.
Sooo…how are they going to prove whether or not people smoke? Ask the person? Ask the doctor? Ask the co-workers?
I could see some true problems with this.
And I agree that $25 seems low. But I guess they know what they’re doing.
Normally I side with the smokers, (see my letter to the editor from May taking Vickie Whitehead to task) but as someone who believes in freedom, I also believe in accepting responsibility. Smokers get sick more often and for longer periods, therefore I don’t think it’s unreasonable to ask them to pay more for HEALTH Insurance. Were the state to say, “state employees will no longer be permitted to smoke,” I would write a letter to Jakie and Sanford in their defense, but requiring a smoker to pay more for medical insurance is not an unreasonable burden, not anymore than allowing car insurance companies to charge more for Mustangs than for Chevettes.
I personally know 10 people (including myself) who have had kidney cancer. Three of them have passed on. Some are smokers, some are ex-smokers, and some have never smoked in their life. All are over the age of 55. The one thing they all have in common is that they have lived in Lexington County since childhood. So you tell me whats causing the cancers. I don’t believe it’s smoking.
Let,s take a poll and find out how many people (smokers and non smokers) in Lexington County that have had kidney cancer. Maybe the county is somehow responsible and should pay your insurance premiums.
Brad, $25 represents either a 300% increase in premium per month or 30% depending on the plan the state employee has. Do your homework. If you want to show us that $25 per month is nothing, give me $25 per month.
I am not a smoker though.
Brad,a “filthy habit” is bitting your fingernails, which I have never done, have you? Smoking, just like drinking alcohol or taking pain pills or other medications, can become an addiction. Addictions can become a serious medical condition beyond a persons control. Most people can’t simply stop their addiction just because they want to. They need serious medical help to cure their addiction.
I was raised in this country when smoking was cool. All the beautiful people smoked in the movies. Beautiful people on billboards were smoking. Politicians and Presidents smoked. Cigars were a symbol of wealth and high society. I couldn’t wait to become of age to smoke. I have now been smoking for over 45 years and it is not cool anymore. But guess what? I can’t stop.
I am super addicted and have tried many times to quit. I’ve taken pills, used the patch, gum, inhalants, and support groups. Nothing stops my desire, cravings, or my depression. I now know that I will go to my grave smoking and I have accepted that. What I can not accept are narrow minded, inconsiderate, uneducated, people who call smoking a “filthy habit”.
What you don’t realize is that addicted smokers are like people who are addicted to drugs. We will beg, barrow or steal the money to buy our smokes or to pay a higher health insurance.
An intelligent person would want the money to be spent on educating our children on the dangers of smoking.
if you drive a car on SC roads, you should pay a higher premium. Especially if stop at a fast food drive through.
So, next will it be $25 because a person is overweight? Wake up, people, this is government control at its worst!
In the interest of rightness and fairness, are we going to begin extracting these “super premiums” from people who are obese? How about those who’ve demonstrated that they drink too much (by getting a DUI or contracting alcohol related liver disease)? Surely the case can be made that these people are costing extra payouts. While we’re at it, can we show that skyjumpers and motorcyclists are more expensive to insure? Let’s skin them too. I don’t understand why the private lives of every new insured is not combed for ANY behaviour which could justify a jacked-up premium. In the end, this seems where we’re headed. Don’t just attack tobacco users.
Just sayin. Dave
The smoke Nazis at the state have told so many lies that they contradict themselves with their own lies. Let’s take the lie that smokers die younger. If this is true then they would cost the State less not more as a so called natural death can linger on for years and the cost are astronomical. So, in a weird twist the smokers actually save the state money in the long run.
This is extortion plain and simple. It is an absolute disgrace that the State cannot keep up with it own lies and chain of reasoning!
Exactly so Richard. I have repeatedly made the point that since smokers have lifespans which are seven or so years shorter than nonsmokers on average, they probably actually end up receiving LESS in insurance payouts than do longer lived nonsmokers.
But never, NEVER bother Brad with any information or facts that don’t fit his max-tax, big government agenda. All such information will be assiduously ignored by Brad and the other bright lights on Shop Road.
The State mullet wrappers’ entire defense for this super premium is the assertion that the expenses associated with treating smoking related illnesses make smokers more costly in terms of insurance claims than nonsmokers.
While that particular factoid may be true, The Mullet Wrapper then studiously ignores the other half the relevant data: People who live shorter lives have less lifespan in which to make insurance claims.
How much more skewed and purposefully opaque can so-called journalists get? Although I have to admit that he looks better, I don’t think Brads’ credibility is any better than Dan Rathers.
Again I ask, where is Superman?
David
I have repeatedly made the point that since smokers have lifespans which are seven or so years shorter than nonsmokers on average, they probably actually end up receiving LESS in insurance payouts than do longer lived nonsmokers.
But never, NEVER bother Brad with any information or facts that don’t fit his max-tax, big government agenda.
-David
This is conjecture, not facts David. Don’t guess at something then turn around and suggest you’re presenting facts.
DEADLY DIESEL FUMES:
Published Feb. 24, 2005
The deadly effects of breathing diesel fumes came into sharp focus this week when the Clean Air Task Force ( CATF )released a report estimating that diesel fumes kill about 21,000 U.S. citizens each year.
Futhermore, diesel fumes cause 27,000 nonfatal heart attacks and 41,000 asthma attacks in U.S. adults each year, plus roughly 12,000 cases of chronic bronchitis, 15,000 hospital admissions, 2.4 million lost-work days and 14 million resticted activity days.
And, this is almost certainly not the worst of it. The Clean Air Task Force report cites numerous studies reveling that diesel soot:
Degrades the immune system ( the system that protects us all from bacteria, virues and cancers );
Interferes with our hormones, reducing sperm production, masculinizing female rats, altering the development of baby rats ( changing their bones, thymus, and nervous systems ) modifying their adrenal and reproductive hormones;
Causes serious, permanent impairment of the nervous system in diesel-exposed railroad workers;
Induces allergic reactions, not limited to asthma, causing children to miss thousands of school days- a primary cause of school dropout, consquent low self-esteem, and subsquent life-failure.
The new report is based on the most recent available data from the federal EPA ( Enviromental Protection Agency )combined with EPA risk models, with calculations carried out by Abt Associates, a consulting firm that frequently performs contract studies for the EPA.
There you go Bud, straight from Big Brother’s mouth. I hope Cindi Scoppe reads this and checks it out. She is the only honest employee at the State when it comes to health issues.
Nice find Wolfe. As a tree hugger this just supports my belief that we need to move away from the fossil fuel way of doing things.
That’s right, bud, it is “mere conjecture” that smoking shortens lifespans, so why are you statists banning smoking and piling on taxes?
Answer: the taxes.
Bud, according to government data that people like you just love to parade around and shout about in your anti-smoking range, smokers live shorter lives. Are you now arguing that this isn’t true?
Now, if they live shorter lives, doesn’t that ipso facto that they have fewer years in which they’ll need insurance to pay their med bills? My gosh! Why is this simple point even in dispute? Oh yeah…you’re a flaming lib.
The only question in my mind is whether the savings due to shorter lifespan actually offset the costs of treating tobacco illnesses while the smoker lives. My point was that they very well may, but that flamers like you and Brad will never even ask this question.
Your default positions are a) increase taxes and b) reduce freedom.
And that, frankly, sucks.
David
I meant rants, not “range.” This iPhone has a mind of it’s own. Dave
Not only do smokers live fewer years, they get sick a lot earlier with more serious diseases. Its equally arguable that they have fewer ‘good’ years to pay their health insurance, and therefore cost much, much more for the time they have.
OK Karen. My point is still: Why haven’t the elites, savants and otherwise bright lights down at the epicenter of journalism in Columbia on Shop Rd done the research/journalistic things necessary to either blow my theory up, or explode yours? This has been my point from jumpstreet: Brad and the girls won’t do the work to present the other side of this, they simply run the “smokers cost more” side as if it were indisputable, and then endorse the super premium.
Sheesh. Are you all really so thick and in the tank for taxes that you really can’t see the point?
This is like reasoning with 4 year olds.
Dave
You see Karen, I’ve got my mind right on this: I’m courageous enough that I am perfectly willing to be shown wrong about it. What I am NOT willing to do is allow completely agendized like Brad the impaler or Bud this unsubstantiated premise (ie that smokers indisputably cost more in insurance payouts) and thereby frame the entire debate from that point of reference….when I can plainly see there is a significant piece of the data they’ve conveniently ignored.
This kind of purposeful and devious opacity can only result from either a) a desire to get to an outcome and divergent data be damned, b) journalistic laziness, or c) both.
David
This is America, Karen.
People have a right to smoke, eat too much, sky dive, scuba dive, start businesses, lose money, take risks and take responsibility for themselves.
Now if you want to forbid those on welfare from smoking tobacco and drinking alcohol, or eating to obesity, you might be able to make a case.
Look up “Jeanne Louise Calment” the oldest person to ever live (documented). A lifelong smoker by the way! She was not the only one. Most of the oldest living people on earth were “smokers”. Many countries with longer life spans than United States have majority population of smokers. We should try to find out why! It appears that moderate smoking is beneficial to some.