I understand paying more if you engage in higher risk behaviors. My issue is that testing for nicotine is NOT testing for smoking. There are many delivery methods for nicotine that former smokers utilize to quit smoking.
I don’t disagree, BunsenBurner, the question is where do these companies draw the line. Most of us agree that smoking is bad for our health, and it’s good to encourage people to quit. But there are many other behaviors which are bad for people’s health and would be HUGELY controversial if companies tried to curb those, too. Ride a motorcycle? Pay more. Gave a gun in your home? Pay more. A woman of child bearing age whose child might be born prematurely (for example)? Pay more.
Our insurance gives a discount if you get a physical, but they don’t apparently pay the physicians enough to include vision or hearing screenings, or run blood tests outside of cholesterol checks.
I wish we had the option to pay the provider directly, then get at least a portion off on taxes. ( I know theoretically you can deduct health insurance costs, but even with out of pocket surgical costs, we aren’t able to)
If the dr could take the time they spend dealing with insurance companies, and put it toward patient care, we would all be healthier.
Draw the line where there is clear, research-proven causation and a validated clinical test method. BTW, motorcycle riders can be easily made pay more - it is easy “to test” for that just by searching public records at the DMV.
There’s plenty research proving having a gun in the home is linked to greater hazard of accidental shooting. So we charge gun owners more? Assault weapons owners even more yet? Hmmmm.
I don’t care why employers are coming down on smokers–9 out of 10 lung cancers are caused by smoking. That’s reason enough to stop smoking and if smokers aren’t persuaded by positive inducements, then negative consequences might do the trick. My H’s parents were both smokers. One died of lung cancer and the other died of complications from COPD. Believe me, lung cancer is a nasty way to go.
Katliamom, but is there a validated clinical test for gun ownership?
Nicotine wrecks health in all forms. No one denies health insurance to nicotine junkies; they are given a choice: pay more and carry on or show proof of being in. a smoking cessation program.
We don’t own any weapons, but I’m guessing home insurance costs more if you do?
Oh no, no, no, no. The NRA made sure years ago that insurance companies cannot charge more for fire arms owners. They’re not even allowed to ask.
But if you have a trampoline in your yard? You will pay more.
Certainly trampoline owners should pay more for health care. Kids who skateboard, too. Oh and kids who ride bikes without a helmet should pay more for their health insurance.
Parents whose children play football should not even be allowed to insure them due to lifetime chance of brain damage.
Slippery, slippery slope.
“For me personally I draw the line between choices and genetics. Smoking is a choice. Being genetically predisposed is not.”
In the research, that line is a very broad, grey one.
And you could be like George Burns.
Started smoking before anyone knew the effects, but lived to 100, anyway!
http://www.cigaraficionado.com/webfeatures/show/id/The-Ultimate-Cigar-Aficionado_6004
You do not pay more for health insurance if you have a trampoline in your yard. The only criteria insurance companies are allowed to use are age and smoking status.
You probably pay more for homeowners insurance, though.
@BunsenBurner,
Katliamom, but is there a validated clinical test for gun ownership?
It appears so:
http://www.foxnews.com/health/2014/01/21/gun-ownership-tied-to-three-fold-increase-in-suicide-risk/
https://www.minnpost.com/second-opinion/2012/12/health-risk-having-gun-home
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1588722
BTW, I’m not trying to argue about gun ownership OR smoking in this discussion. I bring up the point in context of a discussion about how far employers and/or insurance companies can dictate coverage/cost of coverage based on people’s behaviors… MANY of which can be shown to be hazardous to individuals as well as society as a whole.
Not yet ,cf. but what’s to stop health insurance companies from continuing to pick out behaviors that will likely cause more trips to the ER or catastrophic injuries?
That is the point I am trying to make. Slippery slope. Once they are allowed to start charging more for certain behaviors those behaviors and health issues that might mean more health problems will continue to expand
It only starts with smoking. Next it certainly will be obese individuals. Then who?
^^^ Big Gulp buyers
Insurance companies would probably prefer we were armchair travelers, and telecommuters.
Sounds pretty boring.
What medical care you get shouldn’t be decided by an insurance company.
Three years ago, my orthopedic surgeon insisted I was too young to have a knee transplant, even though I could barely walk around the block * with * a cane. He absolutely would not do surgery, even though my quality of life was rock bottom because of pain, and lack of mobility.
I changed Drs, had the surgery, and now most of the time, I even forget that I had it!
This has nothing to do with an insurance company deciding what medical care you can get. It has to do with what an employer is willing to assume regarding the costs of someone’s bad choices.
Also, what an insurance company is deciding in some of the examples posters are giving is who is going to pay.
I’ve had my battles with insurance just like everyone else has- including paying for an entire surgery for my son in 2013 that his insurance company regarded as “experimental”.
An up charge for smokers or employees who choose not to get diagnostic screenings just isn’t in that category.
Post #52, but you need to have a good sense of humor.