Quake3World

Our company's health insurance has decided to issue a surcharge for smokers this year. Here is an email I got this morning.

Smoker's surcharge

Enrollment in *******'s 2006 health plans continues through Nov. 4.

Among changes: You must visit the reenrollment Web site at http://www.****.com/benefits to tell us if you smoke or not - even if you are not changing your status or plans.

If you are a smoker, you will be charged a $50 per month surcharge on your healthcare costs. Non-smokers can avoid this surcharge by certifying their non-smoking status on ****.com.

All employees enrolled in ******* healthcare plans must go to http://www.****.com/benefits and click on "NO" if you are a non-smoker. We'll assume you're a smoker and charge you the additional $50 per month unless you tell us otherwise.

If you do smoke and want to avoid the surcharge, take the Health Risk Assessment (HRA) at http://www.hfit.com/hfce/******* to become eligible for the only *******-subsidized smoking cessation program.

See your benefits package for details about the surcharge.

(If you have already enrolled but you want to make changes, you can go to http://www.****.com/benefits and revise your choices until Nov. 4.)

Okay, I have 3 problems with this:

1) It's social engineering, and lately it has become 'en vogue' to target smokers for extra "sin tax" type charges.
2) They assume that everyone is a smoker, and this will cause people who don't smoke to be charged $50/month if they forget or do not change their enrollment information.

And most significantly,

3) I am going to be charged $50 a month for a legal addiction I have, when someone who has been in and out of rehab for illegal addictions, which are arguably much more dangerous to your health, will be paying less for health insurance than I do.

I fully plan on going to the website and claiming that I am a non-smoker. I dare them to try to take me to court over this. :icon33:

*rubs hands*

why bother tho?

R00k wrote:2) They assume that everyone is a smoker, and this will cause people who don't smoke to be charged $50/month if they forget or do not change their enrollment information.

that one really is out of order.

laff.. ok, i'll admit, that's too far

Although I think it's an odd way to go about doing it, I think a health insurance company has every right to charge you more if you're a smoker. They're in the business of insuring you for health charges and if you're not the picture of health, then they can charge you more. Granted, it's capitalism at it's darkest, but that's what they do.

Charging you unless you make the effort to go online and change your status is a bit shifty, though.

oh common now.

next it's

a:if obese we will charge 50 dollars
b: if you don't signify your are not fat we will assume your fat

smoking is bad and causes cancer granted but so do many of your own bad habits cause you harm.

if it starts here where will it end

i bet more people die from drinking, lazy and eating junk then smoking

The obesity thing might be a good thing. No one likes to look at a disgusting fatbody, just ask GKY

I think it would be better if they excluded smoking-related illness from the policy, and provided an optional policy (at a charge of $50 per month) for smoking coverage.

That way it's opt-in.

If they issued a large change in the way they determine insurance costs based on risk levels, then I think I would probably support the smoking part as much as I supported the rest of the changes - which is to say, not a lot.

Can you imagine if they started charging you extra for weekend sports you play, because there is a higher risk of injury? What if they charged you more for obesity because you have a higher BMI on the standard scale - even though you have 2 percent body fat? If they charged you more because you drink alcohol? Should they be able to charge you because you drink too much coffee, and it could cause hypertension? Should they be able to charge you more for being a gamer, because you are more likely to develop carpal-tunnel or repetitive-stress injury?

I have worked at this company for 2 years, and have been to the doctor twice. There are non-smokers here who abuse the health insurance system regularly, who pay the same rate as I do. The smoking surcharge on top of this seems like a bit of a slap in the face to me.

Foo wrote:I think it would be better if they excluded smoking-related illness from the policy, and provided an optional policy (at a charge of $50 per month) for smoking coverage.

That way it's opt-in.

exactly. that or knock a percentage off of the cover they're prepared to give smokers. but this is just a blag, not the manifestation of concern for employee health.

like at the place i used to work, they had this mental benefits package where you got private medical care, dental, all the usual - but you could also use your owed holiday time to buy stuff like airplane tickets cheap.

the trick of it was (as i found out while buying a plane ticket) anyone who never bothered with any of it lost a day or twos holiday every year because a minimum amount of hours were automatically added to your pot for the benefits.

It's part of the wider movement of society moving against smokers, giving the message that they're sick of putting up with and indirectly supporting those who choose to smoke.

In this case, it's a business seizing on that movement for capital gain, with the side benefit (to non-smokers) that they're no longer directly paying for the consequences of smokers actions.

this is common as is the weekend sports thing.

ive never seen insurence not factor in the smoker/non-smoker thing.

its very very old

notice they don't lower it $50 if you choose not to smoke

crushed

R00k wrote:If they issued a large change in the way they determine insurance costs based on risk levels, then I think I would probably support the smoking part as much as I supported the rest of the changes - which is to say, not a lot.

Can you imagine if they started charging you extra for weekend sports you play, because there is a higher risk of injury? What if they charged you more for obesity because you have a higher BMI on the standard scale - even though you have 2 percent body fat? If they charged you more because you drink alcohol? Should they be able to charge you because you drink too much coffee, and it could cause hypertension? Should they be able to charge you more for being a gamer, because you are more likely to develop carpal-tunnel or repetitive-stress injury?

I have worked at this company for 2 years, and have been to the doctor twice. There are non-smokers here who abuse the health insurance system regularly, who pay the same rate as I do. The smoking surcharge on top of this seems like a bit of a slap in the face to me.

I wouldn't see a problem with an insurance company doing that, except that I assume no one would go through that company because the other companies don't charge for such factors. It would be reasonable for a company to lower its general premiums and factor in all those other possible risks, but no one is going to do that because anything and everything is a risk to health, so it would be impossible to factor everything. However, smoking, obesity, genetic predisposition to cancer or heart disease, etc. are severe health risks that an insurance company can be justified in factoring. They could try to assess how much a person should pay due to their risk of getting tendonitis or carpal tunnel, but who's going to be able to decide on a monetary amount for such a risk?

I feel like I am already paying for people who abuse health insurance. I absolutely refuse to pay an extra $600 a year, when my insurance company has never even heard from me, just because I smoke.

What's more, there is no way I will be here 30 years from now, when my smoking might culminate in health problems.

Insurance companies are wealth-distribution systems to begin with. They say "Everybody in the country give us money, and we will spend it on the people whom we decide are in need of it. Then we will invest it and make a healthy profit in the meantime." I refuse to pay more on top of what I'm paying now, just because they need more money to cover someone else. Now, for the record, I'm not saying I have a problem with paying insurance rates - I just have a problem being singled out to pay more, when there are people jeopardizing their health in much more serious ways who do not have to pay extra.

Aside from the awful habit of smoking, I try to take care of my own body, and I'm a pretty healthy bastard. The day the insurance company starts sharing data with McDonalds, and charges $50 a month extra for every employee who eats fast food on a daily basis, as well as charging extra for every obese person, every person who has been to drug or alcoholism rehab, every person who plays demanding sports recreationally, every person who listens to loud music, every person who owns a motorcycle, etc. -- that's the day I will not have a problem with paying extra.

If they justify making me pay more, by saying that it increases their cost to insure me, then they should be giving me refunds every year for the fact that I never go to the doctor. If this is the way things are going to be, then insurance is a waste of money unless you abuse it.

Oh... I missed the bit about it being every month. That is pretty weak.

is it possible to be healthy and be a smoker?

Well it depends on your definition of healthy. My gf smokes and she's a marathon runner.

When I go scuba diving, I notice that my oxygen absorbption rate is a little lower than normal, and I can't run quite like I used to, but I'm still in pretty good shape otherwise.

youre a scubadiver and nobody told you about the dangers of smoking?
how odd

There aren't really any dangers as long as you aren't smoking right before/after you dive.

i think theres a danger of your smoke getting wet

wet fags

That's deadly, I could smoke all the pot I want and could still not get charged more.

Exactly.