How would you feel if the company providing the health insurance for your employer refused to provide heath insurance to any employee who smoked?
Smoking status would be confirmed by tests at random intervals.
Comments?
Insurance is a privilege, not a right. A company has the right not to sell you a product.
Analogy: Car insurance. ICBC will refuse extended coverage to a person if they feel that that person is a “risk”, that is, has a high chance of making a claim.
I heard this story on the radio today (regarding the smoking). Part me of says that it sucks for smokers, but it would also reduce my own health plan costs.
Another car analogy: Assuming you have superduper full extended coverage with ICBC, and someone gives your car a once over with a sledgehammer, you make your claim, pay your deductible, and get it fixed. But if you take a sledgehammer to your own car, well, your SOL, and I think that this idea of self-destruction runs parallel to the idea of habitual smoking.
Although I’m against smoking, I think that, in this specific case, this is a can of worm that should not be opened. What’s next, someone reporting you to the insurance company because you eat trans fats products or because you jaywalk too often or because you play too much World of Warcraft instead of exercising?
Privilege or not, insurance companies shouldn’t refuse coverage to one individual if he is paying a premium through it’s employer. However, I wouldn’t object to them charging a bit more.
Remember that insurance company are in the business of selling fear disguised as peace of mind.
What kind of cancer does jaywalking give you?
Look at it this way: you work for somebody, and they pay you:
Salary + benefits.
What you’re saying is that smokers should be paid just:
Salary + benefits - health insurance.
In other words, smokers should be paid less than non-smokers? Even if they do the exact same work?
I can definitely see you buying your own insurance and the insurer saying “you’re a smoker, we’re going to charge you more.” That’s fair.
But I can’t see somebody saying “you’re a smoker, we’re going to pay you less for the same work.”
Increases your chances of getting hit by a car, increasing your cost to the insurer.
Should people who wear glasses be denied health insurance? They’re going to cost more than those who don’t. Does that mean people who wear glasses should effectively get paid less? How about people who go to the dentist often? They cost the insurer as well.
I enjoy these ethical dilemmas because no clear cut answer exists. I agree with MiG that one shouldn’t be payed less for the same work. However, everything being equal, the health insurance for the non-smoker and the smoker shouldn’t cost the same. The smoker is more costly to the system, hence should have to pay more. Furthermore, the smoker should not have the same right to organ transplants. The non-smoker should have first crack at them, but that is another yet related issue.
These are some interesting discussions. I think that it is perfectly understandable some insuring companies refuse to deal with smokers. It’s so well known and so obvious to everyone how hazardous it is to our health. There are anti-smoking commercials on TV every day, and there are disgusting graphic pictures on the cigarette packs themselves, showing what smoking does to your body. What I do not understand how people can still inhale that crap every day. They make you stink, and kill you eventaully, and now even exclude you from good benefits. Toughie! I don’t think so. After nagging my dad to quit smoking for like years, he did, and he’s never felt better. 7 years and going. I think whoever values their health should quit, it’s easy, with a little bit of self control and determination. Plus, you’d be a shoe in for those insurance companies that exclude smokers… 
[quote=“MiG”]
Increases your chances of getting hit by a car, increasing your cost to the insurer.[/quote]
I really hope that you don’t think that I needed that explained, but thanks anyway. Besides, what’s the statistic for people who smoke being a burden on the healthcase system, vs. jaywalkers. If you compared the med bills of one jaywalker vs one lifelong smoker, who’s do you supose is bigger?
Not self inflicted, and not going to kill you. It’s not comparable. In addition to that, there’s a big difference in the numbers. Comparing these two thing make the entire system black or white. All in or nothing at all.
Are you saying that mean people who wear glasses should effectively get paid more? And in turn, a higher net income, thus higher taxes?
[quote=“MiG”]In other words, smokers should be paid less than non-smokers? Even if they do the exact same work?
I can definitely see you buying your own insurance and the insurer saying “you’re a smoker, we’re going to charge you more.” That’s fair.
But I can’t see somebody saying “you’re a smoker, we’re going to pay you less for the same work.”[/quote]
I didn’t see this post.
It’s not the employer; it’s the insurance company calling an employee uninsurable because of an existing condition. It’s normal with other conditions as well. It’s like a terminal person trying to buy life insurance.
This is more the debate in my mind.
I enjoy them here on HTMF because people here (MiG) will actually have a different opinion and the ability to argue it. The people around me here in… um… reality, typically just agree with me. Possibly just to shut me up.
[quote=“alistair”]a terminal person
[/quote]
What is “a terminal person” 
The system is not black or white. Medical ethics is an art, not a science. Furthermore, how do you know it’s “not self inflicted”? Have you ever welded without eye protection or read a book without enough light? Both activities that could cause eye damage.
maybe he meant terminally ill ??
What is “a terminal person” 
dictionary.reference.com/search?q=terminal
See #5.[/quote]
If you read #5 it says “terminal patient”, not “a terminal person”. Therefore, not the same meaning.
[quote=“alistair”]It’s not the employer; it’s the insurance company calling an employee uninsurable because of an existing condition. It’s normal with other conditions as well. It’s like a terminal person trying to buy life insurance.
This is more the debate in my mind.[/quote]
Well, there’s a big difference between a group benefit (paid by the employer), and an individual one.
Something paid the employer is like pay.
I don’t get penalized because I go to the dentist often, or wear glasses. I cost the group plan more than someone who doesn’t.
How would a smoker be different?
I totally agree with private individual insurance being based on health questionaires and stuff. But not a group plan that is basically a part of a person’s pay.
And I hope that sometimes I argue a point that I totally disagree with, just for the sport. 
Did you read the first post? We’re talking about smoking. Besides, listening to a whisper won’t make deaf and reading in low light won’t make you blind. It’s just hard, and a myth.
Feel free to weld without eye protection all you want, but don’t smoke cause it’ll kill you and maybe soon raise your medical premiums.
That was the example, the definition is “Causing, ending in, or approaching deathâ€
[quote=“MiG”]
[quote=“alistair”]It’s not the employer; it’s the insurance company calling an employee uninsurable because of an existing condition. It’s normal with other conditions as well. It’s like a terminal person trying to buy life insurance.
This is more the debate in my mind.[/quote]
Well, there’s a big difference between a group benefit (paid by the employer), and an individual one.
Something paid the employer is like pay.
I don’t get penalized because I go to the dentist often, or wear glasses. I cost the group plan more than someone who doesn’t.
How would a smoker be different?
I totally agree with private individual insurance being based on health questionaires and stuff. But not a group plan that is basically a part of a person’s pay.[/quote]
So, by your logic, the “solution” would be for no one to paid benefits. If everyone were paid real cash dollars and nothing else, two people with the same job would take home the same pay. If one of them smokes and gets cancer, they’ll be responsible for the bill. Same as if they were born with bad eyesight or crooked teeth.
By your own logic, MiG, if you go to the dentist regularly and wear glasses and contact lenses and all that jazzes (you use your employer-provided health benefits more than the average employee), then you are being paid more than your coworkers.