Should smokers pay higher premiums? (1 Viewer)

[Selador]

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/political-news/smokers-spared-higher-premiums-20120818-24f3k.html

Plibersek has refused to allow private health funds to charge smokers higher premiums.

Is it right that non smokers are subsiding smoker's health care? Given smoking related health issues arrise from a completely voluntary act on the part of the smoker shouldn't their cost be entirely born by them?

Why are the rest of us subsiding unhealthy behaviour. Government seems to be sending a muddled message here.

 

[Mdzabakly]

Totally agree.
Smoking should be banned, It causes more deaths than illegal drugs for god sakes.

 

[townie]

Totally agree.
Smoking should be banned, It causes more deaths than illegal drugs for god sakes.

And? If people want to kill themselves, what's wrong with that?

 

[Riproot]

Totally agree.
Smoking should be banned, It causes more deaths than illegal drugs for god sakes.

so does alcohol…

Also, smokers already pay a fuck load for cigarettes and some don't have private health care so jacking up the price is just going to make more people not get health care.

 

[townie]

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/political-news/smokers-spared-higher-premiums-20120818-24f3k.html

Plibersek has refused to allow private health funds to charge smokers higher premiums.

Is it right that non smokers are subsiding smoker's health care? Given smoking related health issues arrise from a completely voluntary act on the part of the smoker shouldn't their cost be entirely born by them?

Why are the rest of us subsiding unhealthy behaviour. Government seems to be sending a muddled message here.

But smoking isn't the only thing that causes bad health. Should people be weighed before they get health insurance and the heavier you are the more you pay? Or the richer you are the less you pay because socioeconomic status is related to better health? If you have a history of breast cancer or heart disease should you pay more? All these factors contribute to bad health and trying to charge people based on their individual circumstances could be complicated. Ultimately it means that smokers ( or others) might then not be able to afford private health insurance (especially as many smokers come from a low socioeconomic background) which then means that taxpayers then end up subsidizing smokers anyway more than they would have done.


A far better solution is to allocate a certain percentage of tobacco (and alcohol) taxes to the public and private healthcare system. This way insurance remains easy to manage and affordable and smokers effectively do pay more for insurance but indirectly.

 

[soloooooo]

Totally agree.
Smoking should be banned, It causes more deaths than illegal drugs for god sakes.

I agree with you on this.

Yes, premiums should be higher.

 

[Selador]

which then means that taxpayers then end up subsidizing smokers anyway more than they would have done.

Then increase the tax on tobacco to a rate where the social and health costs are fully internalised.

 

[townie]

Then increase the tax on tobacco to a rate where the social and health costs are fully internalised.

And if you did that why should smokers
also have to pay higher premiums.

In any event I don't think this is ever possible to fully cover the costs and I don't see why they should be.

There are very few things in life that are fully cost recovered from only the users. It's why we have taxes in the first place, sometimes you end up subsidizing something you don't agree with - we don't live in a user pays society.

 

[Riproot]

Then increase the tax on tobacco to a rate where the social and health costs are fully internalised.

I don't think you know how much smokes cost.

 

[soloooooo]

Raise the cost per packet to around $60 or so (this is what past papers have suggested it would take) to fully offset it. Then, through socioeconomic circumstances, people would over time purchase less of them (cigarettes).

 

[Riproot]

Nope. People would get poorer/do drugs instead.

 

[kaz1]

Government shouldn't regulate on this, insurers should issue policies how they see fit and that would undoubtedly be higher premiums for smokers because they have a higher chance for claiming just like males aged 18-24 who have to pay higher premiums on car insurance for that very same reason.

 

[4025808]

This topic is a subject of debate in our ACTL1001 lectures; whether or not to charge higher premiums to those who cause self harm.

Personally I can see why they would do it, but I'd prefer not to take a stance on this issue.

 

[q3thefish]

yes, wean em off

there are more cons than pros regarding cigarettes

 

[eshay lad 69]

only if you tax overweight people, unintelligent people, alcohol and hereditary diseases while you do it.

 

[townie]

only if you tax overweight people, unintelligent people, alcohol and hereditary diseases while you do it.

Haha. Found a post of yours I agree with.

 

[townie]

Government shouldn't regulate on this, insurers should issue policies how they see fit and that would undoubtedly be higher premiums for smokers because they have a higher chance for claiming just like males aged 18-24 who have to pay higher premiums on car insurance for that very same reason.

I think government should have some say given that I think in this case there are mutual benefits. The government (and insurers) benefit from having more people on private health insurance, and the insurers benefit from having a well funded public system. Given the rebate offered by the government I think they deserve a degree of regulation.

 

[townie]

Raise the cost per packet to around $60 or so (this is what past papers have suggested it would take) to fully offset it. Then, through socioeconomic circumstances, people would over time purchase less of them (cigarettes).

Why should smokers have to fully offset their costs when nobody else does? I don't drive a car yet I don't demand drivers fully offset the costs of roads. People don't demand drinkers fully offset their costs. We don't ask parents to fully offer the cost of their children (and having them is a choice too).

 

[soloooooo]

Why should smokers have to fully offset their costs when nobody else does? I don't drive a car yet I don't demand drivers fully offset the costs of roads. People don't demand drinkers fully offset their costs. We don't ask parents to fully offer the cost of their children (and having them is a choice too).

As it (smoking) is now more widely unacceptable in the 21st century. Tobacco legal yet marajuanna illegal? It doesn't make sense.

 

[townie]

As it (smoking) is now more widely unacceptable in the 21st century. Tobacco legal yet marajuanna illegal? It doesn't make sense.

And? So if something is unpopular then it should be treated differently. Last time I checked 1 in 5 people still smoked, it's not like we are some tiny minority of people here.