Should smokers pay higher premiums? (2 Viewers)

[soloooooo]

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.

I'm saying consistency should be applied for these types of drugs. Either marijuana is legalised or tobacco is made illegal.

 

[townie]

I'm saying consistency should be applied for these types of drugs. Either marijuana is legalised or tobacco is made illegal.

Not all drugs are created equal, you can't treat them as such, I personally think marijuana should be legal but that should have no bearing on whether tobacco is or not and it has even less to do with whether smokers should have to
fully offset their costs or not.

 

[Lolsmith]

The best part of this thread is that it was started on a false premise.

Those who die decades earlier due to illnesses caused by excessive and long term smoking/drinking/eating habits end up *saving* the healthcare system money by dying earlier than someone who will spend years in and out of it in the extra 20 years of their life.

 

[Lolsmith]

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.

Unless of course that they're high income earners where, by your logic, they're actually paying more than non-smokers for their insurance "but indirectly".

I know you don't care about people who are productive, but there are sincere issues with your reasoning here.

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

The government makes a surplus on excise taxes from cigarettes.

They're making a profit.

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.

this

It's incredulous that you could think that smokers shouldn't pay more because they're statistically more likely to die/claim but don't think other insurers shouldn't be able to charge other demographics based on statistics.

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).

some of us do actually

 

[Graney]

Obviously private insurance companies should be able to do whatever they want, I'm very surprised they can't already charge higher premiums to smokers

Smokers shouldn't pay any additional tax etc.. because tax on ciggarettes already more than covers any additional cost to the public health system

The best part of this thread is that it was started on a false premise.

Those who die decades earlier due to illnesses caused by excessive and long term smoking/drinking/eating habits end up *saving* the healthcare system money by dying earlier than someone who will spend years in and out of it in the extra 20 years of their life.

But they would cost the private health insurers disproportionately more, because the private insurers don't receive the additional tax benefit smokers pay per pack, and they will receive fewer years of premiums and assume higher risk, for no cost reduction.

Non-smokers do subsidise the health care cost of smokers in the case of private insurance.

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.

If they introduce the ability to legislate for higher premiums for smokes this will:
1. Make insurance relatively cheaper for non-smokers, everyone else
2. Provide further financial disincentive to smoke, improving health nationally

'mutual benefits'

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

It's not a tax, and I'd be similarly surprised if people with existing severe hereditary diseases, morbidly obese, and alcoholics, were able to purchase insurance at all, or without at least a significant premium increase.

 

[townie]

Unless of course that they're high income earners where, by your logic, they're actually paying more than non-smokers for their insurance "but indirectly"

I know you don't care about people who are productive, but there are sincere issues with your reasoning here.

Cool, so instead of being a whiny bitch how about you point them out?

The government makes a surplus on excise taxes from cigarettes.

they might in direct healthcare costs, but in overall costs to the economy the excise doesn't even begin to cover the costs.

some of us do actually

you are in the minority and you aren't the person to who I was directing my comments.

 

[townie]

If they introduce the ability to legislate for higher premiums for smokes this will:
1. Make insurance relatively cheaper for non-smokers, everyone else
2. Provide further financial disincentive to smoke, improving health nationally

'mutual benefits'

Yeah but if premiums increase to such an extent that people then don't take out private health insurance you are left with people who are ultimately still going to have to have healthcare and the cost will be borne by the public system (whereas if you instead funnel the excise to the health system then those costs are easily able to be covered without the subsidy of non smoking taxpayers whilst still retaining high levels of insurance)

Maybe I'm just a cynic, but I also imagine that insurers wouldn't make the rest of people's insurance cheaper, they'd just charge more for smokers.

 

[Lolsmith]

Cool, so instead of being a whiny bitch how about you point them out?

How can you go through so long in life and not know how to read?

 

[Lolsmith]

But they would cost the private health insurers disproportionately more, because the private insurers don't receive the additional tax benefit smokers pay per pack, and they will receive fewer years of premiums and assume higher risk, for no cost reduction.

Non-smokers do subsidise the health care cost of smokers in the case of private insurance.

Which is precisely why I said that insurers should be able to charge what they want.

 

[townie]

How can you go through so long in life and not know how to read?

Lol, such a poor Nolan wannabe

 

[Lolsmith]

Try harder champ

 

[townie]

You're not worth the effort I'm afraid

 

[Graney]

Yeah but if premiums increase to such an extent that people then don't take out private health insurance you are left with people who are ultimately still going to have to have healthcare and the cost will be borne by the public system (whereas if you instead funnel the excise to the health system then those costs are easily able to be covered without the subsidy of non smoking taxpayers whilst still retaining high levels of insurance)

idk, the one form of discrimination in insurance I know for sure is permitted, is age based assessment, health insurance is unaffordable for the aged, and car insurance is unaffordable for the young. So all the burden for aged health goes to the public system.

You could make the same argument about health insurance and age (as you're making about smoking and insurance premiums) - if we made it a flat fee and made discriminating on the basis of age illegal, you might move more people off the public system. I think there's a better case for justice in abolishing age based insurance pricing, than for smoking, because age is more beyond the individuals control.

Would you want to abolish this form of discrimination? There would be consequences, just as there are consequences for the present policy of not allowing discrimination on the basis of smoking.

Which is precisely why I said that insurers should be able to charge what they want.

yeah I only read the 1% of any thread, needs cliffs

 

[townie]

idk, the one form of discrimination in insurance I know for sure is permitted, is age based assessment, health insurance is unaffordable for the aged, and car insurance is unaffordable for the young. So all the burden for aged health goes to the public system.

You could make the same argument about health insurance and age (as you're making about smoking and insurance premiums) - if we made it a flat fee and made discriminating on the basis of age illegal, you might move more people off the public system. I think there's a better case for justice in abolishing age based insurance pricing, than for smoking, because age is more beyond the individuals control.

Would you want to abolish this form of discrimination? There would be consequences, just as there are consequences for the present policy of not allowing discrimination on the basis of smoking.



yeah I only read the 1% of any thread, needs cliffs

I could very well be wrong - but the gist I got from the original article is that private health insurance has to deliver the same premium to everybody (even the aged), I do know the government imposes additional levies on people if they don't take out health insurance before 30, but if they do they don't apply. Although I imagine that some aged people might have missed a deadline for not having to pay the levy. It doesn't negate your point...I'm actually now just quite curious as to whether the aged stuff is the insurers premium or a government levy.

 

[Graney]

idk

 

[wannabesurgeon]

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

+1

 

[Examine]

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

Just casually destroying an industry.

 

[toppers]

I think smokers already paying higher premium and taxes on their purchase. Which need to be increased more, just to discourage the smokers for those who might look to adopt also. As none of us could deny the damages and bad impacts of smoking.