If Smokers have to pay more for Group Health Care Insurance should?

[RB TexLa]

If there is a surcharge for smokers group insurance rates that is then reduced because the person stopped smoking, should there be a surcharge in the rates for coverage of women who are determined to be in pregnancy age and then allow them to have the surcharge removed if they have a procedure to prevent pregancy?

[SoCalDem]

1. Employers should NOT be in the position of providing insurance

National healthcare coverage with the WHOLE population in the "pool" is the only way to go.

Employers should be paying employees to :

1. show up on time
2. do the task at hand
3. not steal the office supplies
4. go home at the end of their shift
5. rinse & repeat

Employers should NOT be in a position to dictate what employees do or not do in their "off-time".

Employers should NOT know "intimate" details of employees private lives.

Employers should NOT be able to hold their employees "hostage" to health care.

Employees should NOT be able to "rescind" earned raises, by yanking it back, in order to pay higher medical insurance premiums.

[sallyseven]

2. I think the tobacco companies should pay for their slaves

health insurance.

[bbgrunt]

3. I agree with your post SoCalDem, but

the key word in the poll is "if" .....which is no longer an "if" in some cases. I say we should let the "free market" do its work and as long as smokers can be charged more, then all those who are overweight, drive recklessly, engage in mountain climbing, parasailing, soccer, basketball, football, or any sports (including quail hunting) or keep guns in their homes, or eat at fast food outlets, or cook with teflon, or watch fox news (etc. etc.) should also pay a premium. .....and thus the whole idea of "insurance" can be eliminated and we will all pay according to our chosen risks.

Soon we will be able to also assess those with bad genes who decide to have children for their decisions to increase future health care costs. Wait a minute, why not start assessing those who are "undesireable" right now!! We could eliminate people on the basis of their chosen religion, their marital status, their gender and their race and surely eliminate future problems!!

[SoCalDem]

4. Sorry, but we are all "in this together", and one never knows

when WE might fall "outside" the norm.. That's WHY group insurance works.
Example:

WE paid insurance premiums for DECADES and rarely needed to go to the doctor because we were young and healthy, but about 5 years ago, my husband was diagnosed with diabetes. He's a thin, active person, and should NOT have been a candidate for this disease, but he HAS it. So NOW he goes to the doctor a LOT.. ALL those years when OUR premiums paid for other people's medical care is part of the medical insurance "bargain" we all make (and SHOULD make).

In a civilized society, we ALL care about the "others"...not just ourselves(That's the republican way of doing things).. There IS enough for all, as long as the few at the top are not hogging more than their due.

Nationalized healthcare works...but it has to be participation by ALL people, not just the ones who are currently needing medical care..

You may be perfectly healthy, and managing just fine...one day.. and in a moment you can get a diagnosis that precludes you from affording insurance AND medical care. What if you are 40, have a family and get cancer/MS/diabetes? Deplete your savings to pay out of pocket, sink your family's financial future..? what if you lose your job and its insurance plan??

There's nothing black and white about this issue, except for the fact that employers should not control life and death issues...like insurance.. It should be a part of being a citizen of the "richest" country on earth :)

[etherealtruth]

24. touche`

[bbgrunt]

27. yu are quite right. sorry i left off the scarcasm emoticon. nt

[bleedingheart]

6. I agree...

[bleedingheart]

5. They already do pay more...

have you checked out the family rates on health insurance?

People who have children pay as much as 4 times more for their healthcare...

Premiums for singles in our office are $150/month
Premiums for couples without kids are around $250/month
Premiums for couples with kids are around $480/month...

Edit:...multiply all the above premiums by 4 if you want to know what self-insurance rates are like for decent healthcare...

[bleedingheart]

7. I also want to point out that once your children leave the nest

and they are over the age of 18 ...they are then uninsured and your rates drop...

[SoCalDem]

11. Except, that by THAT time YOU are older too

and get dumped into a higher risk group, whether you are sick or NOT

[bleedingheart]

14. yeah forgot about that and the fact that healthcare expenses

are going up by 10-30% every year anyways...

[RB TexLa]

9. That's paying for thier and their children's healthcare

Are you suggesting that childfree singles and couples should pay family rates? Or have to pay more to spread the cost of covering dependants?

[bleedingheart]

13. the question you posed is really kind of silly.

making someone pay for a potential behavior or outcome is dumb...
penalizing women and men for potential pregnancy? what if they never have a kid???
if that is justified...why not penalize them for potential...

drug addiction
obesity
hazardous lifestyle risks (young people drive bad kind of logic)
or potential for cancer based on the answers to a health survey...?????


While I don't agree with the smoking penalty the reason it is there is because there is evidence to prove that smoking harms people's health...thus it costs more to cover them... but I think it is a dangerous slope to slide down and the fact that it hasn't been challenged is kind of odd.

[triguy46]

15. So does this apply to auto insurance?

Should we ignore driving records and have everyone pay the same rate regardless of history? Should a 16 year old new driver be rated teh same as a 40 year old? Why do we not rate seniors higher, since they have disproportionaely higher accident rates? Why shouldn't there be risk adjusting in health care.

Of course much of this discussion is self serving, which is to be expected. We're not having any more kids, (at 54, believe me), so I'd love a drop in insurance rates. But when we were 30 and having kids, by God I wanted my rate to be the same as everyone elses. Smokers don't want to be rated. The overweight dont' want it. We all want what is best for us and attempt to define a societal answer that fits our need as the best solution.

Of course this is a silly discussion because our whole system is f*ed up. No other industrialized country does health care as we do, so we have to deal with these inanities.

[RB TexLa]

17. Auto insurance is issued on an individual basis

Health insurance issued on an individual basis is individually underwritten the same way. Instead of a MVR they get an MIB report. Age, tobacco preference and health history all determine what you will pay, if any riders will be attached to the policy, or if you will be offered coverage at all.

[bleedingheart]

18. actually I think that auto insurance is a huge scam..

I think there really should be fixed rates for auto insurance (of course you have to factor in the number of cars you are insuring as well) and then if you have an actual record of bad driving...well then you will have to pay more.

[RB TexLa]

16. evidence of cost

Like you said "thus it costs more to cover them" The same applies to females of childbearing years.

There is plenty of evidence of cost in that people who become pregnant cost more to cover. The surcharge is built in to a group rate, the more females between the age of X years to X years the higher the cost for everyone. Same is true for the number of people in a group over the age of X for both males and females. The number of males under X age lowers helps to lower the rates for everyone as they have a tendance to not use insurance as much.


The dangerous slope you mention is pretty much what the poll is about.

[bleedingheart]

19. the problem is that you are singling out female employees

when in reality it is ALL married employees of childbearing age who are the greatest risk of pregnancy. A male employee, with a wife of childbearing age, would pay more as well...is the fact that men are married and of childbearing age figured in??? Hell any married man with a wife who is between the age of 18 and 45 is at risk of having to use his insurance to cover his spouses pregnancy...

[RB TexLa]

20. But that would be what he is paying to cover his wife

not his health.

The poll mentioned surcharge is one on "coverage of women who are determined to be in pregnancy age" not employees of childbearing age. If a male worker is covering his wife then he is paying for such coverage.

[bleedingheart]

22. the way I see it, all of us are potential ticking timebombs...

none of us know when our number will be up and we also don't know what kind of health problems we may encounter.

The single person with MS will end up costing a self-insuring company a great deal of money while a married couple with 5 kids might not use much of their health insurance aside from yearly check ups...

The question Americans need to ask themselves is this...Is healthcare a right or a privilege? Is it perfectly acceptable to have a health child die of strep throat complications because his family has no insurance? Is it okay to have a once vibrant grandmother of 63 die because she needs a pace maker and has no insurance?

[bbgrunt]

28. not to mention that many plans pay for viagra but not birth control.

[RB TexLa]

23. Your edit

Edit:...multiply all the above premiums by 4 if you want to know what self-insurance rates are like for decent healthcare..


Are you multiply what the employee's share of the cost is times 4 or what the total cost of the insurance is times 4?

This really isn't a good blanket rule. On individual policies the cost is going to be all over depending on age, location, health history, tobacco preference and gender.

[Gormy Cuss]

29. People with one child pay the same as people with ten.

Look at the incremental cost difference in your sample rates. Add a spouse, increase the rate by $100. Add any number of children, the rate is increased by $230. Surely couples with one child are being shortchanged here, and couples with five children are getting a bargain. As soon as insurance companies can construct the argument in a way that consumers will accept it (probably by invoking "fairness) they will offer plans with premiums based on the number of children.

What about families with only one adult? Shouldn't their premium be less than that charged for families with two adults?

Aside from regulations imposed by states, the insurance industry will adopt any price structure that the market will bear.

[NewJeffCT]

8. many employers do not provide pregnancy coverage

meaning, your health insurance covers X, Y & Z, but not pregnancy.

If you want coverage for a potential pregnancy, you either have to pay more or get your own insurance.

[bleedingheart]

10. that is the first time I have ever heard of that but I am not suprised

my insurance company won't pay for durable medical equipment...so they won't pay for crutches, canes, or even asthma nebulizers...all that has to be paid out of pocket.

having a prescription plan is a luxury a lot of people don't enjoy either...

[NewJeffCT]

26. I applied for a job last summer

and, when going over benefits, the woman told me that pregnancy was not covered... and the medical was not very good in the first place.

[RB TexLa]

12. Most states require group insurance cover pregnancy

Individual coverage typically doesn't cover it. From an underwriting standpoint the only people who are going to buy pregnancy coverage in an individual policy are people who feel they are going to be pregnant.

[triguy46]

21. Yes, coverage for pregnancy in group plans is required

[noonwitch]

25. I think everyone should be covered at the same rate

Otherwise, the whole stupid idea is open to all kinds of abuse, especially in light of genetics and such. Should people who live in areas with high pollution pay a higher rate? Fat people?

The anti-smoking people are really getting out of control. They complain about everything. That tiny wisp of cigarette smoke you smell when you walk by someone smoking outdoors will not kill you. The crap that the Detroit garbage incinerator is emitting probably will, although it will first give your kids asthma and the fetus you are carrying cerebral palsy.