• 1 23459
  • Page
  • Text Only
Voting History
rated:
Not a smoker, but for any of you that are, you had better start the process of quitting now. You are going to get penalized heavily in 2014 by the new health care law.

Text


The law allows for what looks like age discrimination as insurance companies will be allowed to charge more for older smokers than younger ones. Also, those that do not belong to a company sponsored insurance plan, might not have the benefit of taking a cessation program.

The Affordable Care Act "Obamacare" to its detractors allows health insurers to charge smokers buying individual policies up to 50 percent higher premiums starting next Jan. 1.

For a 55-year-old smoker, the penalty could reach nearly $4,250 a year. A 60-year-old could wind up paying nearly $5,100 on top of premiums.

Younger smokers could be charged lower penalties under rules proposed last fall by the Obama administration. But older smokers could face a heavy hit on their household budgets at a time in life when smoking-related illnesses tend to emerge.

Member Summary
Most Recent Posts
What page of Obamacare has the criminal penalties for making a mistake in one's smoking status?

BrodyInsurance (Apr. 11, 2013 @ 10:19a) |

If they ask about tobacco use in the last twelves months, and you lie about your tobacco use, then you have committed in... (more)

tomjef (Apr. 11, 2013 @ 10:34a) |

From the article, tobacco use is 4 or more times a week for the past 6 months. With no medical underwriting, the only s... (more)

BrodyInsurance (Apr. 11, 2013 @ 11:00a) |

Thanks for visiting FatWallet.com. Join for free to remove this ad.

God forbid we starting charging people responsible for driving up healthcare costs.

Interesting. I vaguely recall receiving an email from my employer a few weeks ago stating they would no longer be hiring smokers at all soon.

Step 1: government is given a new power
step 2: governement uses that power for a purpose other than what it was intended for.

soundtechie said:   Step 1: government is given a new power
step 2: governement uses that power for a purpose other than what it was intended for.


You do realize smoking was considered a pre-existing condition before the healthcare law? They would have just refused to cover you or drop you from their coverage once you became a burden.

I am curious as to how they will define smoker
I know people who might smoke one now and then when they drink but do not make a regular thing of it

avalon6 said:   God forbid we starting charging people responsible for driving up healthcare costs.

So, what about people that are overweight according to the medical weight charts? Do you have any idea how many would fall into that category? What about people that partake in "deemed" dangerous activities like sky diving, riding a motorcycle, snow boarding, etc. etc.?

And as far as age discrimination, at least once a week (if not more), senior citizens get 10+% discounts...is that not an "accepted" age discrimination? What about car insurance? Don't those under 25 (at least in NY) get hammered by excessive insurance costs?

If smoking is so bad then outlaw it, don't penalize those that use a LEGAL product just to finance other social programs or to make insurance companies richer.

BamBam0099 said:   If smoking is so bad then outlaw it, don't penalize those that use a LEGAL product just to finance other social programs or to make insurance companies richer.The law allows insurers to charge higher rates for smokers. It's not a mandate. Insurers have always charged more based on risk so I don't see a problem with this.

This only applies to tobacco smokers

How does it get determined that you're a smoker if you say you're not?

Bagofchips said:   How does it get determined that you're a smoker if you say you're not?

When your claims are deinied after lung cancer treatments when it's determined that your lungs are full of black tar from cigarettes.

caterpillar123 said:   BamBam0099 said:   If smoking is so bad then outlaw it, don't penalize those that use a LEGAL product just to finance other social programs or to make insurance companies richer.The law allows insurers to charge higher rates for smokers. It's not a mandate. Insurers have always charged more based on risk so I don't see a problem with this.

Do you think they will not charge as much as they can? Seems like an easy way to keep from insuring people they don't want to insure at all.


Anyway, I think that people who smoke need to to prepare for this (hope they quit) as they are going to be hit with a rather large financial bill they most likely were not expecting beginning January 1st of next year.

caterpillar123 said:    Insurers have always charged more based on risk

Yup.

Of course, one alternative would be to not charge smokers for the costs of treating the proven consequences of their intentional self-destructive behavior.

Or, in other words, tax non-smokers.

BEEFjerKAY said:   caterpillar123 said:    Insurers have always charged more based on risk

Yup.

Of course, one alternative would be to not charge smokers for the costs of treating the proven consequences of their intentional self-destructive behaviorText.

Or, in other words, tax non-smokers.


So what is the definition of "self-destructive behavior"? Unsafe sex? Alcohol? Over eating? Sky diving? Driving over the speed limit? Driving a motorcycle? Skiing? Hand gliding? etc. etc. What about driving over X miles per week? Don't you increase your chance of getting in an accident? In fact, why not punish those that choose to drive and are a higher risk versus those that take mass transit? Once these types of laws start, it only gets worse.

I hate being around smokers but it is a legal product...outlaw cigarettes if they are so bad.

Why are we wasting our time going after guns? Let's outlaw or penalize EVERYTHING that is deemed "self-destructive behavior"!

"The leading causes of death in 2000 were tobacco (435,000 deaths; 18.1% of total US deaths), poor diet and physical inactivity (400,000 deaths; 16.6%), and alcohol consumption (85,000 deaths; 3.5%). Other actual causes of death were microbial agents (75,000), toxic agents (55,000), motor vehicle crashes (43,000), incidents involving firearms (29,000), sexual behaviors (20,000), and illicit use of drugs (17,000)."

That's ok - if you are a well-off smoker, you'll not only be paying a higher premium, but also subsidizing the penalty for poor smokers...

Or... Just pay the standard penalty for not having insurance, and only sign up for coverage when you find you need it.

avalon6 said:   God forbid we starting charging people responsible for driving up healthcare costs.

But they are saving us money by dying earlier.

Honestly, I may catch hell for this, but when did we start accepting government to get involved with EVERYTHING? I quit smoking over 5 years ago (not for bragging rights) so this will not affect me at all (at least...I hope, yes we can, yes we can...control your lives)

if this is just cigarettes, i don't care. but if this includes smokin jenkem then im gona be madder than a baptist in a brothel

avalon6 said:   God forbid we starting charging people responsible for driving up healthcare costs.
Except they should be charged less. Non-Smokers drive up health care costs more then smokers. Health Care costs of smokers vs non smokers

God forbid we actually fix the problems in health care rather then make up excuses for the way things are.

OliverQuackenbush said:   if this is just cigarettes, i don't care. but if this includes smokin jenkem then im gona be madder than a baptist in a brothel

Please sir, take your green. Googled jenkem and...wow. If I could give you more green, I would

masher4077 said:   avalon6 said:   God forbid we starting charging people responsible for driving up healthcare costs.



Hmmmmm, why not start with tort reform?

Edit: Sorry for the "misquote"

BamBam0099 said:   masher4077 said:   avalon6 said:   God forbid we starting charging people responsible for driving up healthcare costs.

Hmmmmm, why not start with tort reform?


Please don't misquote me like this.

masher4077 said:   avalon6 said:   God forbid we starting charging people responsible for driving up healthcare costs.
Except they should be charged less. Non-Smokers drive up health care costs more then smokers. Health Care costs of smokers vs non smokers

God forbid we actually fix the problems in health care rather then make up excuses for the way things are.


That's potentially interesting, but the non-smokers also presumably paid more taxes over their life. And contributed economically in other ways. Was that taken into account?

Do H&B users get charged more too, or just smokers?

great, why should I subsidize the stupid people who smoke. let them pay their fair share.

dewolfxy said:   masher4077 said:   avalon6 said:   God forbid we starting charging people responsible for driving up healthcare costs.
Except they should be charged less. Non-Smokers drive up health care costs more then smokers. Health Care costs of smokers vs non smokers

God forbid we actually fix the problems in health care rather then make up excuses for the way things are.


That's potentially interesting, but the non-smokers also presumably paid more taxes over their life. And contributed economically in other ways. Was that taken into account?


That is debatable. You are forgetting that the average pack of cigarettes is taxed $1.45 per pack of cigarettes. So thats $529.25 more in taxes the smoker paid every year of his/her life if they are a pack a day smoker. Average that over the life of the smoker and it will be more then the other taxes you are counting.

raringvt said:   Bagofchips said:   How does it get determined that you're a smoker if you say you're not?

When your claims are deinied after lung cancer treatments when it's determined that your lungs are full of black tar from cigarettes.



or living in one of the smoggy cities where you can see the air you breathe.

sunspotzsz said:   great, why should I subsidize the stupid people who smoke. let them pay their fair share.

are you by any chance obese? If so, I hate to be subsidizing YOU as well.

sunspotzsz said:   great, why should I subsidize the stupid people who smoke. let them pay their fair share.

How about if you get skin cancer should we have to pay for it? Since your name is Sun Spots I am assuming you hang out in the sun a lot. Which is stupid because it increases your chances of skin cancer. Is it fair for people to have to pay for that? Everyone does stupid things that increase there risk of having to use health care the point is we all do it but to increase the cost on one type of people who actually are subsidizing you(see my previous post) more then you are them is stupid.

That comparison is of limited use in this discussion.

Your yearly insurance premiums should be compared to your yearly costs. I would strongly suspect that on an annual basis, the smoker would have higher health care costs. Greater chance of requiring cancer treatment *this* year, etc...

Any additional costs incurred bu the non-smoker way in the future after the theoretical smoker has died should be covered by insurance premiums then - at which time the deceased won't be paying in anyway.

The people complaining about this seem overly sensitive. I hate big government as much as any reasonable man, but common sense has to come into play at some point. Smoking is a known quantity that is increasing health care costs. The fact that the smokers die sooner doesn't change the fact that they increase costs while they are alive. Sky diving may or may not raise the price of health care. But I don't think the increase is anywhere near the amount caused by smoking. If you can prove otherwise I would support a change increasing health care costs for sky divers. But I think you are missing the point by arguing over fringe cases.

This should not be the only step taken to reign in healthcare costs. There are many steps that should be taken. But you have to start somewhere and the tobacco lobby has lost most of its power. This is low hanging fruit from a political perspective. If we keep arguing over where to start solving problems like this we never do anything at all.

Smoking is a choice like everything else in life. So you know what I say, BFD.

so you go without private insurance, pay the penalty and go on the government plan

BamBam0099 said:   
Why are we wasting our time going after guns? Let's outlaw or penalize EVERYTHING that is deemed "self-destructive behavior"!

"The leading causes of death in 2000 were tobacco (435,000 deaths; 18.1% of total US deaths), poor diet and physical inactivity (400,000 deaths; 16.6%), and alcohol consumption (85,000 deaths; 3.5%). Other actual causes of death were microbial agents (75,000), toxic agents (55,000), motor vehicle crashes (43,000), incidents involving firearms (29,000), sexual behaviors (20,000), and illicit use of drugs (17,000)."


blah blah blah "sexual behaviors (20,000)" blah blah blah

WHAT?!

howie888 said:   BamBam0099 said:   
Why are we wasting our time going after guns? Let's outlaw or penalize EVERYTHING that is deemed "self-destructive behavior"!

"The leading causes of death in 2000 were tobacco (435,000 deaths; 18.1% of total US deaths), poor diet and physical inactivity (400,000 deaths; 16.6%), and alcohol consumption (85,000 deaths; 3.5%). Other actual causes of death were microbial agents (75,000), toxic agents (55,000), motor vehicle crashes (43,000), incidents involving firearms (29,000), sexual behaviors (20,000), and illicit use of drugs (17,000)."


blah blah blah "sexual behaviors (20,000)" blah blah blah

WHAT?!


Autoerotic Asphyxiation is a dangerous game!

sharky1985 said:   Interesting. I vaguely recall receiving an email from my employer a few weeks ago stating they would no longer be hiring smokers at all soon.

I remember reading that Henry Ford had a similar requirement for his workers early last century. It's interesting that this idea fell out of favor and is now coming fashionable again.

Don't smokers already pay heavy taxes for smoking?

Great freebie for insurance companies to put even more of their costlier patients onto the public system.

I still wonder how they are going to determine "smokers"

Man: I dont smoke
Insurance: You have black lungs
Man: I used to smoke, quit before you changed the law
Insurance: You smell like smoke and came in with a cloud of smoke
Man: Damn smoker out there, musta got on me when I came in.
Insurance: You teeth are yellowed with tar
Man: Must be the old remnants, please pay for whitening treatment so this misunderstading doesnt happen
Insurance: OK, we will pay for whitening (which may never stop as man keeps smoking) and your health care from your smoking past without increase.

I only see this affecting future smokers who will have no excuses. LOL


On more serious note, I understand insurance charging more for risky behavior but where does it stop?

How about they start charging people extra for having the risky behavior of working a menial job since it involved risk to back strain etc. Those construction workers breaking there backs building the insurance CEOs new condo is an added risk to health cost. Charge them more! After all he is making the choice to work construction!

Skipping 288 Messages...
tomjef said:   BrodyInsurance said:   tomjef said:   BrodyInsurance said:   I like it. First of all, I thought that it was stupid to single out smokers. Secondly, based upon this article, it is evident that paying smoker rates would be based upon stupidity as opposed to being a smoker. "I smoke 4 packs a day three times a week" would qualify the person as a non smoker. Why would anyone be honest about this?

Because if they're not honest about it they will be traded to Bubba for a pack of smokes.


What page of Obamacare has the criminal penalties for making a mistake in one's smoking status?


If they ask about tobacco use in the last twelves months, and you lie about your tobacco use, then you have committed insurance fraud. Additionally, if you applied through a government-run exchange or other government channel, then you have also made a false statement to a government agency, which is also a crime.


From the article, tobacco use is 4 or more times a week for the past 6 months. With no medical underwriting, the only smokers will be people who self report as smokers. Even if they can take blood and/or urine, under this definition one can test positive for nicotine and still be a non-smoker.



Disclaimer: By providing links to other sites, FatWallet.com does not guarantee, approve or endorse the information or products available at these sites, nor does a link indicate any association with or endorsement by the linked site to FatWallet.com.

Thanks for visiting FatWallet.com. Join for free to remove this ad.

TRUSTe online privacy certification

While FatWallet makes every effort to post correct information, offers are subject to change without notice.
Some exclusions may apply based upon merchant policies.
© 1999-2014

It's time for an upgrade!

After a decade on our current platform, we're upgrading our plumbing. The site will be down for a few hours starting at 10:30PM CST tonight.

At FatWallet we strive to bring you the best coupons, deals and Cash Back. So please come back and check us out.