Why are smokers singled out?
While looking into health care benefits, I keep coming across what amounts to penalties for smokers. Higher costs for smokers is an example. And the questionnaires specifically ask if you smoke and for how long and how much and when you quit if you quit. So I started wondering…why is it only smokers? Why don’t we get even more intrusive? Why don’t we ask about how often a person eats fast food? Why don’t we ask if a person uses condoms during sex? Drug usage? Gang affiliation? Stressors in your life? There are dozens of factors that impact health and life expectancy, yet the only one that is singled out is smoking. Why?
Observing members:
0
Composing members:
0
91 Answers
Because smoking causes many, many more health issues than any other habit, stressor, or factor you could come up with. There are the obvious diseases of lung cancer, COPD, throat cancer, emphazemia, hight blood pressure and heart attack. Then you have the ones that aren’t usually associated with smoking like bladder cancer, kidney cancer, strokes, and the lists go on. All of these diseases and cancers are long term and costs billions of dollars in treatment.
Smoking is politically incorrect. Smokers are politically on the defensive.
You would never get away with higher costs for obese people or for woman (who for one reason or another, good for them,) are higher utilizers.
So third parties payers will pick on the more defenseless segment of the pool as a step towards lowering their costs.
Don’t you fret… everyone will get a turn eventually. Smoking is just the first step into becoming a worse nanny state.
@seawulf575 – Are you asking why for-profit corporations are trying to maximize their profits?
Everybody will die; only smokers sooner, non-smokers later.
Smokers- lung cancer, tongue cancer, bladder cancer, COPD and reduced blood circulation.
Cool people are always singled out!
They are also physically assaulting everyone else around them with their cancer fumes.
Put them all into camps, I say.
Because, smokers will have preventable health issues at greater rates than the general population. I also think that it should not end with smokers. Obesity is even worse by orders of magnitude but it’s politically incorrect to “fat shame.”
@ARE_you_kidding_me Most obese people know they’re obese. They don’t need to be “shamed”. Telling them it’s unealthy, that they need to lose weight, they know that. And many of them have tried to lose weight and failed. Smokers on the other hand aren’t necessarily all trying to quit. Many of them are, but many of them are content to smoke and have no intention of quitting. They’re definitely parallels, but there are some key differences.
I think. @josie makes a very good point about the health risks of obesity that we just aren’t allowed to mention. We can charge smokers a higher premium, but not fat people.
Why is that?
I love how people think that some vague “political correctness” drives the actions of corporations. Fascinating. They have decided to forgo profits for PR or something?
Then can you explain it @hmmm?
BTW as a FORMER SMOKER I really had no problem with the rules and the restrictions, nor with higher premiums. They were perfectly understandable to me. I didn’t feel discriminated against or like I was singled out.
Why insurance companies penalize smokers with higher premiums, but not obese people?
^ Why do you claim that this is the case? It’s my understanding that while the ACA stopped insurance companies from denying coverage for pre-existing conditions, including obesity, it’s still practice to charge higher premiums based on BMI. Is this incorrect?
Looking for recent data on average premium surcharges for smokers and obesity, but all I can find right now is from 2011: link
They never denied coverage but the premiums were about $30 a month per smoker higher than if one didn’t smoke. As I said, perfectly understandable.
I don’t recall any questions about BMI. I’ve never had a weight problem, tho, so if it was an issue with insurance I didn’t notice.
@seawulf575, do you think insurance companies are wrong to “single smokers out”? Are they wrong to charge them higher premiums?
I agree that probably part of the reason is it’s ok to hate smokers.
Smoking does raise the risk of getting many health conditions, so I’m sure that’s part of the equation too.
When I signed up in the ACA marketplace I think it asked if I smoked, but I don’t remember for sure. It didn’t ask me height or weight.
I do think it’s a possible slippery slope to charge more based on habits. Next it might be genetics.
It’s not a question of an emotion like “hate,” @JLeslie. It’s bottom line logic. And they should be allowed to ask BMI information too. But as far as I know they don’t. Why?
“Why are smokers singled out?”
Because the Insurance companies are in it for the money and since smokers are killing themselves slowly by continuing to smoke regardless of “warnings on the cigarette packages“and insurance companies will have to pay out more than they thought, that is why the “INSURANCE COMPANIES” will penalize them to cover the costs of the eventual payouts.
BTW: not sure if the U.S. has adopted the warning images on packages as in Canada?
In fact some smokers have begun to sue the cigarette companies for creating a dependency in smoking due to chemicals placed in them to cause a craving for them.
As for obesity due to the high sugar content in fast foods also causes cravings for more and thus we have overweight people who can’t stop.
The food industry is getting targeted soon as sugar and ingredients must be labeled on all food products even in restaurants.
Basically both industries should be penalized for causing these problems intentionally all for profits at the cost of peoples lives.
@Dutchess_lll I think it is odd that smokers are singled out. Am I saying we shouldn’t penalize those that have at-risk things in their life? I don’t know. Smoking is bad for you…I get that. But so is being obese. So is stress. For that matter, so is unprotected sex. We spend billions every year treating STIs. But none of that is addressed…only smokers.
@hmmmm,....No I am not asking why for-profit corporations are trying to maximize their profits. Not at all. In fact, if that were the case, this wouldn’t be a question because I would understand it. If it were corporate greed, then they would pry into all sorts of other aspects of our lives to get even more money.
They hit smokers because they can. Popular sentiment lets insurance companies get away with it. I mean if it is accepted that alcoholism, nicotine and heroin addiction are diseases, how do they not qualify as pre-existing conditions?
@Dutchess_III I think the hate for smokers meant that the general public went along with it. When this was first ushered out it was presented by many companies as non-smokers getting discount. I think that has changed to most people feeling like there is simply two separate prices, and smokers pay more.
If they used BMI, I think the public would fight back saying it’s discrimination. Some people would argue their weight is beyond their control. Some would argue it’s racist, some would argue it unfairly hits the lower classes, or unfairly hits women.
Plus, plenty of overweight people walk around saying their numbers (bloodwork) are perfect, and their doctor said they were healthy. I don’t agree with this idea, but plenty of people feel this way. No one can say the black in their lungs is “healthy.” I guess they could argue their great aunt smoked until she was 95, and then died from old age, but overall, people accept smoking kills the smoker, and harms others when the smoke is around them. Most people want a smoke free America.
@seawulf575: “No I am not asking why for-profit corporations are trying to maximize their profits. Not at all. In fact, if that were the case, this wouldn’t be a question because I would understand it. If it were corporate greed, then they would pry into all sorts of other aspects of our lives to get even more money.”
Like this or this?
I am pretty sure your insurance company knows your BMI, @Dutchess_lll, if they know your height and weight.
My insurance providers know my BMI. It gets calculated at every doctor’s appointment, along with my blood pressure, heartrate, and oxygenation level.
@seawulf575 … so is unprotected sex. That’s a different policy question that has nothing to do with health benefit/detriments.
I’ve always been irritated by this as drinking is more socially acceptable and PC, but causes so much damage in chronic drinkers lives. You can drive and smoke and not hurt anyone. You can raise a family while smoking and not affect them psychologically. You can smoke a whole pack of cigarettes and not fall down from lack of oxygen.
Plus many people just lie to insurance and say they don’t smoke to get out of premiums, it’s not like they send investigators to watch you for a week. It’s asinine.
————————————————————————————————————————
However, studies consistently show that, overall, heavy alcohol consumption is detrimental to health and a leading preventable cause of death.
Alcohol has been found to contribute to at least 60 different health conditions. (See link)
Alcohol consumption is associated with violent crime.
https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/297734.php
Jeffrey Stephen Wigand (/ˈwaɪɡænd/; born 17 December 1942) is an American biochemist and former vice president of research and development at Brown & Williamson in Louisville, Kentucky, who worked on the development of reduced-harm cigarettes and in 1996…..
” BLEW THE WHISTLE ON TOBACCO TAMPERING AT THE COMPANY”
He explained how adding chemicals made it HARDER for people to quit smoking from that day forward..HENSE that is why it is not easy for one to quit as in the past before these were added.
And that is why the general public will sue.
Because there are clear and verifiable numbers that prove smoking adds a lot of cost to the health care system
Here are some hard numbers from an earleir post on the subject.
Should tobacco products be taxed
” NY State published numbers as part of a study to determine the cost of lung cancer and the tax levy that should be placed on cigarettes to offset the expenses. Here are approximate values.
One non-smoker in 4000 will be diagnosed with lung cancer.. One smoker in 150 will be diagnosed with lung cancer. Since lung cancer does not show itself until rather late in the process 50% of all patients will not survive more than a year after diagnosis. In the US, average medical expenses for that year will be more than $150,000. The expenses are well over $500,000 if the patient survives longer than a year.
“Using recent health and medical spending surveys, researchers calculated that 8.7 percent of all healthcare spending, or $170 billion a year, is for illness caused by tobacco smoke, and public programs like Medicare and Medicaid paid for most of these costs. ” Source
Given that Americans buy 22 Billion packs per year that comes to a cost of $170B/22B= $7.70 per pack to break even. Make it $10 to pay for the tax collection and administration..
@canidmajor Growing up with a lot of alcoholics will easily show you the difference…it sucks.
I worked for a bit in a battered women’s shelter. Not once did someone express fear when “he went out for a smoke”.
@knowitall Just as an aside, we have to submit to a blood test each year to test for nicotine in the blood for our insurance premiums. My brother had to also for a life insurance policy.
@jca2 I wasn’t suggesting they don’t know my BMI. What I am saying is there has never been a hint that I’ll be charged more for being overweight. When it comes to smoking, it’s right there, in print, but not for anything else.
@chyna Yes, some do, but not all. Mine does not, just our ‘word’.
@canidmajor I’m with you, it’s such a no-brainer that alcohol is linked with violent crime. Not obesity, not smoking, not even mj. No comparison.
Which brings us back to @seawulf575‘s question….why just smokers? Is it because it’s proven that discrimination against them is tolerated? I am NOT saying it’s right or wrong. I’m saying it’s tolerated.
Not “even” mj. That’s funny! Have you ever partookened of it, @KNOWITALL? :D :D
@Dutchess_III I was raised around a lot of hippies in the 70’s, and it’s probably just about as popular today again. :D
When I said “not even”, I’m thinking of Reefer Madness and some of the things we were all told about drugs, mostly false. I’ve literally never seen anyone violent and stoned.
It’s definately a socially accepted practice which is very very odd to me.
————————————————————————————————————————-
However, what we don’t hear enough about is alcohol and how deadly it is. Alcohol is the most socially acceptable drug on the market and the most easily accessible. Even with this knowledge, the general public still has a tendency to believe alcohol is ok, not dangerous, and an acceptable form of relaxation. Science tells us something different. Alcohol is the deadliest drug of all. Let’s look at why this is true.
Alcohol kills more people than all other drugs combined.
Alcohol is three times as harmful as cocaine or tobacco.
Alcohol is more easily accessible than most other drugs.
Alcohol directly causes a variety of diseases.
The truth is alcohol is the deadliest drug and the research and statistics prove this. In a country that is focusing solely on the current opioid epidemic, these facts are a good reminder that alcohol is deadlier and more socially acceptable than other drugs. Next time someone tries to justify drinking alcohol, remember it causes cancer and other diseases, it’s three times as harmful as cocaine or tobacco, and it causes more deaths than all other drugs combined. We shouldn’t just accept alcohol was a part of life; we should talk about just how deadly it is.
https://www.addictioncenter.com/community/why-alcohol-is-the-deadliest-drug/
Because you stink & don’t delude yourself otherwise.
I packed in, together with the wife, cold turkey 18 years ago & am still horrified by the bloody stench of smokers knowing that I must have too…fucking disgusting.
Agreed @KNOWITALL. But we did try banning alcohol, but it didn’t stick.
The smell of cigarette smoke doesn’t bother me.
@Dutchess_III I don’t necessarily think anything should be banned, that doesn’t ever work and drives up the price. What I do miss is some of the education we had in the 80’s about alcohol and how it destroyed families, you know MADD had huge campaigns.
We have so many young people out there that are conditioned to believe it’s okay, then they die at frat parties. Campaigns against guns killing kids, but still no one saying jack about alcohol. To me that’s not only hypocritical, it’s dangerous.
I love the smell of cigars, too.
Did you know trump does not drink alcohol? It killed his brother.
I think he probably does everything else, though.
@zenvelo the part about unprotected sex applies, as I see it, because it is another aspect of you life that could cause health issues. The insurance companies already ask if you smoke. That is on just about every application for health insurance I have ever had to fill out. So why not ask if you have unprotected sex? Or how many sexual partners you had last year? It’s just as applicable as asking if you smoke as I see it.
I don’t think it is. Every adult has sex, anyway.
Only if you have a very broad definition of sex.
Married couples and people in long term, serious, monogamous relationships don’t use condoms. Should they be charged more for that?
@seawulf575 There is a strong public policy both in Congress and many states against access to contraceptives, condoms, and against education on avoiding STIs and pregnancies, despite the overwhelming evidence that there is a significant savings and reduction in abortions by providing such access.
@Dutchess_lll the same could be said for smokers. My wife used to smoke but she never smoked in the house. So the chances of my getting second hand smoke were pretty much nil. Should I be charged more for MY insurance (which I was) because she was a smoker? Also, there are millions of people in serious long term monogamous relationships that have affairs. It happens all the time. And obviously the numbers don’t lie. There are a ton of cases of STIs that are reported each year. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not advocating for the insurance companies to charge more for lack of condom usage or for obesity or any of those things…it just seems odd that they pick out one at-risk behavior and zero in on that alone.
That one is easy to “zero in on”, and very susceptible to widespread public disapproval. If you notice, no distinction is made for how much or how little one smokes. There are BIG reasons for ignoring promiscuity as a risk factor in comparison to cigarettes, the principle one being the urgency to check the spread of contagion is deemed so severe that stigmatization is minimized to encourage PROMPT treatment. Judgement and blame are completely ignored to facilitate the ready revelation of the patient’s possible contacts regarding receipt and transmission of the disease. A better example than STIs in regard to the inequities of health insurance would be alcohol abuse. Booze is almost certainly more lethal and extensively involved as a risk factor in health outcomes, and insurance companies DO ask applicants about rates of consumption. People can lie just as easily about their consumption of either booze or tobacco, but unlike cigarettes, where the penalties are based on yes or no, booze is ignored due to the fact that damned near EVERYONE drinks something sometime, and the nightmare of setting standards is just too unwieldy.
Smokers are singled out because cigarettes are not considered necessary for survival or high quality of life and have been epidemiologically proven to cause a host of issues that are complex and costly.
Causality is an extremely complex and definitive burden of proof.
Issues like food (obesity) and sex (STIs and condoms) have either not been epidemiologically proven to cause health issues and increase medical costs, or are considered essential to quality of life to some extent. As have been elicited from prior comments, there are many complexities to food and sex issues and food and sex are generally considered essential. Cigarettes are not.
The issue of smoking and medical/life insurance costs are all data driven. @LuckyGuy is right. However, you must add the issue of causality. Cigarettes are an easy target. Alcohol is not. Alcohol has not been proven to, in isolation, cause long-term, costly health issues, with the exception of fetal alcohol syndrome (which is why women are discouraged from drinking while pregnant). I’m uninterested in arguing this point. While we know that there are long-term issues from alcohol, studies are unable to disentangle the effects of alcohol from concurrent smoking, partying, low physical activity or other high-risk behaviors that commonly co-occur with high alcohol consumption. Therefore, there are no studies proving causality of long-term health effects and high health costs from alcohol.
Food studies are notoriously complex and ridden with errors. You will not prove that certain diets cause poor health outcomes and high medical costs. Obesity has many causes and the outcomes are complex and intertwined with other health issues. It does not occur in isolation and will not be proven to cause poor health outcomes and high medical costs in epidemiological studies.
@seawulf575 should YOU be charged more for your insurance because your wife smoked? Well, if you were on the same policy I would imagine so.
I grew up in a house where my dad smoked. Didn’t bother me. I have no lasting ill effects.
@Cupcake That doesn’t even make sense. Of course STIs are easily linked to some pretty serious illnesses, including AIDs, herpes, syphilis (and pregnancy! Ha!)
And there are studies upon studies that show to correlation between diabetes and type 2 diabetes, as well as heart disease.
@Cupcake the article I gave from Bloomberg cited heavily on the CDC for the data concerning STIs. Interestingly, I found this article from the CDC concerning smoking and Coronary Vascular Disease
https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/sgr/50th-anniversary/pdfs/fs_smoking_CVD_508.pdf
When I compare the two, it says there are 16 million people in this country with CVD. But when you look at the data concerning STIs, there are 110 million people in this country with STIs. One of the biggest problems is the human papillomavirus which can lead to cancer. So the data is there to make an argument that unprotected sex is every bit as bad as smoking. And that is why I use that as an example of the randomness of attacking just smoking.
@Dutchess_III Again, I understand the hazards of smoking…I get it. But when filling out the forms, they treat potential second hand smoke as being every bit as dangerous as first hand because they will jack up the price for just one person in a household smoking. If they had a price increase per person that smoked, I could see that, but it isn’t. More fodder for the idea that smoking is sort of a random target.
Here’s another thought along that route. What about marijuana? It is getting legalized in many places. Will it drive up health insurance costs if you smoke pot? If so, what about if you are given a prescription? If not, why not? Realistically, pot smoke and tobacco smoke are basically the same chemically. Both have lots of poisonous gases and most times pot doesn’t even use filters to remove the tars.
”....where my dad smoked. Didn’t bother me. I have no lasting ill effects.
Except that you became a long term smoker, and you have not necessarily lived long enough to say you have not has any ill effects. You aren’t out of the woods regarding cancer risk for quite a few more years.
@seawulf575 You say you avoided any deleterious effect from your wife’s smoking because it was not in your presence. However, there is demonstrable negative effects of off-gassing from smokers upon those they live with.
Well, that was my choice @zenvelo. My two sisters did not.
I quit smoking 1 year ago last March. Yes, Rick still smokes. Why do you ask @jca2?
@zenvelo I’ve never heard of “off-gassing” from smokers. Got a link?
@zenvelo Thanks for the link. That looks like stuff that gets hit with second-hand smoke inside a house. It looks like it builds up over time. It also says it is fairly new and they are still trying to figure out the actual hazards of it. When my wife smokes outside, it doesn’t really apply. She isn’t getting the nicotine and other poisons on the walls, on my clothes, on the furniture or the bedding. It is outside. So there is no build up. She might get some on her clothes, but then she washes her clothes regularly so it, again, isn’t a build up. I wouldn’t think that would apply.
@seawulf575 it applies if she smokes outside and then wears her clothes inside. It isn’t a lot, but it is measurable, and puts you and anyone else in the residence at risk.
So if she was outside naked it would be okay? Interesting! I’ll tel her! ;-)
@seawulf575 ;) but in reality, no. It would still be in her hair, and people off gas too.
I am the worst kind of reformed smoker, I cannot abide it at all, despite having been a two pack a day smoker when I quit 30 years ago.
@zenvelo I am a reformed smoker, but never got the angst about smokers after I quit. I did have a friend whose breath always smelled of old coffee and cigarettes and that was offensive. But you know me…I had no problem telling him! After I quit I still had friends that smoked around me and both of my wives smoked. None of that bothered me. I don’t like having a smoke smell in the house, though. Take it outside!
^You have 2 wives? ~
Another issue from smoking or from second hand smoke: I had cataracts early in life and the eye doctor was very surprised. He asked if my parents smoked around me when I was young. They did. Lit up one after another, in closed cars, in the house, it didn’t matter to them.
He thought it was a good possibility that is what made me have cataracts in my late 40’s.
My mom smoked when she was preggers with me.
I’m like Seawolf… it doesn’t bother me at all. The only thing that upsets me is when a little kid in school just reeks of cigarette smoke. It shows a total lack of care for the poor children.
@Dutchess_lll That is exactly my point. Correlation is NOT causation. Smoking cigarettes has been proven to CAUSE a variety of diseases.
And smoking is non-essential, unlike sex.
Yes. Smoking can cause cancer and all kinds of things. That’s why I quit.
I am just saying that other people’s smoking doesn’t bother me, but some people get utterly ridiculous about it, and let their imaginations run wild.
I’ll pull this story out again. It was the 70’s. I was in the KState student union, watching MASH inbetween classes. Smoking was allowed, and they provided tall ash trays for us. So I sat in the end of a row, next to a trash can. Some guy sat down in front of me.
I lit a cigarette and took one puff. The guys immediately starts fanning his face with a piece of paper. He was really exaggerating it. So I immediately put my cigarette out. He continued to fan his face for the next 10 minutes, although there was no smoke any more. Not only that, the place was damn near empty, but he chose to continue sitting right there, in front of me.
That’s what I think of when people here fire up sometimes.
@Cupcake Smoking is non-essential, unlike sex. I guess if you talk to someone that is really hooked on smoking you might get a different answer on that. But I tend to agree with that. What is NOT essential with sex is having unprotected sex. Not using a condom with a partner is a choice, not an essential. I think if you are monogamous and know your partner is disease free and that they are not cheating on you the chance of needing a condom is greatly reduced. And let’s face it, it is the non-use of condoms that are the cause of most, if not all, of the STIs in this world.
@seawulf575: Unfortunately, there are many people who think their relationship is monogamous but it isn’t.
Sex isn’t essential. Food, water, sleep, shelter and air are about the only things that are essential.
It is if humanity wants to live beyond the current generation.
@seawulf575 If condoms and birth control were readily available for all, I would agree with you. If all children/adolescents/young adults were taught comprehensive sexuality education, I would agree with you. They are not. Particularly in the current administration.
” If condoms and birth control were readily available for all, I would agree with you.”
Last I checked you can buy multiple forms of birth control at any grocery store, pharmacy, gas station etc etc for less than it costs to buy a bag of chips or a pack of smokes.
That’s interesting—the concept of sex as an unavoidable essential. I mean should the drive for sex be viewed as a form of addiction? And thinking about it when I look back, had I been repulsed by the smell of cigarette smoke on women or their possessions, I would have been one truly lonely man. I never smoked cigarettes myself, but I can’t think of a single woman with whom I was involved that didn’t smoke like a steam locomotive. To this day, i can go through the list from better than 50 years back listing them by their brands of preference: Chesterfields, Pall Mall, Phillip Morris—do all those brands still exist?
Add me to your list Darlin’. Basic Ultra Lights.
@Dutchess_III Same, remember the tiny ones, Capri’s? We thought we were so hot with our tiny smokes…lol Gotta have something to do after a good bang eh @stanleybmanly?
Misty and Virginia Slims. They were annoying as hell.
They’re good after a bad bang, too! Except not those ^^^^^
@Dutchess_III hahahahaha, good point-that made me LOL.
“They’re good after a bad bang, too!”
You know the phrase, “Shitty shitty bang bang!” Well, if you don’t know it you should!
@Cupcake Condoms are pretty much available to anyone that wants them. They aren’t expensive. But Birth Control is another issue. BC pills or other methods (such as IUDs) do absolutely nothing towards stopping STIs. And that might be part of the problem. Birth Control pills have been really pushed. Especially with the last administration. But those pushing those don’t mention STIs. That is irresponsible. They let the small print or the announcer that speaks faster than an auctioneer to let the public be warned about that. Even condoms aren’t perfect, but they are far better than any other option at preventing STIs. And here’s the kicker: our current push for liberal ideals doesn’t want to hold people accountable for their irresponsibility…they want society to make it right for them. So that brings us back to the original question…why aren’t people that don’t use condoms ostracized or at least billed more from insurance?
I guess the previous administration gave us some credit for having brains and knowing what causes STDs and how to prevent them. Even as a teen I never thought that BC pills prevented STDs. That’s just dumb. But then again, some people will used a hair drying in the shower if someone doesn’t tell them not to.
@seawulf575 So, my husband of 20 years should be billed more for not using a condom when we have sex?
@Dutchess_III I personally don’t your husband should be billed more for not using a condom, but then I’m not sure why I should be penalized for someone else smoking outside. Both are just as random in my mind. And let me remind you that married people do cheat with others on a fairly frequent basis. So if hubby has an affair and gets an STI, he could bring it home to you so that would be two more cases (him and you) that would have to be dealt with medically. I know…he wouldn’t cheat on you. But then again, I haven’t smoked in more than 35 years, but I still have to answer that question on insurance questionnaires.
I know he could but I chose to believe he won’t because I don’t want to dick around with condoms. I crack myself up!
I agree that you shouldn’t be penalized for your wife’s smoking but I guess that’s how your insurance is set up. Our insurance only raised the rates on the individual smoker.
Answer this question 
Composing members:
0
