Take a Puff, Suffer a Penalty

Modesto Bee, A.P. ^ | February 17, 2006 | Lisa Cornwell

[at bay]

Companies are charging smokers more money for health insurance

CINCINNATI — Smokers already feeling pressure from increasing cigarette costs and workplace smoking bans are now feeling squeezed from another direction — health insurance premiums.

A growing number of employers — private and public — are charging employees who use tobacco more money for their health insurance coverage. Employers hope that the higher charges will motivate more employees to stop smoking, resulting in improved health and lower health care costs for the companies and their workers.

"With smokers costing companies about 25 percent more than nonsmokers in the area of health care, it just makes good business sense."

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates $92 billion in lost wages annually in the United States from smokers who die prematurely. In addition, the economic cost of smoking includes $75.5 billion per year in direct health care costs.

"In addition to employers having to pay out more in health care costs, public opinion is now solidly on the side of eliminating smoking, and workers are realizing increasingly that they are having to pay for others' lifestyle choices."

Gannett Co., the nation's largest newspaper publisher, this year began charging its employees who smoke an extra $50 a month for the company's insurance coverage.

"We have some strong feelings that smoking is really bad for employees, and a healthier employee is better for us," said Tara Connell, a spokeswoman for the McLean, Va.-based company.

PepsiCo Inc., based in Purchase, N.Y., has been charging employees who use tobacco $100 annually for a couple of years, and Grand Rapids, Mich.-based Meijer Inc. started charging smokers $25 a month this year. That fee is dropped if smokers complete a smoking-cessation program, said Meijer spokeswoman Judith Clark.

[at bay]

Oh the injustice of it all! Will the insanity ever end? (i.e. a complete ban on the sale of smokeable tobacco will end the insanity of lighting a bonfire in front of one's face and inhaling the waste product).

[GeorgiaDawg32]

"The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates $92 billion in lost wages annually in the United States from smokers who die prematurely."

This sentence makes no sense to me. How can you lose wages on a deceased person? Are companies continuing to pay their salaries? IMHO that's the only way you're losing.

[GeorgiaDawg32]

Yea..wine, then you gotta charge more to the people addicted to fast food, then you have to charge more to people who use cellphones while driving, and finally you have to charge more to anyone that's still breathing since their chances of having health related costs are 100%...

[at bay]

92 Bil would have been paid as wages to workers who apart from smoking would still be alive. Really that hard?

[Gone GF]

If you buy health or life insurance on your own, you pay more. If you drive a fast car or have proven you are more likely than average to have a wreck, you pay more for car insurance. That's life.

[at bay]

92 Bil would have been paid as wages to workers who apart from smoking would still be alive. Really that hard?

[Steve_Seattle]

Imagine the outcry if they charged gays more because their lifestyle led to increased medical costs?

[caver]

"This sentence makes no sense to me. How can you lose wages on a deceased person? Are companies continuing to pay their salaries? IMHO that's the only way you're losing."

They are also saying that it costs more money because they die sooner. How can that happen?

[weegee]

They charge the smokers today.

They charge those who frequent bars tomorrow. You may drink, breath second hand smoke, or pick up an STD from a cheap pickup.

[HEY4QDEMS]

My only question to this is; If I have family coverage and my spouse smokes, do I incur the same penalty as a coworker who smokes but has a non-smoking spouse?

I know that in theory I should.

[fizziwig]

Next it will be high fat foods, or risky pastimes.

Eventually there will be a proscribed low premium lifestyle complete with a list of foods you can eat, activities you can do etc etc. What a sham.

[weegee]

Unemployment would be worse if we had more people. Those aren't all lost wages.

[weegee]

That is politically protected by the lavender mafia.

[jjmcgo]

What do we make of double-crossing liars now in this country? We used to think they were the lowest pieces of s***.
The tobacco settlement paid the social costs of smoking past, present and future.
Smoking costs society nothing because the bill has been paid.
The non-smoking forces got politicians to sign the deal and now they still use the same arguments.
Nothing more smug than a liar with your money in his pockets.

[LongElegantLegs]

I am tired of paying for the cholesterol/blood pressure medication of people who eat meat, but I'm not going to impose my lifestyle on others.

[mysterio]

How much more do the overweight cost? Or drinkers? How about those with a family history of heart disease?

Not too hard to see where this is going. Support it at this stage, and you are a sucker.

[smug]

Ya, lets all be good little Nazi's.

[JamesP81]

Imagine the outcry if they charged gays more because their lifestyle led to increased medical costs?

Hey, fair's fair. If they'll support extra insurance costs for gays and their dangerous lifestyle as well as for smokers, then it would be truly fair.

[Steve_Seattle]

"This sentence makes no sense to me. How can you lose wages on a deceased person? Are companies continuing to pay their salaries? IMHO that's the only way you're losing."

The "lost wages" bit is just one of many pseudo-statistics used by the anti-smoking enthusiasts. Another ploy is to measure the costs of smoking-related disease against those of non-smokers, who are assumed to have NO disease and NO health care costs. The fact is that (excepting accident victims) everyone eventually ages, gets sick, incurs health costs, and dies. The heavy smoker who dies of lung cancer at age 62 might actually be less of a financial burden on the health care system than the "healthy" person who lives to 88 and has a series of chronic health problems in his/her later years, as most do.