Most Americans believe smokers, obese should pay more health care costs

[Laurent]

Smokers, obese should pay more health insurance: poll
By Kim Dixon
Tue Nov 14, 4:20 PM ET

CHICAGO (Reuters) - Most Americans believe smokers and obese people should pay more for health insurance, but they have mixed views on how to help the millions without any health insurance, according to a survey published on Tuesday.

The poll of about 1,500 people found that that about 80 percent believe the U.S. health insurance system, with 46.6 million uninsured, needs fixing.

Sixty percent of those polled favored higher premiums for smokers while 30 percent felt the obese should pay more.

"When it comes to personal responsibility, consumers increasingly support making people pay more for unhealthy behavior," said the report in the journal Health Affairs.

The survey came a week after Democrats, who generally support more government measures to help the uninsured than Republicans, won control of both houses of Congress.

And on Monday, the health insurance industry unexpectedly threw its support behind a plan for nearly universal health insurance.

The rate of uninsured, now nearly 16 percent of Americans, has been climbing for years, driven by consumer demand and escalating prices for prescription drugs and hospital care.

About 20 percent of large employers are already giving discounts to workers who do not smoke, according to Helen Darling, president of the National Business Group on Health, which lobbies for corporations on health issues.

"The non-smoker's discount is growing in popularity and I think it is going to grow faster," she said.

As to obesity, "I think it will be a while before we get to the point where people begin tying a financial discount to something like BMI (body mass index)," she said.

AMBIGUITY ON GOVERNMENT ROLE

The poll of 1,517 people conducted in July 2006 found consumers are ambiguous on the role of government and health insurance.

Two-thirds said government should move toward universal health insurance, but 55 percent said the government's role should be limited to help the poor, unemployed and those otherwise unable to buy it.

Said Darling: "Our view is that it has to be shared responsibility; the government is going to have to pay," meaning taxpayers.

About 52 percent of those polled supported mandatory insurance, while 48 percent said it should be left the individual to decide.

Massachusetts and Vermont this year enacted laws requiring individuals and employers to help fund nearly universal health insurance in their states.

America's Health Insurance Plans, the trade group for health insurers, has proposed a $300 billion, 10-year plan to extend coverage first to the poor and later to most adults.

A second study published in Health Affairs said employers, which cover more than 90 percent of the workforce, still view health insurance as a key recruitment tool.

That survey of about 3,000 managers found about two-thirds of employers believe they should share in health insurance costs for workers, which could include paying into a fund for the uninsured.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20061114/pl_nm/insurance_dc

I agree, they both should pay more health insurance.

I'm going to make this into a poll just to see what everyone thinks on this board, not just Americans.

[crumpet]

For what it's worth, people who have children or want maternity benefits should pay extra for that,too. A woman who has 3 kids in a 6 year period is utilizing an awful lot of benefits considering prenatal, delivery, and doctor's visits. That's not trying to knock folks who are or who want to be parents, but it is fair to say that it is an expense that non-parental types would like to not have to pay for in their insurance premiums.
To that you could also add that people who have chronic medical conditions (which are the biggest expenditure in health care) should have to pay more, especially if they are non-compliant in their healthcare recommendations (med non-compliance, refusing to control diet and refusal to exercise).

[greysfang]

Originally Posted by crumpet

For what it's worth, people who have children or want maternity benefits should pay extra for that,too. A woman who has 3 kids in a 6 year period is utilizing an awful lot of benefits considering prenatal, delivery, and doctor's visits.

Exactly! I was really pissed off once at a job where I was paying outrageous premiums on insurance for me and one kid and the woman sitting next to me (with 6 kids and one on the way) was paying the exact same. It doesn't seem fair no matter how anyone attempts to slice it up.

[cynic]

But this all leads to a slippery slope of what "value" is put on life. If a "normal" delivery costs about $3,000 and a "premie" delivery costs about $30,000........

Or if there is one liver available for donation, to whom do you give it first, a 20-year-old or a 40-year-old? What if one of them has another medical problem, does the "healthier" individual get the liver?

Tough questions......and as people demand more and more health care that they can't pay for.....the questions will get tougher......

I do agree that high-risk behavior should carry higher premiums. But, then ya gotta charge motorcycle riders more than people who drive cars......what if I like to pick my nose while walking, thereby increasing my chance of poking myself in the eye?.......

[Mel1973]

I hate the insurance companies - I hate alot of things today, or so it seems. The insurance companies do things that are penny wise and pound foolish, if you get my drift (don't worry, if you don't, I'm gonna explain).
1) Insurance companies refuse to pay for medication that would help people quit smoking but .... they will cover your chemo, radiation, reconstructive surgery and so on once you get cancer.
2)Insurance companies do not cover diet pills for fat people but ........ once you are "morbidly obese" they will cover - 100% - that damned lap band surgery!

Frankly, those two instances right there have been irking me here lately. And, when I look at those same two instances, then I say hell yeah, bring on higher rates!

[moomies]

I'd think that at least some people may be obese due to other medical conditions/prescription meds and so on?

How about anorexics and alchies, druggies? Shouldn't they pay more, too? How about people with AIDS, who may or may not have contracted HIV through carelessness?
Anyone selfish enough (so they appear to some) to bring on a disease on to themselves are going to be asked to pay more. Not sure how fair that is when most normal people don't know or lack the medical knowledge how much is actually about personal responsibility and how much is to do with an uncontrollable disease. I think it's all subjective and will be hard to enforce as a policy.

[crumpet]

I think it's all subjective and will be hard to enforce as a policy.

I agree. It's just that smokers and fat people are easy targets for finger pointing. I know a woman who was trying to get pregnant with her first child after she got married for the first time at age 42. Now, we all know that this will be a high risk pregnancy. Yet she continues to pursue this. Birth defects are always a possibility, but if someone willfully gets into a risky medical condition should their insurance cost them more? I guess it just irks me that when it comes to making babies it seems that all bets are off, we should all pay for other peoples' family planning (or lack of) because babies are a gift from gawd even if they are born with 3 arms and two heads and the mom knew she was a high risk for it. Many insurance companies won't pay for abortion ($300-$500) but they will pay for some drunk to keep squirting out one FAS baby after another.

[cynic]

Originally Posted by Mel1973

I hate the insurance companies - I hate alot of things today, or so it seems. The insurance companies do things that are penny wise and pound foolish, if you get my drift (don't worry, if you don't, I'm gonna explain).
1) Insurance companies refuse to pay for medication that would help people quit smoking but .... they will cover your chemo, radiation, reconstructive surgery and so on once you get cancer.
2)Insurance companies do not cover diet pills for fat people but ........ once you are "morbidly obese" they will cover - 100% - that damned lap band surgery!

Frankly, those two instances right there have been irking me here lately. And, when I look at those same two instances, then I say hell yeah, bring on higher rates!

They look at the success rates for those two items and it's not very high.....they feel that they would have to pay more in the long run by paying for the "quitting" methods and then still have to pay for the treatments once the "quitting" methods fail.

[sputnik]

no. just as i don't think women in a certain age bracket should pay more because that's when they're likely to have children.
it's a slippery slope indeed and as medical science advances, insurance companies (all bastards!) might want to start gene testing too to see if you're at a risk of developing something later (and costing them money), like diabetes, cancer, etc...
no way, those bloodsucking asses make it hard enough to have stuff covered as it is, they don't need encouragement.

IMO the way to go is taxes: tax the hell out of alcohol, cigarettes, and i'd tax junk food and sugar too. it's cheaper to eat crap than food that's good for you. if that were to change, it would make it easier for people to have healthy eating habits.

[moomies]

I think taxing would be a good idea for countries that have universal healthcare (e.g. Europe, Canada), but I don't know if many Americans would like that option since most have private insurance? (I don't know how it really works over there in the US but I get the feeling that most people only want to pay for what they are personally accounted for, even education).

[cynic]

Originally Posted by sputnik

no. just as i don't think women in a certain age bracket should pay more because that's when they're likely to have children.
it's a slippery slope indeed and as medical science advances, insurance companies (all bastards!) might want to start gene testing too to see if you're at a risk of developing something later (and costing them money), like diabetes, cancer, etc...
no way, those bloodsucking asses make it hard enough to have stuff covered as it is, they don't need encouragement.

IMO the way to go is taxes: tax the hell out of alcohol, cigarettes, and i'd tax junk food and sugar too. it's cheaper to eat crap than food that's good for you. if that were to change, it would make it easier for people to have healthy eating habits.

I'm playing the devil's advocate here, but the taxes never go to cover the costs of the behavior. The government uses the taxes on cigarettes for everything BUT the increased health care costs of smoking.

I can't blame the insurance companies without blaming the consumers who expect to abuse themselves and then expect a medical miracle to save them from themselves......and all at someone else's expense.....

I live in an area where it seems no women go through natural menopause any more. Nearly 80% of our office staff have had hysterectomies because they had "painful" menopause symptoms. And, to be fair, men in their 80's getting prostrate surgery? Why get surgery for a cancer that takes decades to affect most men? Because they are scared and want a "surgical promise" that they won't ever die......

[Lobelia]

Coming into this thread, I impulsively thought, "yeah, both groups should pay more" but some really good points have been brought up, so now I don't know. Hmmm.

[moomies]

Alcohol and cigs are so much cheaper in the US compared to others though. Maybe you guys aren't taxing enough. Oh and food is a lot cheaper there, too and the portions you get are way bigger! So there are certain things that enable people to be obese and addicts but then people have to control themselves, too.

[AliceInWonderland]

agreeed and agreeed! Why should a healthy person pay for a self-induced unhealthy asshole?!

[Laurent]

Originally Posted by moomies

Alcohol and cigs are so much cheaper in the US compared to others though. Maybe you guys aren't taxing enough.

I think ciggies are around $3 a pack, maybe? I have no idea if that's a regional price or if it's fixed. What are they in Canada?

I agree, the price should be jacked up on them. Any time any type of tax is suggested, people who don't even smoke freak out at the word tax.