Gary_Yngve Posted February 16, 2006 Posted February 16, 2006 Companies are starting to charge smokers extra for healthcare plans: http://www.cnn.com/2006/HEALTH/02/16/smokers.insurance.ap/index.html Personally, I think smoking is foul and gross, and I'm sure my healthcare premiums are higher because of smokers. From that respect, I favor charging smokers. On the other hand, I don't want folks to get the idea that climbers should pay higher premiums too. Opinions? Quote
cj001f Posted February 16, 2006 Posted February 16, 2006 Drinkers are next. After that comes the foie gras. Quote
Alasdair Posted February 16, 2006 Posted February 16, 2006 Yea smoking is proven to shorten your life. Climbing is not. Quote
cj001f Posted February 16, 2006 Posted February 16, 2006 Yea smoking is proven to shorten your life. Climbing is not. You aren't really that dim are you? Climbing is more dangerous than the "average", so is smoking. Both have risks quantifiable over broad populations assoicated with them. Both have societal benefits that are hard to calculate and defineable costs that are relatively easy to quantify. It comes to how society views those activities - smoking was tolerated, even encouraged, for a long time. No longer. Quote
Cobra_Commander Posted February 16, 2006 Posted February 16, 2006 I'm gonna take up smoking just so that when I quit all those great things happen to me just because I quit smoking. Quote
MisterMo Posted February 16, 2006 Posted February 16, 2006 OK smoking is bad, bad, bad. A truly unwise thing to do. No quarrel there. That said, everybody dies, and if you make it out of your twenties and escape the auto wreck lottery, chances become much stronger that you'll die of some disease. So if you don't die of lung disease but instead fall prey to one of the many other killers, how much lower will the cost of your care be. Doesn't all of that other shit that kills you cost a fortune as well? Climbers may only escape scrutiny because their numbers are so small. Private pilots, race drivers, and the like enjoy (I think) higher insurance costs. Quote
JayB Posted February 16, 2006 Posted February 16, 2006 This is already a big factor in life insurance markets. I personally think that if going after smokers and fat-people is okay - which I think it is - climbers should be fair game too. I think if the actuaries actually crunched the numbers there's be a fairly good tradeoff between the extra expenses associated with injuries, and the extra health benefits associated with the extra activity. The fact that climbing injuries are so often fatal would probably also mitigate the expense somewhat, which explains why most health insurers could care less about skydiving when figuring out how much to charge for coverage. Quote
Johnny_Tuff Posted February 16, 2006 Posted February 16, 2006 Ah, but smoking ups your chances of contracting hateful lungchunk disease by a factor of a million, eh. Quote
Johnny_Tuff Posted February 16, 2006 Posted February 16, 2006 This is already a big factor in life insurance markets. I personally think that if going after smokers and fat-people is okay - which I think it is - climbers should be fair game too. I think if the actuaries actually crunched the numbers there's be a fairly good tradeoff between the extra expenses associated with injuries, and the extra health benefits associated with the extra activity. The fact that climbing injuries are so often fatal would probably also mitigate the expense somewhat, which explains why most health insurers could care less about skydiving when figuring out how much to charge for coverage. What about the health benefits of an active outdoor lifestyle? And are climbers any more injury-prone than other athletes? Been watching the Olympix lately? Every third athlete is either injured, on the comeback from an injury, or will be getting injured in tomorrow's practice run. Quote
Alasdair Posted February 17, 2006 Posted February 17, 2006 Yea smoking is proven to shorten your life. Climbing is not. You aren't really that dim are you? Climbing is more dangerous than the "average", so is smoking. Both have risks quantifiable over broad populations assoicated with them. Both have societal benefits that are hard to calculate and defineable costs that are relatively easy to quantify. It comes to how society views those activities - smoking was tolerated, even encouraged, for a long time. No longer. For the good majority of things that an insurance company would consider climbing the drive there is more dangerous than the climb itself. Quote
MisterMo Posted February 17, 2006 Posted February 17, 2006 Ah, but smoking ups your chances of contracting hateful lungchunk disease by a factor of a million, eh. Of course. But a million, a billion, a brazilian. Not contracting smoking caused disease doesn't mean you won't get any disease. Not dying from smoking doesn't mean you won't die. Something's gonna get ya Higher health insurance premiums for smokers are actuarily justified if the cost of those people's health care, on a long term, to-the-grave basis is significantly higher than those who do not smoke and ultimately die from other medical conditions. If one person dies at, say, 60 from smoking related causes couldn't their lifelong healthcare be cheaper than some one who dies at 90 form another cause? I'm not trying to defend smoking but I sometimes get the sense in these sorts of exchanges that people get the illusion that non-smokers don't die at all, or that when they do they go peacefully (and cheaply) in their sleep. Few are so lucky. Most of us are alotted an expensive little bit of misery on the way out. Quote
Cobra_Commander Posted February 17, 2006 Posted February 17, 2006 Been watching the Olympix lately? Every third athlete is either injured, on the comeback from an injury, or will be getting injured in tomorrow's practice run. Those f'ing Olympians. I'm sick of them leaning on our healthcare system. Quote
Winter Posted February 17, 2006 Posted February 17, 2006 The analogy between smoking and climbing doesn't make sense. Smoking is wide spread and kills millions of people, so the health insurance companies have a huge financial incentive to distinguish between smokers and non-smokers. There aren't enough climbers or enough climbing accidents to make it worth their time to sort out who climbs and who doesn't. None of you dirtbags has health insurance anyway so who cares? Quote
Johnny_Tuff Posted February 17, 2006 Posted February 17, 2006 Nonsense! I milk that shit for every tendon tweak! Best way to stock up on 800mg Ibu's. Quote
foraker Posted February 17, 2006 Posted February 17, 2006 Having the insurance companies know you climb will only occur if a) you tell them (dummy!) or b) they've been data mining your purchases (boo!) and put 2 and 2 together or c) we get those lovely new national ID cards that tell everything about you but keep us 'safe' from terrorists (yay for freedom!). Once you become a registered climber, you will likely only be allowed to climb in designated 'safe' climbing areas, under supervision. If you cannot climb harder than 5.9 trad, you will have to go before an insurance industry certified board and take classes if you want to try a 5.10. Being a beginning climber will make your rates go up because you're a bumbly. Climbing harder will make your rates go up because you are assuming more risk. Your rates will not go down because you are 'healthier' (since, because of your shopping records, we know you have a penchant for cigs, booze, cheap hamburgers, and unprotected sex with goats). Most imporantly, your rates will not go down because you need to be subsidizing our profits and everyone else on the system who has something worse than you do. Quote
Gary_Yngve Posted February 17, 2006 Author Posted February 17, 2006 Wouldn't an insurance company deny you money if you got hurt climbing but had denied climbing on the application? Sure, maybe climbing is a little of a stretch, but I wanted a provocative example. Quote
MisterMo Posted February 17, 2006 Posted February 17, 2006 Wouldn't an insurance company deny you money if you got hurt climbing but had denied climbing on the application? Of course, and rightly so if they had asked and you had misrepresented that fact. I think some companies and governments are moving towards plans that reward participants (through reduced copays or ?) who follow through on some portion of a list of healthy choices. I think King County does this. Don't know all the items but I'm pretty sure tobacco, diet, and excercise are on there. Excercise was the awfully minimal 20 or 30 minutes 3 times a week if I remember. Gotta start somewhere Quote
Bill_Simpkins Posted February 17, 2006 Posted February 17, 2006 (edited) If any of you don't know me, I am a Financial Analyst for an National insurance company. I can tell you that we are not that concerned about accidents and such. Broken bones and rare accidents don't even show up on our radars. We are mainly concerned with chronic diseases and chronic conditions, ones that bring in large bills every month, year after year. Those are the main things that are effecting health insurance decisions (obesity, cancer, diabetes, liver failure). I tell you we would rather have someone out climbing than sitting on the couch. The reason there are separate plans for smokers is because we need them to pay a higher premium just to pretty much break even. The alternate is to raise the rates for people who don't smoke, then you lose customers. Remember that all types of people work at insurance companies, even climbers. Edited February 17, 2006 by Bill_Simpkins Quote
foraker Posted February 17, 2006 Posted February 17, 2006 If they weren't going to cover you for denying you were climbing, do you think they were going to cover you if you told them, before hand, that you were? I doubt it. I've seen too many insurance policies where any sport involving ropes or climbing is excluded. Quote
Bill_Simpkins Posted February 17, 2006 Posted February 17, 2006 I havn't seen one. I have health insurance. Can you show me a policy where this is the case? Quote
MisterMo Posted February 17, 2006 Posted February 17, 2006 We are mainly concerned with chronic diseases and chronic conditions, ones that bring in large bills every month, year after year. Those are the main things that are effecting health insurance decisions (obesity, cancer, diabetes, liver failure). The reason there are separate plans for smokers is because we need them to pay a higher premium just to pretty much break even. Thank you. That is sort of the data I was looking for. On another note I've been fortunate enough to have employer (and before that union) paid health insurance pretty much my whole adult life. Nobody has ever asked me diddly & I've pretty much formed an impression that those plans take everyone in a group regardless of individual variables. Quote
Bill_Simpkins Posted February 17, 2006 Posted February 17, 2006 Many employers have group plans. Basically a buy in bulk method with no underwriting. Quote
foraker Posted February 17, 2006 Posted February 17, 2006 Crap, now I have to go dig out my policy. Quote
wfinley Posted February 17, 2006 Posted February 17, 2006 My concern is that in doing this a door of sorts is opened. If we charge smokers extra then wouldn't it be logical to next charge drinkers, followed by extra costs of your family has a history of illness, followed by extra costs if you eat red meat, have illicit sex etc. etc.? Isn't heart disease the number one killer? In that sense it makes just as much sense to charge fat people extra as well as smokers. Quote
magellan Posted February 17, 2006 Posted February 17, 2006 Both have societal benefits What are the benefits of smoking? Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.