smoking and healthcare premiums

[JayB]

I think that the Federal government actually turns a profit on smokers because the extra medical costs are outweighed by the reduction in social security payouts due to increased mortality. It's been a while, but I think that there was a RAND study that came out on this a while ago.

[cj001f]

Both have societal benefits

 

What are the benefits of smoking?

 

Fashion models. People attached some benefit to it - they spent billions of dollars on cigarettes.

[crackers]

hey jay, i'm not trying to pick on your posts, it's just happening that way!

 

 

um no. no. and no. That's crap. The government in no way shape or form makes money on smokers.

 

my fiance works at a health policy think tank. They do about half of the health policy analysis and planning that happens in this country. The only group more costly on a short or long term basis than smokers is early onset diabetics with other comorbities related to being fat.

 

i think that all the policy wonks and their ilk that actually develop rates for health care companies wish they could either segregate fat people out of groups or charge fat people more.

[dalius]

I think people are confusing health insurance and life insurance .

 

As far as health insurance goes, I've never heard of companies discriminating against climbers. But when it comes to life insurance, I think they do. If you sign up for life insurance, they ask you tons of questions, including questions about what dangerous sports you participate in. I believe the life insurance companies can deny coverage if you die doing those dangerous sports. If you lie on the application and tell them you don't climb and then you go off and die climbing or base jumping and they found out you lied (ie climbed at time of application) then your family could be screwed. Wasn't there a discussion on the life insurance issue on cc.com a while back?

 

On another note - you always hear people saying that driving is more dangerous than climbing, but is it? Or is it just a way for climbers to tell themselves their sport isn't that dangerous. Where's the data? Is it based on per capita or total accidents? I guess to really answer this question you have to take a look at different sub-groups within climbing as well and compare them. Bouldering not dangerous (unless you're climbing 30' highballs), free soloing himalayan alpine routes dangerous. Discuss.

[cj001f]

On another note - you always hear people saying that driving is more dangerous than climbing, but is it? Or is it just a way for climbers to tell themselves their sport isn't that dangerous. Where's the data? Is it based on per capita or total accidents? I guess to really answer this question you have to take a look at different sub-groups within climbing as well and compare them. Bouldering not dangerous (unless you're climbing 30' highballs), free soloing himalayan alpine routes dangerous. Discuss.

Already was discussed in a rock&ice magazine circa mid-90s. They even provided #s.

[dalius]

They have that stuff available online somewhere? I don't collect climbing rags.

[JayB]

I think people are confusing health insurance and life insurance .

 

As far as health insurance goes, I've never heard of companies discriminating against climbers. But when it comes to life insurance, I think they do. If you sign up for life insurance, they ask you tons of questions, including questions about what dangerous sports you participate in. I believe the life insurance companies can deny coverage if you die doing those dangerous sports. If you lie on the application and tell them you don't climb and then you go off and die climbing or base jumping and they found out you lied (ie climbed at time of application) then your family could be screwed. Wasn't there a discussion on the life insurance issue on cc.com a while back?

 

On another note - you always hear people saying that driving is more dangerous than climbing, but is it? Or is it just a way for climbers to tell themselves their sport isn't that dangerous. Where's the data? Is it based on per capita or total accidents? I guess to really answer this question you have to take a look at different sub-groups within climbing as well and compare them. Bouldering not dangerous (unless you're climbing 30' highballs), free soloing himalayan alpine routes dangerous. Discuss.

 

It seems pretty clear to me that if people spent as much time climbing as they did driving there'd be no mistaking which was the more dangerous.

[Johnny_Tuff]

It seems pretty clear to me that if people spent as much time climbing as they did driving there'd be no mistaking which was the more dangerous.

 

Driving?

 

Something about the nature of climbing that is different from driving, let's see...oh, yeah, there aren't thousands of climbers speeding back and forth on a route at 70 miles per. And look, for example, at our dear Smith Rock Tuffpile. Every fuggin' weekend, swarms of people are driving about 2.5 hours to get there, climbing all day for two days, and driving about 2.5 hours back. I only remember a handful of accidents in nearly 15 years climbing there.

[JayB]

hey jay, i'm not trying to pick on your posts, it's just happening that way!

 

 

um no. no. and no. That's crap. The government in no way shape or form makes money on smokers.

 

my fiance works at a health policy think tank. They do about half of the health policy analysis and planning that happens in this country. The only group more costly on a short or long term basis than smokers is early onset diabetics with other comorbities related to being fat.

 

i think that all the policy wonks and their ilk that actually develop rates for health care companies wish they could either segregate fat people out of groups or charge fat people more.

 

I didn't say I thought that it was the most accurate analysis, just that someone had come to such a conclusion - which caught my attention because I couldn't help but think about the policy implications if it were true. I think that you might be to make the case for Social Security payouts, but still register a net loss when taking into account other spending, lost tax revenue from premature mortality, missed-work days, medicaid payouts, etc.

 

Anyway - I think that this might be the study I was thinking of, but there's a bunch more that disagree with this finding.

 

"A life-cycle study by Manning and others estimated the health care and other costs of smokers. One estimate grouped together private and public pension benefits, Social Security payments, veterans' compensation, and other public payments. The study concluded that over their lifetimes, smokers received about 9 percent less of such income than did nonsmokers. The Manning team's study also looked at how much smokers and nonsmokers paid in earnings-related taxes. It found that smokers paid about 2 percent less in those taxes than did nonsmokers as a result of their shorter life spans and higher incidence of disability.

 

When the excess medical costs of smokers were taken into account, Manning found that the net costs of smoking that were not paid directly by smokers or their families were equivalent to 33 cents per pack of cigarettes (in 1995 dollars). That cost is well below the combined federal and average state excise taxes of about 56 cents per pack. But those who are paying extra costs because of smoking-related illnesses are not necessarily being fully compensated for the costs. For example, although smoking reduces the costs of some benefits such as pensions, the benefit plans that receive such savings generally do not also pay the additional costs that result from smoking. Similarly, the revenue from excise taxes on cigarettes is not directly distributed to entities, such as private health plans, that incur the greatest additional costs of smoking"

 

Much more on this stuff here:

 

http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=407&sequence=2

 

Much more complicated than you'd think.

[Dechristo]

It seems pretty clear to me that if people spent as much time climbing as they did driving there'd be no mistaking which was the more dangerous.

 

Driving?

 

Something about the nature of climbing that is different from driving, let's see...oh, yeah, there aren't thousands of climbers speeding back and forth on a route at 70 miles per. And look, for example, at our dear Smith Rock Tuffpile. Every fuggin' weekend, swarms of people are driving about 2.5 hours to get there, climbing all day for two days, and driving about 2.5 hours back. I only remember a handful of accidents in nearly 15 years climbing there.

 

Put down da pipe.