For a 55-year-old smoker, the penalty could reach nearly $4,250 a year. A 60-year-old could wind up paying nearly $5,100 on top of premiums.

http://www.capitolhillblue.com/node/46183

USSR, here we are.

Sprinkle in some draconiam gun control, a big tax jump, and get another 20-30% on the dole.....and it's complete.

Already have Pravda in the form of 8-10 formerly commercial ouotlets.

Right now, without Obamacare individual plans cost 10%-40% more for smokers.  You can also be denied coverage entirely for smoking. 

After Obamacare, insurers are allowed to charge up to 50% more, and aren't allowed to deny coverage.  If the real cost is 10%-40%, I imagine some insurers will continue charging that to compete in the marketplace better.

It seems like this provision doesn't change much.

The alternative would be to not allow insurers to price based on smoking, which would raise everyone's premiums.

Quote from: mhughes on January 25, 2013, 11:11:44 AM
Right now, without Obamacare individual plans cost 10%-40% more for smokers.  You can also be denied coverage entirely for smoking. 

After Obamacare, insurers are allowed to charge up to 50% more, and aren't allowed to deny coverage.  If the real cost is 10%-40%, I imagine some insurers will continue charging that to compete in the marketplace better.

It seems like this provision doesn't change much.

The alternative would be to not allow insurers to price based on smoking, which would raise everyone's premiums.

If we're going to be honest, and look at sheer cost and expense, smokers should pay less, under any system.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/05/health/05iht-obese.1.9748884.html?_r=0

http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2012/03/22/alcohol-obesity-and-smoking-do-not-cost-health-care-systems-money/

But, since everything is driven by political agenda, facts don't matter.

Since smoking, (in particular), has been deemed to be a blight on the collective, leftist hive that we call society, smokers are being forced to pay for the long term illnesses that will eventually befall the so called "healthy".

It has been expanded to include any tobacco use, including chewing tobacco. Libs don't like it.

The only way for the current formula, (or the one in Obamacare), to make sense, is to assume that "healthy" people, either live forever or die very quickly; neither of which is true. Healthy people slowly decompose while still breathing.

It's cheaper ... "because both the smokers and the obese people died sooner than the healthy group"

That data isn't relavent in pricing policies that don't cover dead people.

Quote from: mhughes on January 25, 2013, 11:54:42 AM
It's cheaper ... "because both the smokers and the obese people died sooner than the healthy group"

That data isn't relavent in pricing policies that don't cover dead people.

You just made my point, and then said it isn't relevant.

You didn't look at overall healthcare costs. Less is spent on the smokers..............because they die sooner. More healthcare money is spent on the skinny, healthy people. If it costs more to keep them going in the end, why shouldn't they pay more?

The fat smokers consume less of the overall healthcare money pie.

Quote from: mhughes on January 25, 2013, 11:11:44 AM
Right now, without Obamacare individual plans cost 10%-40% more for smokers.  You can also be denied coverage entirely for smoking. 

After Obamacare, insurers are allowed to charge up to 50% more, and aren't allowed to deny coverage.  If the real cost is 10%-40%, I imagine some insurers will continue charging that to compete in the marketplace better.

It seems like this provision doesn't change much.

The alternative would be to not allow insurers to price based on smoking, which would raise everyone's premiums.

Don't miss the big picture here, if they can do that to smokers, what's to stop them from gouging overweight people, not fat, but overweight according to some bureaucrats standards?
There is nothing to stop them, maybe charge more for those that travel more in a year, making them more prone to an accident, or people that travel overseas, coming in contact with disease more often.

Don't think they aren't considering it.

A smoker does pay less, because they don't pay for insurance after they're dead.

A smoker will cost more (on average) per year than a non smoker assuming they're both alive.

This is all in terms of deciding what you pay for health insurance, while alive.

I think this is the study those articles were based off of?
http://eurpub.oxfordjournals.org/content/14/1/95.full.pdf

QuoteResults: Annual direct and indirect costs of ever-smokers were higher than for never-smokers in all age groups of both genders.

Quote from: Solar on January 25, 2013, 12:11:20 PM
Don't miss the big picture here, if they can do that to smokers, what's to stop them from gouging overweight people, not fat, but overweight according to some bureaucrats standards?

There's more fat voters than smoking voters.

I think the free market would work out the travel question since some insurance companies would choose not to increase costs for travelers, and thereby gain more customers.

Quote from: mhughes on January 25, 2013, 12:24:59 PM
A smoker does pay less, because they don't pay for insurance after they're dead.

A smoker will cost more (on average) per year than a non smoker assuming they're both alive.

This is all in terms of deciding what you pay for health insurance, while alive.

I think this is the study those articles were based off of?
http://eurpub.oxfordjournals.org/content/14/1/95.full.pdf

Curious, do they include the increase in taxes to pay for this scam, or just the out of pocket charges?

Quote from: mhughes on January 25, 2013, 12:24:59 PM
A smoker does pay less, because they don't pay for insurance after they're dead.

A smoker will cost more (on average) per year than a non smoker assuming they're both alive.

This is all in terms of deciding what you pay for health insurance, while alive.

I think this is the study those articles were based off of?
http://eurpub.oxfordjournals.org/content/14/1/95.full.pdf

Here's the study. You have to look at the charts:

http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pmed.0050029

The point is, that smokers tend to die more quickly once they get sick.

Let me illustrate:

I'm a smoker. Based on everything I know, I will probably check out between 70-75, although I won't be smoking that long. The healthcare costs incurred will probably not be that high, because I will go fairly quickly.

On the other hand..........

Both my grandmother and her mother lived to 102 and 106, respectively. Both on medicare at age 65 or whatever it is. Non smokers.

Here's the catch: Both of them started falling down in their late 70's. This involved hip replacements, etc. In later life life it was dementia and 24 hour care.

Who costs less money over a lifetime? The healthy non-smokers.

Quote from: kramarat on January 25, 2013, 01:00:01 PM
Here's the study. You have to look at the charts:

http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pmed.0050029

The point is, that smokers tend to die more quickly once they get sick.

Let me illustrate:

I'm a smoker. Based on everything I know, I will probably check out between 70-75, although I won't be smoking that long. The healthcare costs incurred will probably not be that high, because I will go fairly quickly.

On the other hand..........

Both my grandmother and her mother lived to 102 and 106, respectively. Both on medicare at age 65 or whatever it is. Non smokers.

Here's the catch: Both of them started falling down in their late 70's. This involved hip replacements, etc. In later life life it was dementia and 24 hour care.

Who costs less money over a lifetime? The healthy non-smokers.

Damn those pesky facts!
It's why liberal math is so much easier to use than real math, 0 can be greater than 1 or even 100 when necessary.

We're talking about insurance premiums that insurance companies charge people, right?  That's an annual product.

Lifetime costs don't matter when you're pricing an annual product. 

Imagine Bob and Gary.  Both aged 35 in 2013, similar weight, similar background.  Bob smokes.  Gary doesn't.

It doesn't matter that Bob dies in 2014 and Gary doesn't.  Bob has a higher risk of having health problems than Gary.  Insurance is all about risk, so insurance costs more.

Age is the other factor that insurance companies are allowed to vary prices on.  So Sue is paying more as she gets older and falls apart.

Lifetime costs don't matter when you're pricing an annual product.

Quote from: mhughes on January 25, 2013, 01:23:54 PM
We're talking about insurance premiums that insurance companies charge people, right?  That's an annual product.

Lifetime costs don't matter when you're pricing an annual product. 

Imagine Bob and Gary.  Both aged 35 in 2013, similar weight, similar background.  Bob smokes.  Gary doesn't.

It doesn't matter that Bob dies in 2014 and Gary doesn't.  Bob has a higher risk of having health problems than Gary.  Insurance is all about risk, so insurance costs more.

Age is the other factor that insurance companies are allowed to vary prices on.  So Sue is paying more as she gets older and falls apart.

Lifetime costs don't matter when you're pricing an annual product.

What does matter is double pricing via taxation then premiums.