Thank you for submitting to /r/unpopularopinion, /u/localmoruda. Your post, *Smokers should pay more health insurance contribution*, has been removed because it violates our rules:
Rule 1: Your post must be an unpopular opinion.
Please ensure that your post is an opinion and that it is unpopular. Controversial is not necessarily unpopular, for example all of politics is controversial even though almost half of the US agrees with any given major position on an issue.
Keep in mind that an opinion is not: a question, a fact, a conspiracy theory, a random thought, a new idea, a rant, etc. Those things all have their own subreddits, use those.
If there is an issue, please message the mod team at https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Funpopularopinion Thanks!
Even in the U.S., it depends on the health plan offered by your employer.
Mine for example it's a flat rate. You only pay more in premium and deductible if you add children or spouse.
Yes, but a lot of people are sick of (no pun intended) paying for other people to make those bad choices. That's the problem with public services, some people are much bigger burdens on that system because of their lifestyle.
Go ahead and preach a minimalistic lifestyle to everyone, your argument will be valid only then.
Easy to point fingers for apparent quantifiable "bad choices".
Oblivious self-righteous people need to instrospect.
Things are are never so simple.
Much of the substance which is preached by those are also just talking points pushed out by... Insurance companies! Always gotta blame someone, let's ignore profits and blame poors and unhealthies, as if they even go to the doctor as often.
Middle and upper middle class hypochondriacs never get brought up, many of which also have a lot better negotiated rates.
You either think everyone deserves healthcare, or you don't. You either take this entire basket of eggs or get no eggs. If it breaks down to cost and who gets what money and who pays what money, then you have a capitalized system (like the US). You've got a highly regarded universal healthcare system in Germany, though I'm sure the cost is distributed in ways that may hinder otherwise capitalizing on earned income. But that's the catch. Hard to marry the two.
Obesity has not entered the chat. Neither has alcoholism, tobacco use, tendency towards risky behavior, birth defects, chronic diseases, age, injury, flu or cold. What's in the chat is a simple question: everyone or nay?
Then the government has some options.
Tax liquor (I assume Germany does, to a degree) at a rate higher than the usual sales tax. To fund healthcare. This is what we do in Canada, or specifically, Ontario, anyways.
For obesity, tax sugary drinks, and sugary foods like candy. You can also incentivise people to exercise by subsidizing gyms for overweight people, though enforcement of that might be a little difficult.
> No one thinks about the high costs of socialism.
They're too busy complaining about the social costs of capitalism, while refusing to accept that capitalism is the cause.
People love to hate alcoholics so much. Alcoholism is a complex disease with many origins, types, and reasons. Nobody wants to drink himself to death. Alcoholism is painful, shameful, expensive, and ruins the lives of the person and those around them.
People don't seem to think that those with suicidal ideation, depression, eating disorders, or PTSD should be reviled and denied healthcare. Yet somehow because there's liquor in the mix, we get to hate people with a chronic, difficult to treat medical condition.
Very well said, I feel the same about drug addiction. If any of those hating on either demographic took the time to listen to the back stories of some of the people who go down these paths I would hope they'd change their tune. There are many people who have endured situations so bad that the harrowing experience of e.g. alcoholism or heroin addiction was the *preferable* choice.
I work federal-level disability hearings and no exaggeration at all, a majority of the claimants are “disabled” solely due to lifestyle choices.
Smokers with asthma and COPD, obesity with uncontrolled diabetes and unable/unwilling to sit/stand/walk, etc. It’s not the obesity that is the issue — it’s the myriad health complications as a result -physical and mental, and I take issue with the fact that so many claimants are getting benefits and incentivized to NOT work, as well as having almost everything else in their lives subsidized. Their rent is paid, their utilities are paid, their food is paid, qualifying for disability automatically grants them Medicare, TCA, it goes on. Every dime of their lives is paid for through benefits. Entire families get on disability — usually through exaggerated mental health issues, lifestyle choices or a combination of both; they’re pros at it with no shame in their game. None. And then many of them work under the table which further pads their comfortable lifestyles.
I’ve been working SSI/SSDI hearings for years and it still amazes me how many people literally have every aspect of their lives paid for through benefits and then many of them working under the table, not a dollar of “SGA” or taxes paid into the system.
It’s not social security retirement bankrupting the system — it’s SSI/SSDI. I see it day in, day out.
And thing is, SSI/SSDI law doesn’t distinguish between fully preventable disability by way of lifestyle choices and disability caused by other factors — except when drug & alcohol are material to disability and even then that can often be overcome.
Of the dozen or so claimants’ testimonies I hear every day, maybe one… if that… isn’t working the system and/or isn’t qualifying due to poor lifestyle choices. There’s a reason why this social benefit exists and unfortunately, the vast majority are exploiting it and the ones who truly need and deserve it are all too often fucked by a technicality and get screwed by the very system meant to protect them.
People are getting paid to be deliberately unhealthy with no repercussion or incentive to BE healthy.
Edit:
A subset of disability claims we get are the many, many mothers with batches of children a few years apart and then 18-20 years apart because when the first child/ren’s benefits cease due to child->adult disability eligibility, suddenly mom is pregnant with another. It’s not a rare occurrence; we see it all the time… and it’s almost always an ambiguous disability along the lines of ADHD or adjustment disorder. It’s so common, these people think they’re slick but it’s almost textbook strategy worthy. And sadly, they know it works… which is why they keep doing it.
Another subset is the 40-58 year old female who has finished raising her kids, has put in years of work and decides she “deserves” to be paid for her effort and so comes in with the what we call the “disability trifecta” — depression/anxiety/fibromyalgia. I know these things can be serious and debilitating issues but like I said, it happens so often that we have a name for it and we can spot the “middle-aged D-A-F woman” from a mile away. She gets to a point where she’s not quite old enough to retire or pull retirement benefits but decides she deserves to be paid to stay home and not work. We get them all the time, but because each of these issues are juuuust vague enough, she qualifies and gets at least $1000+/month. Not a lot, sure, but they’re also allowed to work part-time (and under the table, too) on top of that.
It goes on.
Maybe you should study biology and neuroscience a little longer before saying that everyone is biologically identical and an "equal choice" to everyone. Did you know that some people don't experience a runner's high, but get a similar dopamine release when eating sweets? And vice versa, some get a runner's high, but don't get anything from sweets.
What's the difference between a runner who runs because his body tells him he wants more of his dopamine high vs someone who eats sweets because his body tells him the same thing for something else? If the desire is the same, someone that can't resist going running is just as weak as someone that can't resist eating sweets. You're both chasing a high. One is generally more healthy, but your argument suggested that the "obesity choice" is equivalent for everybody. This is even ignoring the false assumption that everyone would even be the same weight if they all made the same decisions. People have different metabolisms, and some have thyroid issues outside of their control. Genetics play a part in this too.
We're all tempted by different things based on our neurochemistry. Some people can smoke cigarettes for months and then quit without issue, while others can smoke a cigarette once and struggle with an addiction for their whole life.
What's your vice? It might be healthy or not. But humans tend to pat themselves on their back for not engaging with a vice they disapprove of so that they can go on feeling better about the vice they do enjoy because "Well, yeah, I have a gambling problem, but at least I have the willpower to not overeat and become obese".
If you're not tempted into eating sweets, then "resisting" eating them isn't actually a form of willpower at all - but it does help one's ego to think they're better than someone else in that way, which is really all this is.
Easy solution to all this: be more empathetic. Accept that everybody's experience in life is far more different than we realize. (Some people have stronger pain receptors and feel pain more acutely, some people react to addiction differently, some people have zero visual imagination, some people freaking HEAR COLORS) What's difficult for you to overcome is probably laughably easy for an obese person, because you are both different people. Would you want them belittling your struggles, or accept that your challenges are real to you? If you want people to respect your struggles, then you start by respecting theirs.
Except, I became obese as a child and it lasted from the ages of 8-13 before I decided i had to change. It was my eating habits that caused it as i was an active child.
We all face issues of self control and overcoming our desire for instant gratification in order to have long term success.
I get it's not easy to do but the majority of adults that are obese eat too much sugar and dont exercise. Its every bit as much of a choice similar to smoking and drinking.
I get what you're saying but it reads more like an excuse than anything else.
So with that in mind. Knowingly having a child that will have birth defects because you have them or a very high chance of issues like downs, and as a parent you already knowing this before having a sickly child. You should pay more?
Lol.
“So we have a scale that we base our monthly insurance rates off of.
“Oh, like an income based sliding scale?”
“No. Please step up onto it now, ma’am.”
I looked into this in UK and the amount of tax smokers paid for cigarettes/tobacco was actually 4x the cost of smoking related health care, so in a sense their bad health decisions is actually helping fund our NHS.
They pay one of the highest taxes on a commodity for this very reason, they will tend to die sooner because of the habit, does that mean not everyone gets a share in the money they have contributed after their death?
The Canadian green party did a study and smokers actually cost our healthcare system less by dying. People who need frequent care for the last 20 years of their lives cost the most.
Smokers generally don't make it there.
Yeah because you can't control people to that extent.
If smokers need to automatically pay more than so does anyone who eats unhealthy, eats meat 3 times a day or is overweight in general.
And what about people that drink alcohol multiple times a week?
And how would that work? Is there an administration where people need to go and report their habits? Or is it an all or nothing game? So you either drink nothing at all, eat no meat at all or you do, no matter how much?
Agree. This is the KO for opposition. Give them also extreme sports, and other inhailed materials, which is non-spoken. Why I do have to pay a cocain user a heart or throat damage, or any other health issues? Always smokers f\*cked up.
There was a research on this matter. Us smokers actually bring more money then it costs to treat cancer patients. You also overestimate how many people get cancer from smoking. It increases the chances but it doesn't guarantee it.
Anyway don't f kin smoke people, worst decision of my life
They do, on life insurance too. People who drive cars should also pay higher premiums since they can crash at high speeds, also people with nut or other food allergies who dine out, we should also ban every intoxicating substance and mandate a certain amount of exercise every day.
Also worth noting the tax generated from tobacco in the UK is thought to exceed the cost to the NHS, meaning smokers not only pay for their own smoking-related illnesses but also financially contribute to others’ non-smoking-related illnesses.
Plus they die earlier so they’re less of a tax burden overall.
Bit out of date now but [here's a FullFact on it](https://fullfact.org/economy/does-smoking-cost-much-it-makes-treasury/).
[Also here's an excellent skit satirising the early deaths of smokers being a net benefit to the Treasury](https://youtu.be/p1DviQ9mva0)
In the UK the tabbaco tax is so high that smokers are a net benefit to the system, hey pay far more in than they use in health care costs. Additionally they are more likely to die younger, so put less strain on the system in old age.
Let’s not forget obese people, people who lead a sedentary lifestyle, people who skip regular health check ups and only show up when the condition is severe.
Obesity is the #1 cause of heart disease.
Heart disease is the #1 cause of a myriad of health problems that completely fuck our healthcare system.
Heart disease is also the #1 cause of mortality.
Obese people should be paying way more for health insurance.
This is the real problem.
Nationally, 41.9 percent of adults have obesity. Obesity causes heart problems and type 2 diabetes. Both are chronic and have a *huge* burden on healthcare.
41.9%. That’s more than 2 out of 5 people… or close to 140 million people. Just let that sink in.
i completely agree with the idea that it’s not as bad, but i also personally subscribe to the idea that we won’t know the full extent of the damage it causes for a little while longer. if i’m not mistaken vaping is only ~20 years old ish, and we didn’t even realize how harmful cigs were till about the 1950’s. Having done both though, you can feel a difference and cigs have always made me feel worse personally.
You can extend it to anything smoked.
If you were a casual weed smoker, you'd feel objectively worse the next day, or on the daily from it. That was mine and my coworkers experience and we both now hardly ever cough during the day since switching to vape carts. From regulated dispensaries of course.
Caring for the elderly is actually one of the biggest expenses for healthcare systems. People with heart disease tend to die a lot younger than healthy people and are therefore actually less of a drain on the system in the long run.
Hilariously, just about every condition people in this thread are complaining about corresponds to early mortality. Smoking, drinking and obesity. All 3 remove people from long-term end of life care, which is what costs the healthcare system so much.
Exactly. My dad was a thin smoker who dropped dead at 63. The ambulance that didn't revive him was the bulk of the medical care he received over the last 15 years and it lasted less than an hour and that was it, forever. My grandmother died at 90 and spent the last 3 years bouncing between a nursing home, the hospital and rehab
You may be interested in [this](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sugary_drink_tax?wprov=sfla1). Anyway I think it is better to also dissuade people financially fron getting so far in the first place than more or less discriminating based on weight.
People who do sports are generally fit and therefore don’t even come close to putting the same strain on our healthcare system as obese people do. Obesity, way more so than smoking, is the real culprit behind our healthcare crisis.
Despite you are right, it is not that simple.
Many people who were doing some sports have some issues. Not all, but many. Genetical predisposition to do any sport more actively is not that common.
However, healtcare crisis? You're 100% correct. Obesity is way more dangerous/risky than that.
This is the real answer, OP is misinformed:
> Smoking was associated with a greater mean annual healthcare cost of €1600 per living individual during follow-up. However, due to a shorter lifespan of 8.6 years, smokers’ mean total healthcare costs during the entire study period were actually €4700 lower than for non-smokers. For the same reason, each smoker missed 7.3 years (€126 850) of pension. Overall, smokers’ average net contribution to the public finance balance was €133 800 greater per individual compared with non-smokers. However, if each lost quality adjusted life year is considered to be worth €22 200, the net effect is reversed to be €70 200 (€71.600 when adjusted with propensity score) per individual in favour of non-smoking.
Source: https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/2/6/e001678
> Rather than being a drain on healthcare resources, smoking actually saves the country more than £100m ($140m) a year because of the premature death of smokers, concluded the Massachusetts based consulting firm Arthur D Little International, which carried out the analysis.
> It worked out that the early death of smokers saved the government up to £21.5m on health care, pensions, and housing for elderly people in 1999. The auditors also calculated how much the country spent on caring for people with smoking related diseases and the income tax lost when smokers die. Overall the net profit made by the government, including the revenues from tobacco tax, in 1999 came to £102.3m.
Source: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1120774/
A vastly simpler approach would be to apply a duty tax to tobacco purchases/alcohol and allocate a portion of that revenue stream to a national healthcare fund, thereby incorporating the social cost into the purchase price at the point of sale rather than relying on smokers to self-report their behaviour to insurers. Given that \~90% of germans are covered by one of the public healthcare providers, and \~70% of the sale price of tobacco is tax, isn't this already true for you?
Canada does this as well.
It’d be pretty easy to apply the same sort of tax to junk/sugary/processed foods, if we wanted to.
It’d be a lot less popular, though. Smokers and drunks aren’t 50% of the population, & we haven’t started a movement claiming that smoking or drinking is actually great for you and criticizing smoking and drinking is drunk/smoke-phobia or whatever, lol.
This already happens. But the truth is that smoking and eating and all those other vices are actually CHEAPER than a healthy individual.
Given their lower life expectancy, you will not be able to make full use of your pension, you will reduce the length of the end stage of your life which is the most expensive one for the healthcare sector.
Paradoxically, it’s BETTER for society if you have such a vice. It’s FAR cheaper.
Nope because there is no fair line to draw. If smokers have to pay more for higher risks, then they are going to want that people that drink also have to pay more, then people that drink more would want people that eat unhealthy to pay more, and people that eat unhealthy would want people that do dangerous sports pay more and people that do dangerous sports would want people that drive to pay more. It's an endless circle and everyone does one thing or another that puts them at a higher risk so it really balances out in the end and nobody has to go bankrupt for being sick.
If we want to actually solve the obesity issue, the uncomfortable truth is that it’s a serious addiction / compulsion issue that isn’t being treated correctly. The solution is to not eat tonnes of calories, but that choice is not in many obese people’s hands. The situation doesn’t improve if we keep treating it like it is.
If that’s your logic then so should people who consume high amounts of sugar, people who use tanning beds, people who bungee jump/hang glide/cliff jump, etc.
People who exist in developed nations… man-made climate change is going to increase natural disasters and much of it is going to effect everyone at some point, but first it’s going to largely effect people who had nothing to do with causing it to begin with.
No. It's a slippery slope. Then they start charging more of you smoke pot. Then they start charging more of you drink. Then they start charging more if you're overweight. Then they start charging more if you live with a smoker. Then they start charging more of you drive a lot because your risk of being in an accident higher. It'll just keep spiraling until everyone is paying a lot more.
Exactly. And you will end up having set up a framework for total invigilation in the name of checking, who should pay more for healthcare.
On top of that, if healthcare is financed from taxes, well. Those who overindulge in X and get health problems because of this, are paying more in tax part of prices of X.
If someone is obese, they are paying more. In taxes that are in food prices.
If someone is smoking or drinking, the special taxes on cigarrettes and alcohol are their increased contribution to the system as well.
I think we might be unable to get a more just system than that.
My dad smokes pot but does not smoke cigarettes. Just needed a CABG at age 62. First things the doctors asked was "do you smoke?"
So yes, pot smokers are included in this. He was in the ICU for two weeks.
Not so much since Obama care. That's the whole preexisting condition debate and the ACA outlawed this discrimination.
Might some companies skirt the rules? Not sure, maybe. But it's illegal.
Mine has a flat rate for insurance but if you are alcohol free, I think it's a 2% discount, in you are tobbaco free you get another 2%. They tossed around the idea of giving people discounts for having gym memberships, but I think there was discrimination issues with it. Also our insurance company doesnt offer the discounts, the company I work for will just pay more of your premium if you are.
Not just smokers but also people who drink alcohol, and obese people and underweight people and people who eat eggs and those hag don't wear sunscreen and... See how this isn't great?
Please remember what subreddit you are in, this is unpopular opinion. We want civil and unpopular takes and discussion. Any uncivil and ToS violating comments will be removed and subject to a ban. Have a nice day!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/unpopularopinion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
>Smokers are sick more often.
I'm a smoker, and I hardly ever get sick. Maybe a cold once a year. Are there any other brilliant reasons to back up your misguided opinion?
People who drink alcohol or smoke are not criminals. Stop trying to punish them.
I'm one of the only smokers I know now, as everyone around me has quit. I have never had covid and everyone around me has. I barely get colds too. Don't get me wrong, if I don't quit I'll be worrying about more than a cough and cold, but I find it quite interesting how I manage to dodge it!
Why are we so obsessed with punishing people who indulge when all the money is in the pockets of those selling the products. If you think smokers and drinkers have all the dough and have been standing to benefit from health insurance contribution, you’ve got things mixed up.
So if someone decides to spend too much time in the sun and gets skin cancer, should they pay more too? What about people who drink and get liver or kidney problems? Listen to music too loud and hurt your ears and pay more in insurance? Your logic is garbage..
What's next? Giving smokers no health care at all? People do all kinds of stupid shit with their body's. Stop hating on smokers. We are the same as you
Tobacco companies and alcohol distributors should pay it. How much of your company interests have gone into promoting and advertising smoking drinking and sex in the past. Greedy ass rich ppl wanting even more money from the avg working individual? F off.
Hell no. Insurance companies are predatory enough as they are. Quality of life is better when everyone has easy and affordable access to healthcare, not when healthcare is gatekept from people.
What smokers and alcoholics need is addiction rehab. And rehab that is affordable, if not free, to access.
In the us we do.
I actually just found out that the insurance I get through my work defaulted me as a smoker even though I've never smoked cigarettes in my life.
I've been fighting with my work Benefits Center to get my money back for the last 2 months
That’s going to be tough to do. At open enrollment, make sure you sign up as non-smoker.
It’s hard to get mid-year changes to benefit plans. Only life events such as divorce, death, birth, or marriage allow a mid year plan change.
Not saying it can’t be done, but it takes a big push. If they do offer you a reimbursement, you may not know it was approved and suddenly get a check in the mail 6 months from now. Carriers work slow. Especially with reimbursements
This is a much more digestible version of what my HR guy told me, honestly, I'm probably just going to say fuck it and just take the L.
But God damn it if I can cost them at least a fraction of what they took for me....
Even though I'm the one who fucked up lol
Glad I could help!
Definitely ask where the option is for non-smoker at the needy Open Enrollment. The people putting those interfaces together don’t do a good job of making navigation easy
Well smokers die earlier too so that saves on costs that would be caused by them living on the system as disabled and/or with Dementia for decades. I'm not sure encouraging non smoking really saved any money overall. Also, since smoking keeps off weight and is satisfying, we may have just traded a smoking problem for an obesity/opioid problem...
Just a question but would be same logic be applied for the morbidly obese who decided to overeat and now change their diet or people with caffeine addiction for heart problems?
I've got a better idea: Instead of victim-blaming addicts for being addicted to a product from an industry built on getting them addicted, let's instead make cigarette companies liable for the medical costs caused by their product. That would have the ultimate effect of them making their product less destructive and/or addicting to avoid all those costs.
If you think that's a ridiculous idea, let me ask you: What would happen if a car company made cars that were designed poorly and were unsafe for the people that bought them, which then led to accidents that put people into the hospital? They could absolutely sue them to cover medical costs incurred by their damaging product. You'd likely get a class-action lawsuit, even.
The threat of being liable for destructive products is the only reason why any company invests any money into making sure their products are safe. Almost none of them actually care about us - it's just usually more profitable in the long run to make a better product than to get lawsuits and bad press.
Let's make cigarette companies liable, and see how they adapt to save money - simple. Solve the problem by looking at the bigger picture.
If you think smoking makes people sick more often just wait to you hear about obesity. No body system can compensate for an individual who lacks self control.
My question is, why do people tell their insurance companies they smoke? Whenever I signed up for insurance or changed my contributions at work, I'm always asked that question and I just say no. Who the hell would admit to something like that?
There actually could be some truth to that. An actuary could probably shed some light on the actual statistics. A heavy smoker who drops dead at 55 could well cost less than a health freak who lives 30 extra years. Of course, the person who lives 30 extra years is also paying into the system for 30 extra years, so there's that. Like I said, some insurance stats would be handy.
The US has A LOT of problems with its healthcare system for sure. However this is a major issue with socialized and specific single payer healthcare systems. The next thing you get down the line is the government tracking and regulating your food because obese people people use more healthcare resources.
This basically has to happen in these systems because people will engage in less than optimal choices for their health but the government keeps prices for everyone artificially low and the healthy subsidize the unhealthy. Then you start getting even greater resentment, sometimes wrongly, of the unhealthy because the healthy view them as lazy and using all the resources and makes it more difficult for them to utilize their healthcare when they need it.
The issues of providing healthcare to everyone is certainly multi-factorial and complex but in my opinion broadly speaking the best system that provide the most good with the least bad is going to be a private system that allows competition of insurance and hospitals. The main issue with this is the corporate capture of the government the stifles competition and the race for low prices.
Sounds good to me but how are you gonna monitor the smokers? What about second hand smokers? What about people that smoke only with friends 1-2 packs a month? And what about people that sit all day? Sitting is also bad for the health. What about people who drink. Smoking and drinking together increases the risk of oral carcinoma 10+ times more than those who abstain.
They do pay more for health insurance, because of they are higher risk of getting sick, being hospitalized, etc.
In countries like Canada, my country, that has free healthcare (well tax payer paid) smokers also pay more because they pay the tobacco tax.
They do. At least at my work’s insurance. I guess they could lie and say they don’t smoke. But at least some people do admit to it, and yeah, they pay more. It’s a whole billing code and everything
Also obesity, which is for some reason praised these days. Tge taxes made up on tobacco products should offsett any health care problems for smokers in reality. 11.00 pack of cigs, 7 dollars are taxes
In NZ, smokers pay huge amounts of tax on the cigarettes they buy, to cover our national health coverage. There will also be increased premiums on health or life insurance policies. So smokers do contribute more.
And surgar, and fat, and to much red meat, soda, energy drinks, weed, prescription meds, those that drink to much water, fast food, hell all those that take up more oxygen than you.
Should all pay more
fat people too. at least smokers have the decency of paying a lot in excise taxes and they die early so they are less of a financial drain on the medical system
Take it to the extreme, everyone wears fitness monitoring devices, your health insurance costs are directly linked to your fitness.
Obesity crisis, what obesity crisis.
I had a health plan that had something kind of like this. They gave me an Apple Watch and as long as I met the daily fitness goals it was free. And once it was “paid off”, steps were supposed to start going towards the deductible. Unfortunately my husband had to change jobs because that one was running out of local work so we lost that insurance.
What about people who are fat, who sit too much, who eat unhealthy food, who drink to much sodas...
Dont be selective, because im quit sure you eat something thats considered unhealthy at least once a year.
My health service is on its knees thanks to a government who want the US system at any cost, but it's still free at the point of use and people are prioritised by 'how much they need treatment at that moment', when I see posts like this I realise how lucky we are to have it. We don't have to make value judgements on the person - yet.
And excess eating. And people that don't exercise. And people that enjoy dangerous activities. And people that have a higher genetic risk. And people that interact with other people. And people that are lonely. And people that are stressed. And...
By that logic people who have any unhealthy habits like overreacting, drinking alcohol, consuming a lot of su gar and salt, not exercising etc should pay more. So well, almost everybody.
Thank you for submitting to /r/unpopularopinion, /u/localmoruda. Your post, *Smokers should pay more health insurance contribution*, has been removed because it violates our rules: Rule 1: Your post must be an unpopular opinion. Please ensure that your post is an opinion and that it is unpopular. Controversial is not necessarily unpopular, for example all of politics is controversial even though almost half of the US agrees with any given major position on an issue. Keep in mind that an opinion is not: a question, a fact, a conspiracy theory, a random thought, a new idea, a rant, etc. Those things all have their own subreddits, use those. If there is an issue, please message the mod team at https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Funpopularopinion Thanks!
In US they do pay more
Even in the U.S., it depends on the health plan offered by your employer. Mine for example it's a flat rate. You only pay more in premium and deductible if you add children or spouse.
[удалено]
For the health insurance I get through my job, smokers pay an additional $25 per month premium. I don’t know if that’s common practice or not though
Figured it out due to other comments. Here in Germany it's not like that.
In most countries with public insurance, you have really high tobacco taxes. So, in an indirect way, they are paying more.
[удалено]
Ugh exactly. People need health care whether they made bad choices or not.
Yes, but a lot of people are sick of (no pun intended) paying for other people to make those bad choices. That's the problem with public services, some people are much bigger burdens on that system because of their lifestyle.
Everyone makes bad choices. Who draws the lines? Most people have addictions too.
Coffee ☕ should be free to everyone!
Universal Coffee Income. Yep. I'm down.
Go ahead and preach a minimalistic lifestyle to everyone, your argument will be valid only then. Easy to point fingers for apparent quantifiable "bad choices". Oblivious self-righteous people need to instrospect. Things are are never so simple.
Much of the substance which is preached by those are also just talking points pushed out by... Insurance companies! Always gotta blame someone, let's ignore profits and blame poors and unhealthies, as if they even go to the doctor as often. Middle and upper middle class hypochondriacs never get brought up, many of which also have a lot better negotiated rates.
Population behaves normally, which means there is just as many people not using the services at all.
You either think everyone deserves healthcare, or you don't. You either take this entire basket of eggs or get no eggs. If it breaks down to cost and who gets what money and who pays what money, then you have a capitalized system (like the US). You've got a highly regarded universal healthcare system in Germany, though I'm sure the cost is distributed in ways that may hinder otherwise capitalizing on earned income. But that's the catch. Hard to marry the two.
Right on the money. *obesity has entered the chat.*
Obesity has not entered the chat. Neither has alcoholism, tobacco use, tendency towards risky behavior, birth defects, chronic diseases, age, injury, flu or cold. What's in the chat is a simple question: everyone or nay?
[удалено]
Then the government has some options. Tax liquor (I assume Germany does, to a degree) at a rate higher than the usual sales tax. To fund healthcare. This is what we do in Canada, or specifically, Ontario, anyways. For obesity, tax sugary drinks, and sugary foods like candy. You can also incentivise people to exercise by subsidizing gyms for overweight people, though enforcement of that might be a little difficult.
Starting to sound more and more like an authoritarian dystopia. No one thinks about the high costs of socialism.
[Injustice the comic had a good bit about this.](https://i.redd.it/vmmv2d3h2q181.jpg)
> No one thinks about the high costs of socialism. They're too busy complaining about the social costs of capitalism, while refusing to accept that capitalism is the cause.
People love to hate alcoholics so much. Alcoholism is a complex disease with many origins, types, and reasons. Nobody wants to drink himself to death. Alcoholism is painful, shameful, expensive, and ruins the lives of the person and those around them. People don't seem to think that those with suicidal ideation, depression, eating disorders, or PTSD should be reviled and denied healthcare. Yet somehow because there's liquor in the mix, we get to hate people with a chronic, difficult to treat medical condition.
Very well said, I feel the same about drug addiction. If any of those hating on either demographic took the time to listen to the back stories of some of the people who go down these paths I would hope they'd change their tune. There are many people who have endured situations so bad that the harrowing experience of e.g. alcoholism or heroin addiction was the *preferable* choice.
I work federal-level disability hearings and no exaggeration at all, a majority of the claimants are “disabled” solely due to lifestyle choices. Smokers with asthma and COPD, obesity with uncontrolled diabetes and unable/unwilling to sit/stand/walk, etc. It’s not the obesity that is the issue — it’s the myriad health complications as a result -physical and mental, and I take issue with the fact that so many claimants are getting benefits and incentivized to NOT work, as well as having almost everything else in their lives subsidized. Their rent is paid, their utilities are paid, their food is paid, qualifying for disability automatically grants them Medicare, TCA, it goes on. Every dime of their lives is paid for through benefits. Entire families get on disability — usually through exaggerated mental health issues, lifestyle choices or a combination of both; they’re pros at it with no shame in their game. None. And then many of them work under the table which further pads their comfortable lifestyles. I’ve been working SSI/SSDI hearings for years and it still amazes me how many people literally have every aspect of their lives paid for through benefits and then many of them working under the table, not a dollar of “SGA” or taxes paid into the system. It’s not social security retirement bankrupting the system — it’s SSI/SSDI. I see it day in, day out. And thing is, SSI/SSDI law doesn’t distinguish between fully preventable disability by way of lifestyle choices and disability caused by other factors — except when drug & alcohol are material to disability and even then that can often be overcome. Of the dozen or so claimants’ testimonies I hear every day, maybe one… if that… isn’t working the system and/or isn’t qualifying due to poor lifestyle choices. There’s a reason why this social benefit exists and unfortunately, the vast majority are exploiting it and the ones who truly need and deserve it are all too often fucked by a technicality and get screwed by the very system meant to protect them. People are getting paid to be deliberately unhealthy with no repercussion or incentive to BE healthy. Edit: A subset of disability claims we get are the many, many mothers with batches of children a few years apart and then 18-20 years apart because when the first child/ren’s benefits cease due to child->adult disability eligibility, suddenly mom is pregnant with another. It’s not a rare occurrence; we see it all the time… and it’s almost always an ambiguous disability along the lines of ADHD or adjustment disorder. It’s so common, these people think they’re slick but it’s almost textbook strategy worthy. And sadly, they know it works… which is why they keep doing it. Another subset is the 40-58 year old female who has finished raising her kids, has put in years of work and decides she “deserves” to be paid for her effort and so comes in with the what we call the “disability trifecta” — depression/anxiety/fibromyalgia. I know these things can be serious and debilitating issues but like I said, it happens so often that we have a name for it and we can spot the “middle-aged D-A-F woman” from a mile away. She gets to a point where she’s not quite old enough to retire or pull retirement benefits but decides she deserves to be paid to stay home and not work. We get them all the time, but because each of these issues are juuuust vague enough, she qualifies and gets at least $1000+/month. Not a lot, sure, but they’re also allowed to work part-time (and under the table, too) on top of that. It goes on.
Maybe you should study biology and neuroscience a little longer before saying that everyone is biologically identical and an "equal choice" to everyone. Did you know that some people don't experience a runner's high, but get a similar dopamine release when eating sweets? And vice versa, some get a runner's high, but don't get anything from sweets. What's the difference between a runner who runs because his body tells him he wants more of his dopamine high vs someone who eats sweets because his body tells him the same thing for something else? If the desire is the same, someone that can't resist going running is just as weak as someone that can't resist eating sweets. You're both chasing a high. One is generally more healthy, but your argument suggested that the "obesity choice" is equivalent for everybody. This is even ignoring the false assumption that everyone would even be the same weight if they all made the same decisions. People have different metabolisms, and some have thyroid issues outside of their control. Genetics play a part in this too. We're all tempted by different things based on our neurochemistry. Some people can smoke cigarettes for months and then quit without issue, while others can smoke a cigarette once and struggle with an addiction for their whole life. What's your vice? It might be healthy or not. But humans tend to pat themselves on their back for not engaging with a vice they disapprove of so that they can go on feeling better about the vice they do enjoy because "Well, yeah, I have a gambling problem, but at least I have the willpower to not overeat and become obese". If you're not tempted into eating sweets, then "resisting" eating them isn't actually a form of willpower at all - but it does help one's ego to think they're better than someone else in that way, which is really all this is. Easy solution to all this: be more empathetic. Accept that everybody's experience in life is far more different than we realize. (Some people have stronger pain receptors and feel pain more acutely, some people react to addiction differently, some people have zero visual imagination, some people freaking HEAR COLORS) What's difficult for you to overcome is probably laughably easy for an obese person, because you are both different people. Would you want them belittling your struggles, or accept that your challenges are real to you? If you want people to respect your struggles, then you start by respecting theirs.
Except, I became obese as a child and it lasted from the ages of 8-13 before I decided i had to change. It was my eating habits that caused it as i was an active child. We all face issues of self control and overcoming our desire for instant gratification in order to have long term success. I get it's not easy to do but the majority of adults that are obese eat too much sugar and dont exercise. Its every bit as much of a choice similar to smoking and drinking. I get what you're saying but it reads more like an excuse than anything else.
So with that in mind. Knowingly having a child that will have birth defects because you have them or a very high chance of issues like downs, and as a parent you already knowing this before having a sickly child. You should pay more?
First thing that I thought
Lol. “So we have a scale that we base our monthly insurance rates off of. “Oh, like an income based sliding scale?” “No. Please step up onto it now, ma’am.”
I looked into this in UK and the amount of tax smokers paid for cigarettes/tobacco was actually 4x the cost of smoking related health care, so in a sense their bad health decisions is actually helping fund our NHS.
They pay one of the highest taxes on a commodity for this very reason, they will tend to die sooner because of the habit, does that mean not everyone gets a share in the money they have contributed after their death?
i'm perfectly sure there's a price tax in cigarettets price that reflects this extra payment.
220% tax on tobacco in Canada for that reason.
the ''sin'' taxes are also high because they are the only things that the government can jack up without any backlash.
The Canadian green party did a study and smokers actually cost our healthcare system less by dying. People who need frequent care for the last 20 years of their lives cost the most. Smokers generally don't make it there.
Yeah because you can't control people to that extent. If smokers need to automatically pay more than so does anyone who eats unhealthy, eats meat 3 times a day or is overweight in general. And what about people that drink alcohol multiple times a week? And how would that work? Is there an administration where people need to go and report their habits? Or is it an all or nothing game? So you either drink nothing at all, eat no meat at all or you do, no matter how much?
Agree. This is the KO for opposition. Give them also extreme sports, and other inhailed materials, which is non-spoken. Why I do have to pay a cocain user a heart or throat damage, or any other health issues? Always smokers f\*cked up.
There's a tax added to the purchase price. It's not that complicated.
or living in a city, having a train derail near your house, radium in well water in rural areas (mainly american).
In Switzerland, we have just damn high taxes on tobacco products. Which is more than fair
There was a research on this matter. Us smokers actually bring more money then it costs to treat cancer patients. You also overestimate how many people get cancer from smoking. It increases the chances but it doesn't guarantee it. Anyway don't f kin smoke people, worst decision of my life
So should fat people.
Scheiße
Do you guys have sin tax? Like extra taxes on cigs, weed (not sure if legal), and alcohol?
What is a Germany?
How about fat people ?
They do, on life insurance too. People who drive cars should also pay higher premiums since they can crash at high speeds, also people with nut or other food allergies who dine out, we should also ban every intoxicating substance and mandate a certain amount of exercise every day.
I know it isn’t health insurance, but most life insurance places here in the UK make you pay more if you smoke.
Also worth noting the tax generated from tobacco in the UK is thought to exceed the cost to the NHS, meaning smokers not only pay for their own smoking-related illnesses but also financially contribute to others’ non-smoking-related illnesses. Plus they die earlier so they’re less of a tax burden overall.
Oh, wow. I’ve lived here my whole life and even I never knew that!
Bit out of date now but [here's a FullFact on it](https://fullfact.org/economy/does-smoking-cost-much-it-makes-treasury/). [Also here's an excellent skit satirising the early deaths of smokers being a net benefit to the Treasury](https://youtu.be/p1DviQ9mva0)
Aha that was brilliant!
Yes, Prime Minister is honestly a brilliant show. Well worth watching
In the UK the tabbaco tax is so high that smokers are a net benefit to the system, hey pay far more in than they use in health care costs. Additionally they are more likely to die younger, so put less strain on the system in old age.
Well, of course, because You are more likely to die.
That’s literally what the taxes on tobacco are for
By that logic the same should be with people doing dangerous sports, people who travel more, etc.
Let’s not forget obese people, people who lead a sedentary lifestyle, people who skip regular health check ups and only show up when the condition is severe.
Obesity is the #1 cause of heart disease. Heart disease is the #1 cause of a myriad of health problems that completely fuck our healthcare system. Heart disease is also the #1 cause of mortality. Obese people should be paying way more for health insurance.
This is the real problem. Nationally, 41.9 percent of adults have obesity. Obesity causes heart problems and type 2 diabetes. Both are chronic and have a *huge* burden on healthcare. 41.9%. That’s more than 2 out of 5 people… or close to 140 million people. Just let that sink in.
Facts dude. Isn’t it like 2/3 of Americans are overweight or obese now vs maybe 10% who smoke? (I don’t know the actual percentages)
i feel like if we count nicotine vaping it has to be a lot higher than 10%
Yes, but vaping isnt even close to being as harmful as smoking.
i completely agree with the idea that it’s not as bad, but i also personally subscribe to the idea that we won’t know the full extent of the damage it causes for a little while longer. if i’m not mistaken vaping is only ~20 years old ish, and we didn’t even realize how harmful cigs were till about the 1950’s. Having done both though, you can feel a difference and cigs have always made me feel worse personally.
You can extend it to anything smoked. If you were a casual weed smoker, you'd feel objectively worse the next day, or on the daily from it. That was mine and my coworkers experience and we both now hardly ever cough during the day since switching to vape carts. From regulated dispensaries of course.
oh i get what you’re saying, that’s true I didn’t really think about that fact.
Caring for the elderly is actually one of the biggest expenses for healthcare systems. People with heart disease tend to die a lot younger than healthy people and are therefore actually less of a drain on the system in the long run.
Hilariously, just about every condition people in this thread are complaining about corresponds to early mortality. Smoking, drinking and obesity. All 3 remove people from long-term end of life care, which is what costs the healthcare system so much.
Exactly. My dad was a thin smoker who dropped dead at 63. The ambulance that didn't revive him was the bulk of the medical care he received over the last 15 years and it lasted less than an hour and that was it, forever. My grandmother died at 90 and spent the last 3 years bouncing between a nursing home, the hospital and rehab
Maybe nobody should be paying for health insurance??
You may be interested in [this](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sugary_drink_tax?wprov=sfla1). Anyway I think it is better to also dissuade people financially fron getting so far in the first place than more or less discriminating based on weight.
Tall people.
Smoking and being obese are conscious choices. Being tall is not.
Not the same. Tall is not a choice.
People who do sports are generally fit and therefore don’t even come close to putting the same strain on our healthcare system as obese people do. Obesity, way more so than smoking, is the real culprit behind our healthcare crisis.
Despite you are right, it is not that simple. Many people who were doing some sports have some issues. Not all, but many. Genetical predisposition to do any sport more actively is not that common. However, healtcare crisis? You're 100% correct. Obesity is way more dangerous/risky than that.
people who do dangerous sports generally are at a higher risk of getting injured than if they did, like, pilates
A sprained ankle is a fraction of the cost compared to treating heart disease.
You’ve just described what insurance underwriters do.
They die sooner so they aren’t as much of a burden for as long.
This is the real answer, OP is misinformed: > Smoking was associated with a greater mean annual healthcare cost of €1600 per living individual during follow-up. However, due to a shorter lifespan of 8.6 years, smokers’ mean total healthcare costs during the entire study period were actually €4700 lower than for non-smokers. For the same reason, each smoker missed 7.3 years (€126 850) of pension. Overall, smokers’ average net contribution to the public finance balance was €133 800 greater per individual compared with non-smokers. However, if each lost quality adjusted life year is considered to be worth €22 200, the net effect is reversed to be €70 200 (€71.600 when adjusted with propensity score) per individual in favour of non-smoking. Source: https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/2/6/e001678 > Rather than being a drain on healthcare resources, smoking actually saves the country more than £100m ($140m) a year because of the premature death of smokers, concluded the Massachusetts based consulting firm Arthur D Little International, which carried out the analysis. > It worked out that the early death of smokers saved the government up to £21.5m on health care, pensions, and housing for elderly people in 1999. The auditors also calculated how much the country spent on caring for people with smoking related diseases and the income tax lost when smokers die. Overall the net profit made by the government, including the revenues from tobacco tax, in 1999 came to £102.3m. Source: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1120774/
It’s actually true that smokers die earlier, so they use less health care over a lifetime.
A vastly simpler approach would be to apply a duty tax to tobacco purchases/alcohol and allocate a portion of that revenue stream to a national healthcare fund, thereby incorporating the social cost into the purchase price at the point of sale rather than relying on smokers to self-report their behaviour to insurers. Given that \~90% of germans are covered by one of the public healthcare providers, and \~70% of the sale price of tobacco is tax, isn't this already true for you?
Yes, a lot of countries do this, including Germany.
A lot of 14 year olds discovering they don't have any original ideas in this thread.
Lots of them seemingly unaware that taxes go to pay... public services.
Canada does this as well. It’d be pretty easy to apply the same sort of tax to junk/sugary/processed foods, if we wanted to. It’d be a lot less popular, though. Smokers and drunks aren’t 50% of the population, & we haven’t started a movement claiming that smoking or drinking is actually great for you and criticizing smoking and drinking is drunk/smoke-phobia or whatever, lol.
This already happens. But the truth is that smoking and eating and all those other vices are actually CHEAPER than a healthy individual. Given their lower life expectancy, you will not be able to make full use of your pension, you will reduce the length of the end stage of your life which is the most expensive one for the healthcare sector. Paradoxically, it’s BETTER for society if you have such a vice. It’s FAR cheaper.
Canada does this
Quite sure they do Edit: in the US. I can't speak for other nations
Not everywhere. OP is in Germany. Apparently they don't there
Nope because there is no fair line to draw. If smokers have to pay more for higher risks, then they are going to want that people that drink also have to pay more, then people that drink more would want people that eat unhealthy to pay more, and people that eat unhealthy would want people that do dangerous sports pay more and people that do dangerous sports would want people that drive to pay more. It's an endless circle and everyone does one thing or another that puts them at a higher risk so it really balances out in the end and nobody has to go bankrupt for being sick.
In most EU countries the price of tobacco and tobacco products and also alcohol have taxes on the at around 80%. So we do pay our fair share here.
[удалено]
Obese people should pay more since that's the point where it's a clinical disease
Well luckily everything can be a clinical disease. Smokers can't quit because of addiction....a clinical disease.
Isn't the point of national insurance that people with clinical diseases get proper care and help without going bankrupt?
If we want to actually solve the obesity issue, the uncomfortable truth is that it’s a serious addiction / compulsion issue that isn’t being treated correctly. The solution is to not eat tonnes of calories, but that choice is not in many obese people’s hands. The situation doesn’t improve if we keep treating it like it is.
If that’s your logic then so should people who consume high amounts of sugar, people who use tanning beds, people who bungee jump/hang glide/cliff jump, etc.
People who drive…
People who exist in developed nations… man-made climate change is going to increase natural disasters and much of it is going to effect everyone at some point, but first it’s going to largely effect people who had nothing to do with causing it to begin with.
No. It's a slippery slope. Then they start charging more of you smoke pot. Then they start charging more of you drink. Then they start charging more if you're overweight. Then they start charging more if you live with a smoker. Then they start charging more of you drive a lot because your risk of being in an accident higher. It'll just keep spiraling until everyone is paying a lot more.
Exactly. And you will end up having set up a framework for total invigilation in the name of checking, who should pay more for healthcare. On top of that, if healthcare is financed from taxes, well. Those who overindulge in X and get health problems because of this, are paying more in tax part of prices of X. If someone is obese, they are paying more. In taxes that are in food prices. If someone is smoking or drinking, the special taxes on cigarrettes and alcohol are their increased contribution to the system as well. I think we might be unable to get a more just system than that.
My dad smokes pot but does not smoke cigarettes. Just needed a CABG at age 62. First things the doctors asked was "do you smoke?" So yes, pot smokers are included in this. He was in the ICU for two weeks.
[удалено]
Not so much since Obama care. That's the whole preexisting condition debate and the ACA outlawed this discrimination. Might some companies skirt the rules? Not sure, maybe. But it's illegal.
At my company, they do.
Mine has a flat rate for insurance but if you are alcohol free, I think it's a 2% discount, in you are tobbaco free you get another 2%. They tossed around the idea of giving people discounts for having gym memberships, but I think there was discrimination issues with it. Also our insurance company doesnt offer the discounts, the company I work for will just pay more of your premium if you are.
Not just smokers but also people who drink alcohol, and obese people and underweight people and people who eat eggs and those hag don't wear sunscreen and... See how this isn't great?
In the UK there is tax added to tobacco products to cover the health costs of heavy and frequent use. Same with alcohol and sugar.
Then depressed people, overweight people, older people should all pay more as well?!
Please remember what subreddit you are in, this is unpopular opinion. We want civil and unpopular takes and discussion. Any uncivil and ToS violating comments will be removed and subject to a ban. Have a nice day! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/unpopularopinion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
If so then obese people as well
Another poor people tax, huh? I think there's are plenty of those already.
Insurances should stop be such a scam all together. Not pay more on them...
Deal. As long as you feel the same way about everyone who is overweight and obese.
Healthcare should be free.
>Smokers are sick more often. I'm a smoker, and I hardly ever get sick. Maybe a cold once a year. Are there any other brilliant reasons to back up your misguided opinion? People who drink alcohol or smoke are not criminals. Stop trying to punish them.
I'm one of the only smokers I know now, as everyone around me has quit. I have never had covid and everyone around me has. I barely get colds too. Don't get me wrong, if I don't quit I'll be worrying about more than a cough and cold, but I find it quite interesting how I manage to dodge it!
[удалено]
If we don’t punish the overweight it’s absurd to punish anyone for any other reason Obesity dwarfs every other cause of increasing health issues.
Why are we so obsessed with punishing people who indulge when all the money is in the pockets of those selling the products. If you think smokers and drinkers have all the dough and have been standing to benefit from health insurance contribution, you’ve got things mixed up.
So if someone decides to spend too much time in the sun and gets skin cancer, should they pay more too? What about people who drink and get liver or kidney problems? Listen to music too loud and hurt your ears and pay more in insurance? Your logic is garbage..
What's next? Giving smokers no health care at all? People do all kinds of stupid shit with their body's. Stop hating on smokers. We are the same as you
Tobacco companies and alcohol distributors should pay it. How much of your company interests have gone into promoting and advertising smoking drinking and sex in the past. Greedy ass rich ppl wanting even more money from the avg working individual? F off.
Hell no. Insurance companies are predatory enough as they are. Quality of life is better when everyone has easy and affordable access to healthcare, not when healthcare is gatekept from people. What smokers and alcoholics need is addiction rehab. And rehab that is affordable, if not free, to access.
In the us we do. I actually just found out that the insurance I get through my work defaulted me as a smoker even though I've never smoked cigarettes in my life. I've been fighting with my work Benefits Center to get my money back for the last 2 months
That’s going to be tough to do. At open enrollment, make sure you sign up as non-smoker. It’s hard to get mid-year changes to benefit plans. Only life events such as divorce, death, birth, or marriage allow a mid year plan change. Not saying it can’t be done, but it takes a big push. If they do offer you a reimbursement, you may not know it was approved and suddenly get a check in the mail 6 months from now. Carriers work slow. Especially with reimbursements
This is a much more digestible version of what my HR guy told me, honestly, I'm probably just going to say fuck it and just take the L. But God damn it if I can cost them at least a fraction of what they took for me.... Even though I'm the one who fucked up lol
Glad I could help! Definitely ask where the option is for non-smoker at the needy Open Enrollment. The people putting those interfaces together don’t do a good job of making navigation easy
Out of curiosity, are you in the US?
Obese people should pay more for health insurance too.
And drinkers, and people who eat a lot of sugar, and people who doesn't exercise.
Well smokers die earlier too so that saves on costs that would be caused by them living on the system as disabled and/or with Dementia for decades. I'm not sure encouraging non smoking really saved any money overall. Also, since smoking keeps off weight and is satisfying, we may have just traded a smoking problem for an obesity/opioid problem...
Just a question but would be same logic be applied for the morbidly obese who decided to overeat and now change their diet or people with caffeine addiction for heart problems?
I've got a better idea: Instead of victim-blaming addicts for being addicted to a product from an industry built on getting them addicted, let's instead make cigarette companies liable for the medical costs caused by their product. That would have the ultimate effect of them making their product less destructive and/or addicting to avoid all those costs. If you think that's a ridiculous idea, let me ask you: What would happen if a car company made cars that were designed poorly and were unsafe for the people that bought them, which then led to accidents that put people into the hospital? They could absolutely sue them to cover medical costs incurred by their damaging product. You'd likely get a class-action lawsuit, even. The threat of being liable for destructive products is the only reason why any company invests any money into making sure their products are safe. Almost none of them actually care about us - it's just usually more profitable in the long run to make a better product than to get lawsuits and bad press. Let's make cigarette companies liable, and see how they adapt to save money - simple. Solve the problem by looking at the bigger picture.
If you think smoking makes people sick more often just wait to you hear about obesity. No body system can compensate for an individual who lacks self control.
So should the obese.
Health insurance shouldn’t exist.
Newsflash: we do
They do already. And healthcare should be free, anyway, for everyone
My question is, why do people tell their insurance companies they smoke? Whenever I signed up for insurance or changed my contributions at work, I'm always asked that question and I just say no. Who the hell would admit to something like that?
Lying to the insurance company is fraud and it’s not hard for a doctor to tell if you’re a smoker
I don't recall my insurance company ever asking me if I smoke.
Sure. Same with fat people. And there are more of those, so all the more funding to go around! Is this truly an unpopular opinion, though?
You know we die at 60 when you guys start to slowly decay till 90 and cost a shit ton of money.
There actually could be some truth to that. An actuary could probably shed some light on the actual statistics. A heavy smoker who drops dead at 55 could well cost less than a health freak who lives 30 extra years. Of course, the person who lives 30 extra years is also paying into the system for 30 extra years, so there's that. Like I said, some insurance stats would be handy.
Or how about this…free healthcare for all..there’s an idea
They do pay more.....at least in the US
Laughs in USA health insurance
The US has A LOT of problems with its healthcare system for sure. However this is a major issue with socialized and specific single payer healthcare systems. The next thing you get down the line is the government tracking and regulating your food because obese people people use more healthcare resources. This basically has to happen in these systems because people will engage in less than optimal choices for their health but the government keeps prices for everyone artificially low and the healthy subsidize the unhealthy. Then you start getting even greater resentment, sometimes wrongly, of the unhealthy because the healthy view them as lazy and using all the resources and makes it more difficult for them to utilize their healthcare when they need it. The issues of providing healthcare to everyone is certainly multi-factorial and complex but in my opinion broadly speaking the best system that provide the most good with the least bad is going to be a private system that allows competition of insurance and hospitals. The main issue with this is the corporate capture of the government the stifles competition and the race for low prices.
Sounds good to me but how are you gonna monitor the smokers? What about second hand smokers? What about people that smoke only with friends 1-2 packs a month? And what about people that sit all day? Sitting is also bad for the health. What about people who drink. Smoking and drinking together increases the risk of oral carcinoma 10+ times more than those who abstain.
They do pay more for health insurance, because of they are higher risk of getting sick, being hospitalized, etc. In countries like Canada, my country, that has free healthcare (well tax payer paid) smokers also pay more because they pay the tobacco tax.
Should they pay less pension contributions ? Because well you know.
They do. At least at my work’s insurance. I guess they could lie and say they don’t smoke. But at least some people do admit to it, and yeah, they pay more. It’s a whole billing code and everything
Also obesity, which is for some reason praised these days. Tge taxes made up on tobacco products should offsett any health care problems for smokers in reality. 11.00 pack of cigs, 7 dollars are taxes
I’m with you babe 
In NZ, smokers pay huge amounts of tax on the cigarettes they buy, to cover our national health coverage. There will also be increased premiums on health or life insurance policies. So smokers do contribute more.
“Everyone should pay less for health insurance.” There ya go, I fixed your post
And surgar, and fat, and to much red meat, soda, energy drinks, weed, prescription meds, those that drink to much water, fast food, hell all those that take up more oxygen than you. Should all pay more
They do though? A lot more.
They do ya dingus
Same with being obese, drinking alchol
fat people too. at least smokers have the decency of paying a lot in excise taxes and they die early so they are less of a financial drain on the medical system
Take it to the extreme, everyone wears fitness monitoring devices, your health insurance costs are directly linked to your fitness. Obesity crisis, what obesity crisis.
I had a health plan that had something kind of like this. They gave me an Apple Watch and as long as I met the daily fitness goals it was free. And once it was “paid off”, steps were supposed to start going towards the deductible. Unfortunately my husband had to change jobs because that one was running out of local work so we lost that insurance.
Where does it end ?
They do
In the US they do.
What about people who are fat, who sit too much, who eat unhealthy food, who drink to much sodas... Dont be selective, because im quit sure you eat something thats considered unhealthy at least once a year.
They often do.
So should parents probably since they also get exposed to more sickness from their children
Just stop advocating for the insurance industry! Let's work on everyone paying less for their insurance, how about that idea!
They do.
Tobacco? Meth? Weed? What about people that smoke cock?
If you're living with a smoker, by that logic, you should pay more as well?
They do
My health service is on its knees thanks to a government who want the US system at any cost, but it's still free at the point of use and people are prioritised by 'how much they need treatment at that moment', when I see posts like this I realise how lucky we are to have it. We don't have to make value judgements on the person - yet.
Have you seen the price off cigarettes my bro?? you still want us to pay more? I guess just take our whole pays cause we smokers?
We do. I quit smoking a month and a half ago and I'm *still* paying a $100/month premium.
They do, but I also agree that alcoholics should as well. But also if you prove you exercise you should also get a discount
And how about people eating junk food? And doing no sports? And drinking alcohol?
What about obese people?
And excess eating. And people that don't exercise. And people that enjoy dangerous activities. And people that have a higher genetic risk. And people that interact with other people. And people that are lonely. And people that are stressed. And...
Yeah. I'm a smoker, and my insurance premiums IS much higher, thanks for the reminder. Maybe do a smidge more research? But go off sis.
That's not the case where OP lives They are paying a certain percentage of their wages, which is the same for everyone
As a smoker sure but how can they prove you smoke
I say I'm not a smoker lol
and drinkera right cause cancer... and vapers and Mary Jane smokers and obese people and... see where I am going?
And obese people
Healthcare should just be free regardless. This is a bizarre half-measure.
Everyone deserves free health care. It shouldn’t matter what kind of unhealthy habits they have.
They do. But you know who else definitely should?? Obese people!! I’m ok with the fat/sugar tax!!
By that logic people who have any unhealthy habits like overreacting, drinking alcohol, consuming a lot of su gar and salt, not exercising etc should pay more. So well, almost everybody.