so, ins prem can double for smokers through obamacare...

[Soonerjeepman]

unless they join a "program" to quit, talk about gov control...

what about the new states that ok pot?

or pipe smokers...kind of an interesting situation.

[olevetonahill]

unless they join a "program" to quit, talk about gov control...

what about the new states that ok pot?

or pipe smokers...kind of an interesting situation.



Nanny State, Next question?

[LakeRat]

I have join lots of gyms to lose weight, and still a fat *** over here!!

[tator]

Aren't insurance premiums normally based on your likelihood to need the insurance?

[okie52]

Smokers are already paying a considerably higher rate on health insurance and life insurance. I don't know if the rate increase would be based on real numbers or not but I doubt it given the current rates smokers pay.

[Soonerjeepman]

well, from what I head on talk radio, a 60 yr old smoker could pay as much as $5K more a yr. First I will say, I know insurance does this anyways, charges for higher risks...crap my new house ins is high due to a 3 yr old claim on the house the ex got...and it was natural facilitated by human error (intersection light not grounded correctly during a rain storm).

young male drivers, medicated folks, etc. It will be interesting to see where this goes.

[badger]

Doesn't surprise me. Smokers pay twice what non-smokers do from what I've seen on insurance forms... and you can't just say "I intend to quit" and expect an immediate discount.

[Midtowner]

So if I have a history of DUIs and hit and runs should I not expect to pay a higher auto insurance premium?

[okie52]

So if I have a history of DUIs and hit and runs should I not expect to pay a higher auto insurance premium?

If you follow the logic of covering pre existing conditions then no you shouldn't.

[Midtowner]

Okay, looked up the actual rule, it's not double as much, it's 50% more.

At any rate, this should lower the overall cost of insurance. That said, there's no guarantee insurance companies would charge 50% more. I am unaware (and someone correct me) as to any current restrictions on whether companies can charge higher premiums for smokers vs. non smokers.

[yermom]

so are they going to watch me not smoking to be sure i'm not smoking?

[badger]

I am unaware (and someone correct me) as to any current restrictions on whether companies can charge higher premiums for smokers vs. non smokers.

I'm not aware of any and I can't think of many companies that don't do this... maybe public sector's more lenient, but definitely not private sector.

There's just too much information out there that confirms what everyone knows to be true: Smoking is bad for your health. There's no way around this. Justify it by saying obesity is worse for your health and that people with XXX are more of a financial drain to insure, but it doesn't change that fact.

[Soonerjeepman]

So if I have a history of DUIs and hit and runs should I not expect to pay a higher auto insurance premium?

yup...didn't say folks shouldn't.

[Soonerjeepman]

Okay, looked up the actual rule, it's not double as much, it's 50% more.

At any rate, this should lower the overall cost of insurance. That said, there's no guarantee insurance companies would charge 50% more. I am unaware (and someone correct me) as to any current restrictions on whether companies can charge higher premiums for smokers vs. non smokers.

how? ok, yes 50% more. Since you looked it up, does it not say if ins companies could NOT do this before? Maybe there was a limit. Obviously something is being opened up to allow higher rates with obamacare because I would think if there was no limit in place to begin with the ins companies would have already done that.

[Soonerjeepman]

WASHINGTON — Millions of smokers could be priced out of health insurance because of tobacco penalties in President Obama’s health-care law, according to experts who are just now teasing out the potential impact of a little-noted provision in the massive legislation.

The Affordable Care Act — “Obamacare” to its detractors — allows health insurers to charge smokers buying individual policies up to 50 percent higher premiums starting Jan. 1, 2014.

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

Younger smokers could be charged lower penalties under rules proposed in the fall by the Obama administration. Older smokers, though, could face a heavy hit on their household budgets at a time in life when smoking-related illnesses tend to emerge.

Workers covered on the job would be able to avoid tobacco penalties by joining smoking-cessation programs because employers’ plans operate under different rules. But experts say that option is not guaranteed to smokers trying to purchase coverage individually.

Nearly one of every five adults smokes. The ratio is higher among lower-income people, who also are more likely to work in jobs that don’t come with health insurance; therefore, they will depend on the new federal health-care law. Smoking increases the risk of developing heart disease, lung problems and cancer, contributing to nearly 450,000 deaths a year.

Insurers won’t be allowed to charge more under the overhaul for people who are overweight or have a health condition, such as a bad back or a heart that skips beats. Employers, though, can charge more if a person smokes.

Starting next Jan. 1, the federal health-care law will make it possible for people who can’t get coverage now to buy private policies, providing tax credits to keep the premiums affordable. Although the law prohibits insurance companies from turning away the sick, the penalties for smokers could have the same effect in many cases — keeping out potentially costly patients.

First, the law allows insurers to charge older adults up to three times as much as their youngest customers.

Second, the law allows insurers to levy the full 50 percent penalty on older smokers while charging less to younger ones.

Third, government tax credits that will be available to help pay premiums cannot be used to offset the cost of penalties for smokers.

“The effect of the smoking (penalty) allowed under the law would be that lower-income smokers could not afford health insurance,” said Richard Curtis, president of the Institute for Health Policy Solutions, a nonpartisan research group that called attention to the issue with a study about the potential impact in California.

Read more: http://triblive.com/usworld/nation/3358387-74/health-smokers-law#ixzz2J13N2H6k
Follow us: @triblive on Twitter | triblive on Facebook

[OULenexaman]

so are they going to watch me not smoking to be sure i'm not smoking? yep....from a drone.

[sappstuf]

Okay, looked up the actual rule, it's not double as much, it's 50% more.

At any rate, this should lower the overall cost of insurance. That said, there's no guarantee insurance companies would charge 50% more. I am unaware (and someone correct me) as to any current restrictions on whether companies can charge higher premiums for smokers vs. non smokers.

It will do no such thing. This is further incentive for smokers to pay the fine and not buy insurance. They will buy insurance the day they need a lung transplant and they will get it.

By them not paying their "fair share", premiums will go up on the rubes who play by the rules because they are the ones paying for everything.

This type of thing is very predictable with the way Obamacare was set up.

[OU68]

Does lighting up the occasional cigar make me a smoker in Obamacare?

[okie52]

so are they going to watch me not smoking to be sure i'm not smoking?

It doesn't matter what you do after you qualify as a non smoker...you can inject nicotine directly into your veins. Most have a urine test (or some other test now) that will detect nicotine in your system. Once you pass the test and declare you haven't smoked for a year (or so) then you can take up smoking and still get not smoking rates...particularly after you get past the 2 year incontestabilty phase.

[Midtowner]

It will do no such thing. This is further incentive for smokers to pay the fine and not buy insurance. They will buy insurance the day they need a lung transplant and they will get it.

By them not paying their "fair share", premiums will go up on the rubes who play by the rules because they are the ones paying for everything.

This type of thing is very predictable with the way Obamacare was set up.

Either way, they're paying higher premiums and that'll help defray their higher costs OR they aren't participating in the pool and raising the costs. Either way, that's good for non-smokers. If you can afford to smoke, you should be able to afford what it really costs to do so.

[sappstuf]

Either way, they're paying higher premiums and that'll help defray their higher costs OR they aren't participating in the pool and raising the costs. Either way, that's good for non-smokers. If you can afford to smoke, you should be able to afford what it really costs to do so.

You are incorrect. The fine is the enforcement to make people buy insurance. If your insurance rate is high, it makes more sense to pay the fine, which will be much less. Because Obamacare stipulates that you cannot turn down people with preexisting conditions, these people can wait until they are very, very sick before buying insurance. Since they haven't been paying premiums for years and now they need $100K in care, the insurance will have to compensate by getting that money from somewhere else.

That somewhere else are the healthy people that are actually paying premiums.

[olevetonahill]

Sure am glad I quit those things
Wait , What if i still toke a bit ? does that count?

[lubbocksooner]

Either way, they're paying higher premiums and that'll help defray their higher costs OR they aren't participating in the pool and raising the costs. Either way, that's good for non-smokers. If you can afford to smoke, you should be able to afford what it really costs to do so.

Nope, at least that is not what happened with my insurance. Nicotine uses pay more now than me in my plan but mine still went up. Companies will laugh all the way to the bank.

[LakeRat]

Okay, looked up the actual rule, it's not double as much, it's 50% more.

At any rate, this should lower the overall cost of insurance. That said, there's no guarantee insurance companies would charge 50% more. I am unaware (and someone correct me) as to any current restrictions on whether companies can charge higher premiums for smokers vs. non smokers.

The way they do it is they give a "discount" for being a "non-smoker". They can't technically "charge" you for being a smoker. (BS government trying to make cheaper rates)

[LakeRat]

You are incorrect. The fine is the enforcement to make people buy insurance. If your insurance rate is high, it makes more sense to pay the fine, which will be much less. Because Obamacare stipulates that you cannot turn down people with preexisting conditions, these people can wait until they are very, very sick before buying insurance. Since they haven't been paying premiums for years and now they need $100K in care, the insurance will have to compensate by getting that money from somewhere else.

That somewhere else are the healthy people that are actually paying premiums.

This is 100% correct!! This was my problem with obamacare the entire time!!

My house is on fire, let me call my insurance agent and put insurance on it real quick. How many of you would have house insurance? How would a home insurance company make a profit? They would be out of business really quick.

This is the reason that we will be in universal healthcare within the next 5 years. That is what happens when you have politicians asking doctors how to make "health insurance" cheaper. Ask an Insurance guy!! You don't ask a body shop how to lower insurance costs.

Gotta love LIBS!!

[Soonerjeepman]

Gotta love LIBS!!

do we really? ugh~

[FaninAma]

If you have health insurance now pray your company or insurance company doesn't drop you. The cheapest Obamacare plan for a family of 5 is $20,000. Of course you can simply pay the penalty of $2400 but that doesn't buy you anything.

http://theroycroftreport.com/2013/01/31/irs-says-cheapest-obamacare-plan-will-cost-you-20000-per-year/

[FirstandGoal]

So if I have a history of DUIs and hit and runs should I not expect to pay a higher auto insurance premium?

Holy ****.

We actually agree on something.


****!

[yermom]

If you have health insurance now pray your company or insurance company doesn't drop you. The cheapest Obamacare plan for a family of 5 is $20,000. Of course you can simply pay the penalty of $2400 but that doesn't buy you anything.

http://theroycroftreport.com/2013/01/31/irs-says-cheapest-obamacare-plan-will-cost-you-20000-per-year/

they are estimating that coverage would be $20000 a year. that doesn't seem that far off... how much would you expect a family of 5 buying their own coverage to pay?

[Midtowner]

The way they do it is they give a "discount" for being a "non-smoker". They can't technically "charge" you for being a smoker. (BS government trying to make cheaper rates)

If you don't like it, quit smoking.

Easy peasy.

[sappstuf]

If you don't like it, quit smoking.

Easy peasy.

Or just pay the fine which would be 25% or less of what you should be paying, leaving the rubes to pick up the costs...

Easy peasy.

[SCOUT]

If you don't like it, quit smoking.

Easy peasy.

Government mandated behavior. Easy peasy....

[Harry Beanbag]

they are estimating that coverage would be $20000 a year. that doesn't seem that far off... how much would you expect a family of 5 buying their own coverage to pay?


Certainly not $1666 a month. Holy crap, who the hell would be able to afford that?

[yermom]

i've known individuals that were quoted more than half that for just themselves, and others paying about half that for coverage through their job for their whole family, so it's not like it's an order of magnitude off or anything

but the initial statement makes it sound like you would pay Obamacare that much for coverage. they are just using that number as an estimate for what the tax penalty for not having coverage would be in 2016.

[Harry Beanbag]

Im sorry, but that is completely insane. Health care cost control has to be at the top of the list. That is half the average family's annual income.

[Midtowner]

Government mandated behavior. Easy peasy....

Or you can pay what it costs to take care of you when you get sick. That's not government mandated behavior, that's government mandated personal responsibility.

[sappstuf]

Or you can pay what it costs to take care of you when you get sick. That's not government mandated behavior, that's government mandated personal responsibility.

Plus paying a fine for taking on such personal responsibility.

[StoopTroup]

Sure am glad I quit those things
Wait , What if i still toke a bit ? does that count?
Since its a gateway drug, yes. It should probably cancel any State or Federal Assistance.

[yermom]

Im sorry, but that is completely insane. Health care cost control has to be at the top of the list. That is half the average family's annual income.

So the government should control private business?

[Harry Beanbag]

So the government should control private business?


:rolleyes: Come on, be original. I'm sure you've posted the same canned response a hundred times the last 10 years. Everyone has seen the ideas for lowering health care costs: tort reform, interstate insurance, etc. Would it work? I have no idea, but the government ****s everything up they touch.

[jk the sooner fan]

Aren't insurance premiums normally based on your likelihood to need the insurance?

this - this is no different than private insurance premiums being based on your lifestyle and risk behaviors

[yermom]

:rolleyes: Come on, be original. I'm sure you've posted the same canned response a hundred times the last 10 years. Everyone has seen the ideas for lowering health care costs: tort reform, interstate insurance, etc. Would it work? I have no idea, but the government ****s everything up they touch.

my stance on Obamacare has always been that it didn't do enough. i've yet to see how it is even close to the socialism that everyone complains about. they had to caveso much just to get it passed and call it "Obamacare"

i don't feel like i can get behind tort reform, but i do think there certainly needs to be more competition.

[Turd_Ferguson]

my stance on Obamacare has always been that it didn't do enough. i've yet to see how it is even close to the socialism that everyone complains about. they had to caveso much just to get it passed and call it "Obamacare"

i don't feel like i can get behind tort reform, but i do think there certainly needs to be more competition.

Are you high...again?

[yermom]

yeah...

[Turd_Ferguson]

yeah...

Figgers...

[okie52]

my stance on Obamacare has always been that it didn't do enough. i've yet to see how it is even close to the socialism that everyone complains about. they had to caveso much just to get it passed and call it "Obamacare"

i don't feel like i can get behind tort reform, but i do think there certainly needs to be more competition.

If you want universal healthcare to be similar to European, Canadian & Australian UH, particularly if you want cost containment and reduction, you would have to have include tort reform as almost all of those countries have liability caps and loser pays.

[olevetonahill]

Are you high...again?

Yo ask that like its a Bad thing.

[sappstuf]

Are you high...again?

You believe he came down?

[Turd_Ferguson]

liability caps and loser pays.Matlock would never go for this. His spawn would never reap the benefits of an six figure income if it were this way...

[Turd_Ferguson]

Yo ask that like its a Bad thing.

Careful...there's somebody questioning whether or not you should be receiving federal benefits if'n you're tok'n on the skunk weed...

[olevetonahill]

Careful...there's somebody questioning whether or not you should be receiving federal benefits if'n you're tok'n on the skunk weed...

Let em question. Who and where By the way?
I bet Ive smoked Less and drank less than who I think might of axed that than He has taken Pills!:congratulatory:

[okie52]

Matlock would never go for this. His spawn would never reap the benefits of an six figure income if it were this way...

Oh, I know. The trial lawyers are in our corner.

[sappstuf]

Oh, I know. The trial lawyers are in our corner.

They are protecting your interests... Minus 20%.