America's #1 Online Cigar Auction
first, best, biggest!

Last post 11 years ago by victor809. 25 replies replies.
Penalty Could Keep Smokers Out Of Health Overhaul
dpnewell Offline
#1 Posted:
Joined: 03-16-2009
Posts: 7,491
Quote:
Penalty could keep smokers out of health overhaul
By RICARDO ALONSO-ZALDIVAR Associated Press The Associated Press
Thursday, January 24, 2013 4:16 PM EST

WASHINGTON (AP) — Millions of smokers could be priced out of health insurance because of tobacco penalties in President Barack 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 next Jan. 1.

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.

Younger smokers could be charged lower penalties under rules proposed last fall by the Obama administration. But older smokers 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 employer 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 U.S. adults smokes. That share is higher among lower-income people, who also are more likely to work in jobs that don't come with health insurance and would therefore 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 like a bad back or a heart that skips beats — but they 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.

"We don't want to create barriers for people to get health care coverage," said California state Assemblyman Richard Pan, who is working on a law in his state that would limit insurers' ability to charge smokers more. The federal law allows states to limit or change the smoking penalty.

"We want people who are smoking to get smoking cessation treatment," added Pan, a pediatrician who represents the Sacramento area.

Obama administration officials declined to be interviewed for this article, but a former consumer protection regulator for the government is raising questions.

"If you are an insurer and there is a group of smokers you don't want in your pool, the ones you really don't want are the ones who have been smoking for 20 or 30 years," said Karen Pollitz, an expert on individual health insurance markets with the nonpartisan Kaiser Family Foundation. "You would have the flexibility to discourage them."

Several provisions in the federal health care law work together to leave older smokers with a bleak set of financial options, said Pollitz, formerly deputy director of the Office of Consumer Support in the federal Health and Human Services Department.

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.

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

Here's how the math would work:

Take a hypothetical 60-year-old smoker making $35,000 a year. Estimated premiums for coverage in the new private health insurance markets under Obama's law would total $10,172. That person would be eligible for a tax credit that brings the cost down to $3,325.

But the smoking penalty could add $5,086 to the cost. And since federal tax credits can't be used to offset the penalty, the smoker's total cost for health insurance would be $8,411, or 24 percent of income. That's considered unaffordable under the federal law. The numbers were estimated using the online Kaiser Health Reform Subsidy Calculator.

"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.

In today's world, insurers can simply turn down a smoker. Under Obama's overhaul, would they actually charge the full 50 percent? After all, workplace anti-smoking programs that use penalties usually charge far less, maybe $75 or $100 a month.

Robert Laszewski, a consultant who previously worked in the insurance industry, says there's a good reason to charge the maximum.

"If you don't charge the 50 percent, your competitor is going to do it, and you are going to get a disproportionate share of the less-healthy older smokers," said Laszewski. "They are going to have to play defense."


This is what you people voted for. We tried to warn you, but you didn't listen. Enjoy your new "free" health care. "Affordable Care Act" my arse!
HockeyDad Offline
#2 Posted:
Joined: 09-20-2000
Posts: 46,199
We should prolly go ahead and just change it to "Medicare: Cradle to Grave" and make the necessary payroll deduction changes.
cacman Offline
#3 Posted:
Joined: 07-03-2010
Posts: 12,216
dpnewell wrote:
Take a hypothetical 60-year-old smoker making $35,000 a year. Estimated premiums for coverage in the new private health insurance markets under Obama's law would total $10,172.

Found this to be most disturbing! Thought this was supposed to be "affordable" healthcare not 1/3 of a person's salary. Take another 1/3 for taxes, and you're eating mac 'n cheese while living in a box.
HockeyDad Offline
#4 Posted:
Joined: 09-20-2000
Posts: 46,199
cacman wrote:
Found this to be most disturbing! Thought this was supposed to be "affordable" healthcare not 1/3 of a person's salary. Take another 1/3 for taxes, and you're eating mac 'n cheese while living in a box.



Fine. Let them eat cake.
daveincincy Offline
#5 Posted:
Joined: 08-11-2006
Posts: 20,033
Eventually, masturbating in public will be more acceptable than smoking.

I know...some of you can't wait. LOL
daveincincy Offline
#6 Posted:
Joined: 08-11-2006
Posts: 20,033
Will Rogers said, "the income tax has made more liars out of the American people than golf has."

His quote will no longer be true if that health care provision is passed. What a coincidence that, all of a sudden, all insurance applications would seem to indicate that there are no more smokers. Liar
DadZilla3 Offline
#7 Posted:
Joined: 01-17-2009
Posts: 4,633
daveincincy wrote:
Eventually, masturbating in public will be more acceptable than smoking.

I know...some of you can't wait. LOL

Hopefully the wackers will be more accommodating about rolling a window the whole way down when they're riding in someone else's car than smokers are...
TMCTLT Offline
#8 Posted:
Joined: 11-22-2007
Posts: 19,733
DadZilla3 wrote:
Hopefully the wackers will be more accommodating about rolling a window the whole way down when they're riding in someone else's car than smokers are...



That "someone can simply refuse the smoker the right.....after all it's "their" car....
And I say screw it.....spray the windows!!! LMAO


And NOooooo God forbid we take on the obese crowd who now outspends health care dollars vs smokers, that just wouldn't be politically correct horse
dpnewell Offline
#9 Posted:
Joined: 03-16-2009
Posts: 7,491
Are our cigar smoking liberal friends ever going to reply in defense of this "screw the poor and middle class smoker" legislation that they helped to pass? What, no "if it saves one life, it's worth burdening the low income smoker with crushing mandates and/or tax penalties"? Could it be that they are elitist, and think that smoking should be an activity reserved only for the rich? Or is that they are selfish, and as long as this legislation benefits them, they don’t care about the overwhelming financial burden it places on the poor and middle class they claim to care so much about?

Maybe they're finally realizing that the "Messiah" they elected to "screw the rich", wants to screw them too. They also could just be in denial.

Somehow I think we're going to be posting a bunch of "I told you so" threads over the next 4 years, which will receive the same "cricket" responses from our usually opinionated Liberal brothers.
chemyst Offline
#10 Posted:
Joined: 05-29-2006
Posts: 1,674
We can cut costs by eliminating subsidies to fatties, AIDs patients,
drinkers, diabetics, cancer patients, vegans, anorexics, etc. Eventually
no one will be covered except Congress, which has its own plan
anyway. And the American people will just keep paying... and paying.

Actually smokers, the obese, etc. have a shorter life span, and so will
use less total healthcare dollars, anyway.
Brewha Offline
#11 Posted:
Joined: 01-25-2010
Posts: 12,202
dpnewell wrote:
Are our cigar smoking liberal friends ever going to reply in defense of this "screw the poor and middle class smoker" legislation that they helped to pass? What, no "if it saves one life, it's worth burdening the low income smoker with crushing mandates and/or tax penalties"? Could it be that they are elitist, and think that smoking should be an activity reserved only for the rich? Or is that they are selfish, and as long as this legislation benefits them, they don’t care about the overwhelming financial burden it places on the poor and middle class they claim to care so much about?

Maybe they're finally realizing that the "Messiah" they elected to "screw the rich", wants to screw them too. They also could just be in denial.

Somehow I think we're going to be posting a bunch of "I told you so" threads over the next 4 years, which will receive the same "cricket" responses from our usually opinionated Liberal brothers.

As one of Cbids few but noted liberals, I will answer the call and provide the voice that is seldom heard or respected here;
DP, you are full of sh1t.

Please feel free to quote me.
dpnewell Offline
#12 Posted:
Joined: 03-16-2009
Posts: 7,491
Oh, come on Brewha, I expected so much better out of you, but, I still love ya, man.

Silly, silly me. Rule #1 from the liberal debate book totally slipped my mind.

1) When presented with facts that you can not hope to discredit, resort to name calling.
Brewha Offline
#13 Posted:
Joined: 01-25-2010
Posts: 12,202
dpnewell wrote:
Oh, come on Brewha, I expected so much better out of you, but, I still love ya, man.

Silly, silly me. Rule #1 from the liberal debate book totally slipped my mind.

1) When presented with facts that you can not hope to discredit, resort to name calling.

Name calling???
Another example of a keen eye on the facts.

So when I was a kid growing up on a farm in New Jersey, we had a manure spreader. It threw more sh1t than you could ever hope to stop while it was going. Like Fox News. How could anyone dispute so many individual points of BS opinion?

If fairness, it works on the uninformed. So I guess you have a large audience . . . .
dpnewell Offline
#14 Posted:
Joined: 03-16-2009
Posts: 7,491
^You grew up in Jersey? OK, that explains a lot.
daveincincy Offline
#15 Posted:
Joined: 08-11-2006
Posts: 20,033
Brewha wrote:
As one of Cbids few but noted liberals, I will answer the call and provide the voice that is seldom heard or respected here;
DP, you are full of sh1t.

Please feel free to quote me.



So what you're saying is that it's perfectly okay for healthcare to cost this much?

And/or you're saying that you (like FuzzNJ) don't really care because you don't smoke cigars.
victor809 Offline
#16 Posted:
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
So... let me get this straight....

first you whined about government funded insurance programs.... (which I agree, I don't like obamacare myself, on the surface)....
Then you whined that the government funding won't cover optional smoker's penalties from the insurance companies (which have not actually been implemented yet, but are speculated)..

Which are you whining about most? do you want to pay your fair share or not??

I don't agree with obamacare, and I believe that smokers are frequently singled out as "unhealthy" vs hundreds of other unhealthy activities... but life isn't fair.
If you find the costs of being a smoker too extravagant, you can always stop....
dpnewell Offline
#17 Posted:
Joined: 03-16-2009
Posts: 7,491
victor809 wrote:
So... let me get this straight....

first you whined about government funded insurance programs.... (which I agree, I don't like obamacare myself, on the surface)....
Then you whined that the government funding won't cover optional smoker's penalties from the insurance companies (which have not actually been implemented yet, but are speculated)..

Which are you whining about most? do you want to pay your fair share or not??

I don't agree with obamacare, and I believe that smokers are frequently singled out as "unhealthy" vs hundreds of other unhealthy activities... but life isn't fair.
If you find the costs of being a smoker too extravagant, you can always stop....


You totally missed the point of this thread, Victor. I too dislike Obamacare and want it repealed. The point is that a lot of the folks that voted for this program, thinking they'd get "free health care", are going to end up paying an arm and a leg. What happened to the "no new taxes on the middle class"? Seems this program is a major tax increase on a demonized portion of the middle class.

Even if your employer provides health insurance, you're not safe if you are a smoker. Do you think an employer is going to just sit back and absorb these massive increases on their smoking employees? Some may, but most won't. They will either pass the cost on to the employee, or tell them they have to quit smoking if they want to keep their job.

It's the outright lies and fables that Obama told everyone about this program that has me upset. Do you think he would have been re-elected if smokers knew that Obamacare could cost them another $5k or so out of their pocket, or even their job? Isn't it strange that this information only came out after the election? Do you really think this wasn't known some time ago?

A lot of folks who voted for this guy are going to be screaming for his head if these increases take affect. Oh, silly me, they'll just once again bury their heads in the sand, and blame it on the evil insurance companies. Their messiah can do no wrong.
victor809 Offline
#18 Posted:
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
dpnewell wrote:
You totally missed the point of this thread, Victor. I too dislike Obamacare and want it repealed. The point is that a lot of the folks that voted for this program, thinking they'd get "free health care", are going to end up paying an arm and a leg. What happened to the "no new taxes on the middle class"? Seems this program is a major tax increase on a demonized portion of the middle class.

Even if your employer provides health insurance, you're not safe if you are a smoker. Do you think an employer is going to just sit back and absorb these massive increases on their smoking employees? Some may, but most won't. They will either pass the cost on to the employee, or tell them they have to quit smoking if they want to keep their job.

It's the outright lies and fables that Obama told everyone about this program that has me upset. Do you think he would have been re-elected if smokers knew that Obamacare could cost them another $5k or so out of their pocket, or even their job? Isn't it strange that this information only came out after the election? Do you really think this wasn't known some time ago?

A lot of folks who voted for this guy are going to be screaming for his head if these increases take affect. Oh, silly me, they'll just once again bury their heads in the sand, and blame it on the evil insurance companies. Their messiah can do no wrong.


You're ignoring free market (ironic, since you're a republican).
The article tries to dismiss it (by saying that no insurance company will try to undercut the other because none of them actually want these people to be insured), but that's making some strong assumptions.

First, it is assuming that the "additional 50%" is not sufficient to cover the differential between insuring a smoker and insuring a non-smoker of equal age. If the article is correct, and an additional 50% is not enough that insurance companies would want to insure the older smoker, then why wouldnt' the older smoker love to pay it? It means that paying that amount is less than their expected health costs, and is in that case a deal for them. If the additional 50% exceeds that of the costs of insuring the smokers, then the insurance companies would in fact bid the price down to "close to" cost neutral point.

Second... and this could be something I'm missing... but after a certain point, aren't all older people covered by medicare? You're looking at a pretty narrow window to judge the entire program.

As for smokers and their employment and insurance companies... you can't blame that one on obama... it's been coming for a while and pisses me off as well. But it isn't specifically linked to obamacare.
dpnewell Offline
#19 Posted:
Joined: 03-16-2009
Posts: 7,491
Victor,
I know this is only conjecture, but if they took the time to single out smokers for increased premiums under Obamacare, how long do you think it will be before retired smokers are hit with a Medicare “surcharge”?
Brewha Offline
#20 Posted:
Joined: 01-25-2010
Posts: 12,202
daveincincy wrote:
So what you're saying is that it's perfectly okay for healthcare to cost this much?

And/or you're saying that you (like FuzzNJ) don't really care because you don't smoke cigars.

No, I said the posting was fallacious (no, fallacious is not a sex thing).

Yes, I smoke cigars. Yes, I care about healthcare costs – it is an industry that badly needs reform.

In the OP, I read words like “potential”, “could”, “can”, etc. So by bullsh1t detector went off.
It’s like Rush Limbaugh; he’s real good at telling you what to worry about and who to blame - and that’s all.
Brewha Offline
#21 Posted:
Joined: 01-25-2010
Posts: 12,202
dpnewell wrote:
^You grew up in Jersey? OK, that explains a lot.

You’re just jealous because I escaped . . . .
victor809 Offline
#22 Posted:
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
dpnewell wrote:
Victor,
I know this is only conjecture, but if they took the time to single out smokers for increased premiums under Obamacare, how long do you think it will be before retired smokers are hit with a Medicare “surcharge”?


It's a valid fear. Don't know how they'll justify it, but I'm sure a group will try.
The pendulum will swing the other way eventually. The number of smokers will have decreased enough that taxation of the habit will not be profitable, and the hundreds of pet projects it has funded will go after another bad habit to get their $$ (I'm hoping obesity... damn fat f#cks)...

Then, when no one's looking... people will start to smoke again.

Or the fatties will get really pissed, and politicians will realize taxing that large a percentage of the voting bloc is bad business....
TMCTLT Offline
#23 Posted:
Joined: 11-22-2007
Posts: 19,733
chemyst wrote:
We can cut costs by eliminating subsidies to fatties, AIDs patients,
drinkers, diabetics, cancer patients, vegans, anorexics, etc. Eventually
no one will be covered except Congress, which has its own plan
anyway. And the American people will just keep paying... and paying.

Actually smokers, the obese, etc. have a shorter life span, and so will
use less total healthcare dollars, anyway.




Actually the "Obesity" thing will cost FAR MORE.....why? Because for some obesity has been a part of their life since childhood.....hence so have the issues that come with it. VS smokers issues typically come after a couple decades or so of smoking!
bloody spaniard Offline
#24 Posted:
Joined: 03-14-2003
Posts: 43,802
You guys are beginning to scare me.
I wanted health insurance but I wanted it for FREE. Well, free after the necessary maintenance fees.

No one has really read the plan yet, have they? ...and understood all the implications once it's implemented.
I'll reserve my judgment until I see it in action. If it converts doctors to lower paid medical clerks who monitor marginal healthcare (as they currently do) so be it.


Now let's move on to tort reform, simplify our legal code, & turn lawyers into minimum wage law clerks which is what they richly deserve.
Then we can focus on accountants who make a living off an unnecessarily complicated tax structure... BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHA!
victor809 Offline
#25 Posted:
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
TMCTLT wrote:
[/h]


Actually the "Obesity" thing will cost FAR MORE.....why? Because for some obesity has been a part of their life since childhood.....hence so have the issues that come with it. VS smokers issues typically come after a couple decades or so of smoking!


TMC is correct.
I haven't looked it up in a while, but if I recall (and it'd probably behoove all of us to actually research this) the obese cost A LOT to die. First they get diabetes... that goes on for decades (and insulin is actually an expensive drug to manufacture) then they start getting complications from diabetes, multiple hospital visits, treatments, amputations etc. Then they finally have a heart attack.

If smoking kills someone it's usually just a few visits, or a bout of lung cancer... not cheap, but at this time not usually a lifelong treatment. It kills you comparatively quickly.

What anti-smoking people fail to recognize in their "smoking costs" numbers is that EVERYONE gets something and dies of it. The longer you avoid dying of a car wreck or school shooting, the more likely you are to get a cancer of some sort. Hell, in the end almost everyone will die of a heart issue or a cancer issue. It's ALWAYS expensive to die. Smokers just tend to have that expense a few years earlier. As long as smoking doesn't kill someone before they finish paying into the system, it's likely no more expensive than a non-smoker.
Users browsing this topic
Guest