4 ms·

Happily, Obamacare limits the extent to which they can do that.

by blahedo 12y ago

ISL 12y ago
For now. The mandated electronic medical records from the ARRA and ACA will make it easier for entities, government or private, to do so in the future. A single-payer system would have similar incentives (in the form of cost reduction) to do the same.
Shivetya 12y ago
there should be no limits on smokers. There is no possible health benefit with smoking and as such penalizing them might get them quit. Many self insured companies already charge extra, 600 a year where I am. However for the money most make that isn't diddly, at least they don't think so
- throwaway2048 12y ago
  moralizers like yourself are why people should be very very afraid of data collection like this.
- chenelson 12y ago
  Well, margin is a difficult concept to grep. Vanderbilt University economist Kip Viscusi claims a net cost savings of 32 cents per pack sold [1]. It seems we're all going to die, and Alzheimer's isn't part of the quick and easy way out of healthcare cost. And at the ripe age of 125 or so, 100% suffer cancer. 1. http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/health/2009-04-08-fda-tobacco-costs_N.htm http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/health/2009-04-08-fda-to...
  - mikeash 12y ago
    Smoking could save money for society but it probably doesn't save money for individual insurers, who are much more worried about the shorter term. The private insurance you have when you're 30 isn't going to be paying for your nursing-home care when you're 90, but they are likely to end up paying for various smoking-related illnesses that kill you sooner.
    - chenelson 12y ago
      We don't really have Health Insurance companies. Insurance is about risk management, and we have mandated health coverage. But, to your point, this is why real insurance companies manage their portfolios, aggregate. If they're losing money, it's not the responsibility of society to save them.
- ridgeguy 12y ago
  "no possible health benefit with smoking"...as usual, it's more complicated. See, for example, http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/155/8/732.full http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/155/8/732.full for the negative correlation between smoking and Parkinson's disease, and http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/87/4/801.full http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/87/4/801.full for some insights into the negative correlation between smoking and obesity. Not to say that smoking is a good idea, it's not (actuarial data are clear on that), but your view of its consequences is inaccurate.
  - rosser 12y ago
    You're not wrong that there's a negative correlation between smoking and obesity or Parkinson's, but that is not a reason to take up smoking. You're far more likely to die of cancer or heart disease as a smoker than you are not to die from Parkinson's because you smoked.
    - lilsunnybee 12y ago
      Americans are pretty likely to die from heart disease anyways, smoker or non-.

Happily, Obamacare limits the extent to which they can do that.

by blahedo 12y ago

Happily, Obamacare limits the extent to which they can do that.

ISL 12y ago

For now. The mandated electronic medical records from the ARRA and ACA will make it easier for entities, government or private, to do so in the future. A single-payer system would have similar incentives (in the form of cost reduction) to do the same.

Shivetya 12y ago

there should be no limits on smokers. There is no possible health benefit with smoking and as such penalizing them might get them quit. Many self insured companies already charge extra, 600 a year where I am. However for the money most make that isn't diddly, at least they don't think so

throwaway2048 12y ago
moralizers like yourself are why people should be very very afraid of data collection like this.
chenelson 12y ago
Well, margin is a difficult concept to grep. Vanderbilt University economist Kip Viscusi claims a net cost savings of 32 cents per pack sold [1]. It seems we're all going to die, and Alzheimer's isn't part of the quick and easy way out of healthcare cost. And at the ripe age of 125 or so, 100% suffer cancer. 1. http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/health/2009-04-08-fda-tobacco-costs_N.htm http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/health/2009-04-08-fda-to...
- mikeash 12y ago
  Smoking could save money for society but it probably doesn't save money for individual insurers, who are much more worried about the shorter term. The private insurance you have when you're 30 isn't going to be paying for your nursing-home care when you're 90, but they are likely to end up paying for various smoking-related illnesses that kill you sooner.
  - chenelson 12y ago
    We don't really have Health Insurance companies. Insurance is about risk management, and we have mandated health coverage. But, to your point, this is why real insurance companies manage their portfolios, aggregate. If they're losing money, it's not the responsibility of society to save them.
ridgeguy 12y ago
"no possible health benefit with smoking"...as usual, it's more complicated. See, for example, http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/155/8/732.full http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/155/8/732.full for the negative correlation between smoking and Parkinson's disease, and http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/87/4/801.full http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/87/4/801.full for some insights into the negative correlation between smoking and obesity. Not to say that smoking is a good idea, it's not (actuarial data are clear on that), but your view of its consequences is inaccurate.
- rosser 12y ago
  You're not wrong that there's a negative correlation between smoking and obesity or Parkinson's, but that is not a reason to take up smoking. You're far more likely to die of cancer or heart disease as a smoker than you are not to die from Parkinson's because you smoked.
  - lilsunnybee 12y ago
    Americans are pretty likely to die from heart disease anyways, smoker or non-.