# How can any smoker claim to be poor?



## sptrawler (18 February 2014)

I was at the shops today, with the better half, while she was shopping I was idling away time.

I saw the lady at the smoke counter, so I strolled over and asked "how much is a carton of Winfield cigarettes".

She scanned them and said " one hundred and seventy dollars".

You have to be kidding me, people who are supposedly struggling are spending $170 on a carton of rolled up vegetation, then burning it and suck in the fumes.lol

Give me a break, do we need a reset button pressed or what.


----------



## darkhorse70 (18 February 2014)

haha anything for a cheap buzz as they say, or not so cheap


----------



## sptrawler (18 February 2014)

darkhorse70 said:


> haha anything for a cheap buzz as they say, or not so cheap




$170, it made me cough.lol


----------



## skc (19 February 2014)

sptrawler said:


> I was at the shops today, with the better half, while she was shopping I was idling away time.
> 
> I saw the lady at the smoke counter, so I strolled over and asked "how much is a carton of Winfield cigarettes".
> 
> ...




How long will a carton a cigarettes last an average smoker?


----------



## rumpole (19 February 2014)

Smokers can't claim to be poor, neither can they claim to be smart.


----------



## Smurf1976 (19 February 2014)

skc said:


> How long will a carton a cigarettes last an average smoker?




How long is a piece of string?

Depends on the brand, but there's roughly 200 cigarettes in a carton (eg 8 x packets of 25). Not sure about any particular brand, but that's roughly the amount give or take a bit.

Not that I smoke these days. Used to but not now. Silly idea.

It's not just the cost of cigarettes however. Health insurance will also cost more if you're a smoker, as will future medical expenses.

I can't remember the exact prices, but from memory a pack of 30's was just over $3 in the early 1990's and they'd be about 7 times that price today. So a huge increase in costs that continues to run well above CPI or wages growth.

Something I noted recently is that I now know more people who regularly go to a gym than who smoke. That's a big change from the past when a lot more people smoked and only fitness freaks went anywhere near a gym (and there were nowhere near as many gyms around). Sure, a gym costs money but it's cheaper than smoking and a lot better for you too.

Looking at the people I work with it's an even starker reality. Blue collar workforce (trades and a few manual workers) but nobody smokes. And about half do significant regular exercise either in a gym or simply running on the street etc.

I do know one couple though where they both smoke quite a lot. Not sure exactly but I'd guess maybe 10 a day for him and 15 for her. That's over $7000 a year just for the cost of cigarettes. If it were me, I'd quit the gaspers and do something more useful with the money (pay off the mortgage, take the kids on holiday overseas, whatever - we're talking very significant money here after a few years not just a few $ here and there).


----------



## Bill M (19 February 2014)

I don't know how anyone on the dole can afford to smoke but I see it happening all the time. The dole should be handed out a different way, perhaps food vouchers similar to gift cards, to be used for food only might be a good idea.


----------



## Julia (19 February 2014)

Smurf1976 said:


> It's not just the cost of cigarettes however. Health insurance will also cost more if you're a smoker, as will future medical expenses.



Where do you get this from?   I've had private health cover all my adult life and have never been asked whether I'm a smoker or not.    Neither have I ever been questioned about whether I'm a healthy weight or not or whether I engage in regular physical exercise.  Or if I have any significant diseases like coronary artery disease, diabetes et al.

And suggesting people will be charged more for medical care if they smoke would be to open a huge can of the cliched worms.  If that were to happen, then we'd also have to charge people more if they are overweight/obese (now two thirds of the population, to our  national shame), have them declare how much alcohol they consume, whether or not they exercise regularly etc etc.
Completely impracticable.


----------



## Smurf1976 (19 February 2014)

Julia said:


> Where do you get this from?   I've had private health cover all my adult life and have never been asked whether I'm a smoker or not.




Maybe I'm wrong on that point but I thought it made a difference to the cost of health insurance. 

It definitely does for life insurance and the difference is quite significant.




> And suggesting people will be charged more for medical care if they smoke would be to open a huge can of the cliched worms.




There is overwhelming evidence that regular smokers are more likely to suffer a range of health problems when compared to non-smokers. 

Whilst it's hard to put a figure on it, most people do incur at least some cost for medical treatment when they are ill. The actual cost of treatment is one given that many health insurance policies don't cover 100% of the actual cost. Then there's time off work and other practical costs as well and for some people these will end up as real, cash expenses.  

I can't quote a figure, but as a general statement I think it's fair to say that someone who does something with a high chance of causing harm to their health will, on average, end up spending more on medical treatment than someone who is healthier. Not because they pay more for surgery, but because they are more likely to need it in the first place. 

Even if the individual does not pay, if the cost of healthcare is 100% funded by insurance or taxpayers, society as a whole is certainly incurring a cost when people get sick.


----------



## Julia (19 February 2014)

Smurf1976 said:


> There is overwhelming evidence that regular smokers are more likely to suffer a range of health problems when compared to non-smokers.



Agree, of course.



> Whilst it's hard to put a figure on it, most people do incur at least some cost for medical treatment when they are ill.



My guess would be that most people who smoke would be dependent on the public system so yes, costs would be incurred but largely not by the individual.

I may have misunderstood your original post, but my point was that if you're going to charge people more for, eg, private health insurance (and I've yet to see a single example of this), then you'd equally have to charge them more for being obese, having various comorbidities etc.

Just imagine the screams of outrage about discrimination.  I can't see any government having the political will to do it.  Might, however, be the only way of getting people to realise that they can't go on stuffing themselves with junk and not find some sort of responsibility ultimately accrues to that behaviour.


----------



## springhill (19 February 2014)

sptrawler said:


> I was at the shops today, with the better half, while she was shopping I was idling away time.
> 
> I saw the lady at the smoke counter, so I strolled over and asked "how much is a carton of Winfield cigarettes".
> 
> ...




Heard a talk back radio host talking about the cost of smoking, as he is a former smoker.

Before the massive tax hikes he paid around $8-9 for a packet of Longbeach 40's.

Out of curiosity he asked an employee at the local supermarket what they cost now and was shocked to be told they were now around the $29 mark.

A truly astounding increase.

Won't be too long before the do-gooders have their way and we see the price of alcohol heading in the same direction.


----------



## drsmith (19 February 2014)

$170 can buy 2 cartons of Coopers Extra Strong Vintage Ale.

A far better investment than a carton of fags in my view.


----------



## rumpole (20 February 2014)

It would be difficult to charge people more for health insurance if they drink, smoke, are obese etc, but it would be easier if people got a discount if they took regular health checks and were found to be within a normal weight range and showed no evidence of smoking. However you would think that the administrative costs of doing this would be greater than the benefits, if looked at in purely financial terms, but other benefits would be that potential problems would be picked up earlier and therefore treated easier and at less cost.


----------



## sydboy007 (20 February 2014)

Julia said:


> Where do you get this from?   I've had private health cover all my adult life and have never been asked whether I'm a smoker or not.    Neither have I ever been questioned about whether I'm a healthy weight or not or whether I engage in regular physical exercise.  Or if I have any significant diseases like coronary artery disease, diabetes et al.
> 
> And suggesting people will be charged more for medical care if they smoke would be to open a huge can of the cliched worms.  If that were to happen, then we'd also have to charge people more if they are overweight/obese (now two thirds of the population, to our  national shame), have them declare how much alcohol they consume, whether or not they exercise regularly etc etc.
> Completely impracticable.




I think it will have an impact on Income Protection / Trauma insurance and probably life insurance policies too.  I seem to remember when I got Ip and Trauma insurance last year they asked if I had been a smoker with the last 3 or 5 years.


----------



## prawn_86 (20 February 2014)

Julia said:


> If that were to happen, then we'd also have to charge people more if they are overweight/obese (now two thirds of the population, to our  national shame)
> Completely impracticable.




Where are you getting that figure from? A lot of the basic stats only use BMI, which can be massively skewed. So much in fact that some AFL players and many NRL players are considered 'overweight' as muscle weighs more than fat



springhill said:


> Won't be too long before the do-gooders have their way and we see the price of alcohol heading in the same direction.




Grog in Aus is already very heavily taxed. People here cant believe it when i tell them it is $50 for a bottle of fairly standard vodka.

Here you can get a World class bottle of vodka etc for about $20


----------



## sydboy007 (20 February 2014)

springhill said:


> Won't be too long before the do-gooders have their way and we see the price of alcohol heading in the same direction.




The tax on alcohol in Australia is already ridiculous.  At present beer and especially wine are under taxed, while spirits are over taxed.  If a Govt ever has the balls to take on the brewers and wine makers and move to a standardised alcohol volumetric tax would get around this distortion or making cask wine so cheap.


----------



## prawn_86 (20 February 2014)

sydboy007 said:


> The tax on alcohol in Australia is already ridiculous.  At present beer and especially wine are under taxed, while spirits are over taxed.  If a Govt ever has the balls to take on the brewers and wine makers and move to a standardised alcohol volumetric tax would get around this distortion or making cask wine so cheap.




Getting off topic so will be my last post on the matter. Australian wine is (relatively) cheap, but there are a heap of extra import taxes for anything imported. 

Here in the US those taxes seem non-existent to negligible as i can pick up a nice French wine, or comparative American one, for the same price, at all price point levels


----------



## Julia (20 February 2014)

prawn_86 said:


> Where are you getting that figure from?



There are multiple sources.  Here is just one:
http://www.aihw.gov.au/overweight-and-obesity/

If you just Google "overweight and obesity in Australia" you will find dozens of references.

Also, the visual evidence is everywhere, at least in regional areas.  Fat is the new normal.


----------



## Calliope (20 February 2014)

sydboy007 said:


> The tax on alcohol in Australia is already ridiculous.  At present beer and especially wine are under taxed, while spirits are over taxed.  .




Beer and wine are overtaxed...spirits and tobacco are grossly overtaxed. They are all justified by the legislators as sin taxes, but they are excellent money spinners..


----------



## rumpole (20 February 2014)

Calliope said:


> Beer and wine are overtaxed...spirits and tobacco are grossly overtaxed. They are all justified by the legislators as sin taxes, but they are excellent money spinners..




Not just "sins", increased health costs, absenteeism, loss of productivity.


----------



## McLovin (20 February 2014)

Julia said:


> I may have misunderstood your original post, but my point was that if you're going to charge people more for, eg, private health insurance (and I've yet to see a single example of this), then you'd equally have to charge them more for being obese, having various comorbidities etc.
> 
> Just imagine the screams of outrage about discrimination.  I can't see any government having the political will to do it.  Might, however, be the only way of getting people to realise that they can't go on stuffing themselves with junk and not find some sort of responsibility ultimately accrues to that behaviour.




That's how it works in the US, and it doesn't seem to have curbed obesity. If anything, it probably makes it worse.


----------



## skc (20 February 2014)

Julia said:


> Just imagine the screams of outrage about discrimination.  I can't see any government having the political will to do it.  Might, however, be the only way of getting people to realise that they can't go on stuffing themselves with junk and not find some sort of responsibility ultimately accrues to that behaviour.




I think there's a pretty big difference in cost for life insurance between smoker and non-smokers. 

http://www.aami.com.au/life-insurance/quotes

Have a play around here... it asks you pages of questions about your health and lifestyles. The premium for a smoker was ~double that of a non-smoker.

So if life insurers can charge differently based on lifestyle / habits, why can't health insurers?

At the end of the day, insurers are calculating premiums based on probability of occurence. So by definition they are going to be discriminatory against certain risk factors.


----------



## rumpole (20 February 2014)

skc said:


> So if life insurers can charge differently based on lifestyle / habits, why can't health insurers?
> 
> At the end of the day, insurers are calculating premiums based on probability of occurence. So by definition they are going to be discriminatory against certain risk factors.




Health insurers must currently be prevented by law from charging higher premiums for smokers.

As a non smoker, I would welcome either charging smokers more, or reducing premiums for non smokers.

I suppose that may open a can of worms over non choice factors such as genetic predispositions for certain diseases. Insurers might argue premiums should be higher for those people with genetic predispositions to certain diseases. At the moment you can refuse to take genetic tests for life insurance purposes, but if you have had one, you must tell the insurance company about it, but they can't increase the premium if you test positive.

http://www.respondgeneticdiscrimination.com/discrimination-in-insurance.html

I can see insurance companies wanting to change this, with the help of a friendly government.


----------



## prawn_86 (20 February 2014)

Julia said:


> There are multiple sources.  Here is just one:
> http://www.aihw.gov.au/overweight-and-obesity/




My point exactly, these numbers are based on BMI which is a pretty worthless statistic, as it doesnt take into account muscle/bone density, body type etc etc

I know that there is a huge portion of Aus ppl who are actually overweight but using BMI as a statistic is lazy and distorting the numbers

Do any of these people look overweight to you? Because technically they are classified as that...


----------



## Julia (20 February 2014)

skc said:


> I think there's a pretty big difference in cost for life insurance between smoker and non-smokers.
> 
> So if life insurers can charge differently based on lifestyle / habits, why can't health insurers?



I didn't say they couldn't.  I said afaik it is not currently the case.

I know nothing about life insurance:  don't need it.  Do they also require you to provide evidence of whether you're a healthy weight or not/how much exercise you get/what sort of diet you have/what genetic factors could exist how many generations back etc etc?  I'm just attempting to point out that if you're going to influence cost of cover by any lifestyle choice such as smoking, then in order not to be additionally discriminatory, you'd have to equally include assessment of obesity, lack of exercise, intake of junk food, excess alcohol and god knows what else.



prawn_86 said:


> My point exactly, these numbers are based on BMI which is a pretty worthless statistic, as it doesnt take into account muscle/bone density, body type etc etc



  Maybe make your criticism to the government department concerned rather than me.  I'm simply quoting what has been reported over now some years by various researchers.

I understand your point, however.  How would you like obesity measured?   There has to be some sort of criteria.

Certainly there's a proportion of highly muscled individuals who illustrate your point  but  I'm sure you're not suggesting that all the published stats are quite wrong and most 'overweight' or 'obese' people are in fact just a highly toned individual in the peak of health?

Next time you're back in Australia, prawn, come and visit regional Qld and you'll observe for yourself the greater proportion of the population waddle rather than walk.  Look at their grocery trolleys and they're full of junk food.  Usually a couple of cartons of Coke and some fags thrown in.

Recently Dr Gordian Fulde who runs St. Vincents emergency department described how increasing obesity is making their job more difficult.  Larger gurneys and wheelchairs have had to be produced, ambulances have had to be modified etc.  Then what should be a straightforward physical examination is rendered difficult and less accurate because the doctor is obliged to try to palpate organs barely discernible through the rolls of fat.  

Similarly I understand airline seats are no longer suitable for some people, ditto taxis, buses and trains. I doubt this is because passengers requiring larger seating are on their way to a body building competition.

When we have reports of children as young as four being treated for type two diabetes and hypertension due to their obesity, then I do not think you can dismiss the reality on the basis that it's largely to do with the wrong way of measuring weight.


----------



## prawn_86 (20 February 2014)

Julia said:


> Maybe make your criticism to the government department concerned rather than me.  I'm simply quoting what has been reported over now some years by various researchers.
> 
> I understand your point, however.  How would you like obesity measured?   There has to be some sort of criteria.
> 
> ...




I agree there needs to be a measurement, and BMI is simply the easiest, but far from the best. Others would be too costly. Ultimately skin fold tests (or a variety of others) would reveal % body fat

I am suggesting the stats are wrong, by what amount i am unsure, i would guess 5-10%, but it also depends on the sampling method used to get these figures.

I have spent a lot of time in rural QLD and SA and agree there are a lot of overweight people in country towns, and also outer city suburbs. However, on aggregate Australians are exercising more, so its either poor diet, or a lazy incorrect 'formula' causing the 'increases' in % of overweight people (statistically).

Personally if i put on 5 more kg (which i would be happy to) i would then be classified as overweight, despite exercising 3-5 times a week and running 3k time trials at a decent clip


----------



## rumpole (20 February 2014)

> I understand your point, however. How would you like obesity measured? There has to be some sort of criteria.




http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Body_fat_percentage


----------



## Smurf1976 (20 February 2014)

Cost - the brand I used to smoke cost a bit over $3 in the early 1990's for a pack of 30 and it would have been somewhere around $4.50 (from memory) in the mid-1990's. Out of curiosity after reading this thread I noted the price at Woolworths today - $21.95 for the same brand in same pack size. So certainly a massive price increase there.

If someone smokes, say, 10 cigarettes per day (and that's certainly not a high figure) then that's $2670 a year. After accommodation (rent / mortgage) that's right up there as a major expense. It's more than would normally be spent on rates, house and contents insurance, health insurance, internet / phone, water, pay TV, newspapers, petrol and most individual living costs. Even at 10 per day cigarettes are clearly up there as one of the biggest expenses. 

If someone smokes 15+ per day then it's almost certainly their biggest single cost after accommodation. At least it is unless they're also a big spender on some particular hobby, travel etc. There's no other normal expense, other than accommodation, that costs that much for an average person.

As for insurance, I do see the social and political problem with health insurance being based on risk factors, particularly if that extends to genetics. But smoking is somewhat different since it's a simple yes/no question and doesn't discriminate - anyone can choose to smoke or to not smoke.

Car insurance already works this way. Eg a 50 year old male driving a Ford Falcon (to pick a random reasonably common car) pays a lower premium compared to a 19 year old driving the exact same car.

Different vehicles also have a different level of risk - eg car A valued at $10K will incur a different premium to car B also valued at $10K even if owned and driven by the same person. Partly that comes down to the cost of repairs but it also comes down to risk. 

I don't have the facts but I expect that I'd be pretty safe in assuming that the chances of a V8 Commodore or an R32, 33 or 34  Nissan Skyline being in a major accident are a lot higher than the chances of a Toyota Camry or an old Morris being in a similar crash. That comes down to the types of people who typically own such vehicles more than the vehicle itself. Someone who buys a 1960 Morris probably just likes old British cars and will drive it carefully and not that often. Someone who buys a Camry most likely just wants to get from A to B. But it's very different for someone who buys a relatively cheap (second hand at current prices) V8 Commodore, Skyline etc. Some will drive conservatively, they bought the old Commodore simply because they like Holdens etc, but if someone is going to race on the streets then this is the sort of car they're most likely to want. Nobody's likely to race an old Morris around town on Saturday night and run into a light pole etc.

They even take residential address into account - my car insurance cost changed slightly when I moved from one suburb to another a few years ago. Somewhat strangely, they gave my car a slightly higher value based on being garaged at my new address - presumably making some assumptions about certain areas and how well someone living there is likely to look after the car. It was only a minor change, $200 from memory, but it was a change nonetheless. Same car, same insurer but they valued it $200 higher when garaged at a different address.

Obviously there's a lot of reliance upon certain stereotypes there, but insurance companies will simply look at the numbers. 18 years old + a Commodore, Skyline etc is far more likely to lead to a crash than being 50 years old and driving a Camry.

So I do see the problem with health insurers doing it, but it's certainly already an accepted practice with other forms of insurance. 

As for the thread title, logic says that a poor person can't afford to smoke given the cost these days although many seem to do just that. I suspect it comes down to the "shock" value of it. 

Somoene buys 60 litres of petrol, hands over $100 and gets a few coins back as change. That has a certain shock value to it.

Someone gets a $1000 power bill after winter. There's a definite shock value to that and the newspapers (at least here in Tas) are filled with complaints around August - September every year without fail. Then it all goes quiet until the following year - $350 bills don't produce a "shock" in Summer but $1000 sure does judging by public and media reaction.

But handing over $20 at a time for cigarettes doesn't deliver the same "shock" effect unless you actually do the maths (which I'd expect that most smokers don't). You might be doing it every 2 or 3 days, but it's only $20 that you see disappear each time you buy them.


----------



## rumpole (20 February 2014)

Julia said:


> When we have reports of children as young as four being treated for type two diabetes and hypertension due to their obesity, then I do not think you can dismiss the reality on the basis that it's largely to do with the wrong way of measuring weight.




We could of course, simply accept the fact that a lot of people are stupid and won't change their ways and simply legislate maximum amounts of sugar, salt and fat per kg in foods. People cold go out and buy sugar and salt and add these in later, but once used to the taste of foods without these additives I doubt if they would bother. (or is that measure too socialist ?)

I used to use sugar in my coffee and salt on meals, but did away with both of them and don't miss either of them.


----------



## sptrawler (20 February 2014)

rumpole said:


> I used to use sugar in my coffee and salt on meals, but did away with both of them and don't miss either of them.




We did the same a long time ago, now if there is sugar in tea or coffee or salt on a meal, we find the taste over powering.
Having said that, there are occassions where we both crave salt, usually in the form of corn chips.lol

With regard smoking, I gave up in the very early 80's a 2oz packet of 'Drum' lose tobacco had just cracked $1 a packet.
I remember it well, we were living in NW W.A and had ordered our 'big shop' from Perth. Well the roads were cut due to rain, and my smoke supply was stuck in transit.lol

I must find out what they cost now.


----------



## Bill M (20 February 2014)

sptrawler said:


> With regard smoking, I gave up in the very early 80's a 2oz packet of '*Drum' lose tobacco* had just cracked $1 a packet.
> I remember it well, we were living in NW W.A and had ordered our 'big shop' from Perth. Well the roads were cut due to rain, and my smoke supply was stuck in transit.lol
> 
> I must find out what they cost now.




I had to look it up after I saw your post. A 50 gram pouch is $40.45 + $9 for postage

http://www.tobaccoblends.com.au/en/tobacco/49-drum-halfzware-30g-8710900061125.html


----------



## sptrawler (20 February 2014)

Bill M said:


> I had to look it up after I saw your post. A 50 gram pouch is $40.45 + $9 for postage
> 
> http://www.tobaccoblends.com.au/en/tobacco/49-drum-halfzware-30g-8710900061125.html




Hells bells, $50, I should have kept the carton of 10, rather than give it away.

But in hind sight, it was the best give away I've ever done.

Having said that, it was amazingly hard to give smokes away.
For years the urge to have a smoke was just as strong as the first day.
The only saving grace was the urge became less frequent.

At first it was every 5 minutes, after a month every 20minutes, after five years once a month.

Then it became just occassionaly, when you smelt it, while having a beer.

Now after 33 years I hate the smell of cigarettes, what's the saying "there is nothing worse than a reformed smoker".

I've become the person I hated.lol


----------



## Julia (20 February 2014)

Smurf1976 said:


> As for insurance, I do see the social and political problem with health insurance being based on risk factors, particularly if that extends to genetics. But smoking is somewhat different since it's a simple yes/no question and doesn't discriminate - anyone can choose to smoke or to not smoke.



I'd suggest that that is somewhat over simplifying it.   Let's consider a hypothetical example:

Cedric and Gertrude are the same age, 35.   
Cedric is a healthy weight, works out at the gym, and runs/swims pretty much every day.
He has no genetic markers for disease.
His biochemistry is all well within normal limits.
He is interested in maintaining a decent level of health and drinks alcohol only a couple of times a week and then not more than two standard drinks.
He needs no medication.
He does, however, enjoy a single post-prandial cigarette each evening.
Therefore he is "a smoker".

Gertrude is morbidly obese.
She doesn't have the energy or inclination to exercise, neither can she be bothered trying to modify her junk food diet.
She has more than one hereditary factor in terms of cardiovascular and other diseases.
Her biochemistry is woeful.  She has diabetes, hypertension, coronary artery disease, thyroid disease plus problematic joints due to the massive weight bearing effects of her obesity.  
She is on multiple medications, many of which cause side effects which require further medication to control.
She consoles herself with at least three standard drinks every night, and more if it has been a bad day.
However, she does not smoke.

So if you're going to penalise everyone who is classified as "a smoker" without taking into account all the other risk factors it's not only illogical but massively discriminatory.

I know which person above I'd be prepared to stake the risk on.


----------



## sptrawler (20 February 2014)

Julia said:


> I'd suggest that that is somewhat over simplifying it.   Let's consider a hypothetical example:
> 
> Cedric and Gertrude are the same age, 35.
> Cedric is a healthy weight, works out at the gym, and runs/swims pretty much every day.
> ...




Cedric will probably be a bigger burden on the health system, due to his underlying fitness enabling him to carrying his onset of emphysema.

Whereas Gertrude, will quite possibly pass away at a relatively early age, god bless her.


----------



## DocK (21 February 2014)

I've taken out numerous life insurance and income protection policies over the years.  Smoking status is by far responsible for the largest differences in premium.  From memory, height/weight are included, along with fairly comprehensive medical history.  If there are any factors that may actually present a risk to the insurance company a report from your medical practitioner is often required.  I know I've had to pay a small loading due to a history of mild asthma, and my husband has had to have our chiropractor submit a report on an old neck injury.  To the best of my knowledge, most life/trauma/income protection insurance companies will load premiums or refuse cover if the applicant has existing medical issues due to morbid obesity, smoking or other factors.  If one is able to eat a poor diet or be somewhat overweight, but not suffer from poor health, then I suppose there is no discrimination in premium.  Smoking, however, has been proven statistically to be the single largest individual factor likely to negatively affect health, hence the massive increase in premium.  It's much simpler I suppose for an insurance company to apply smoker/non-smoker status, then perhaps to work out an increase in premium for a person with a poor diet who exercises vs someone with an excellent diet who does not etc - there are so many variables in establishing dietary and exercise standards, especially if adjusted for age.  Whereas one either smokes or one doesn't - even if it is only one per day (which would be a very small but unlucky % of insurance applicants).


----------



## chiff (21 February 2014)

Is there such a thing as an addictive personality?Many people find it hard ,or nigh impossible ,to address their addiction-whether these are smoking,alcohol,drugs,gambling etc. I dare say most would want to be free of their addictions but it is beyond them.
They are not as strong as you and me Freddie!But sometimes I wonder about you Freddie!


----------



## Smurf1976 (21 February 2014)

Julia said:


> I'd suggest that that is somewhat over simplifying it.   Let's consider a hypothetical example:
> 
> ....
> 
> So if you're going to penalise everyone who is classified as "a smoker" without taking into account all the other risk factors it's not only illogical but massively discriminatory.




Other forms of insurance do exactly that and it is generally based on factors which can easily be determined, then applying historical data to those who match any given category.

It is easy to determine the age of a driver, what gender they are and what type of car they have in order to calculate an insurance premium which, on average, will be profitable for the insurer. Certainly there are some 18 year olds who would drive a powerful car sensibly and there are some 50 year olds hooning around in a Camry, but statistical data is pretty clear that an 18 year old male with a V8 is far more likely to end badly than a 50 year old female with a Camry. Both insurance premiums, and in some places laws regarding young drivers, reflect these statistics. Yes it's discriminatory, but that's how it's done in practice.

Likewise a standard car insurance policy provides no cover if the car is used in any form of motor sport. Again that comes down to statistical averages - the risk of a major crash on a race track is a lot higher than the risk of a crash driving at 50 on a suburban street.

In the context of health insurance, genetics is a moral and social minefield that I'd rather insurers didn't go anywhere near. But it's very easy for someone to know if they smoke or not, indeed it would be the simplest of all health questions to answer and it also happens to be one of, if not the, single biggest health risks. So if there's going to be any form of risk assessment on individual policy holders then smoking is the obvious place to start. Very easy to do and it's a big determinant of risk.


----------



## rumpole (21 February 2014)

> But it's very easy for someone to know if they smoke or not, indeed it would be the simplest of all health questions to answer and it also happens to be one of, if not the, single biggest health risks. So if there's going to be any form of risk assessment on individual policy holders then smoking is the obvious place to start. Very easy to do and it's a big determinant of risk.




Sure, it's an easy question to ask, but also an easy question to answer dishonestly. In order for insurers to refuse to pay up (let's assume normal health insurance not life assurance), a persons doctor or other health professional would have to squeal to the insurance company which would probably be a breach of privacy.

 If someone gets lung cancer the cause is pretty obvious, but could the insurer deny cover for say, a car accident on the grounds of smoking ? 

The issue would seem to be another money spinner for lawyers. Believe me, I would love to see smokers pay more, but I think a more practical alternative is to give discounts for people who are healthy, based on regular physicals (which people should have anyway).


----------



## IFocus (21 February 2014)

Just a general comment re health costs for smokers / non smokers I remember Nick Minchin stating smokers cost less because they die younger than non smokers.

As a right wing nut job of course he was laughing as he said it.


----------



## rumpole (21 February 2014)

IFocus said:


> Just a general comment re health costs for smokers / non smokers I remember Nick Minchin stating smokers cost less because they die younger than non smokers.
> 
> As a right wing nut job of course he was laughing as he said it.




http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opi...of-blowing-smoke/story-fnhulhjj-1226689781351


----------



## Julia (21 February 2014)

rumpole said:


> Sure, it's an easy question to ask, but also an easy question to answer dishonestly.



True.  


> In order for insurers to refuse to pay up (let's assume normal health insurance not life assurance), a persons doctor or other health professional would have to squeal to the insurance company which would probably be a breach of privacy.



Not only that but there are plenty of smokers who do not disclose even to their GPs that they smoke because they just don't want the inevitable lecture and what has now become a moral and social judgement.  I have two such friends.



> If someone gets lung cancer the cause is pretty obvious,



Well, actually, no, that's just not right.  A considerable number of people get lung cancer who have never smoked in their lives.
You can equally produce people who have smoked 40 cigarettes a day and just die of old age, no cancer or lung conditions involved.



> but could the insurer deny cover for say, a car accident on the grounds of smoking ?



Um, how on earth did we get to considering even the remote possibility of eligibility for car insurance involving smoking???
It's enough that the original question had, as far as I could tell, just to do with obtaining private health insurance, but has since been extrapolated to life insurance which is quite different, and now to car insurance??





> The issue would seem to be another money spinner for lawyers. Believe me, I would love to see smokers pay more, but I think a more practical alternative is to give discounts for people who are healthy, based on regular physicals (which people should have anyway).



That's an excellent idea.  It would demonstrate the logic I attempted to describe with Cedric and Gertrude above.
Btw, on that, to suggest that Gertrude would be the best insurance because she would die early I appreciate was meant to be funny, but let's remember that people being treated in hospital in the process of dying take up a huge amount of Medicare dollars, and that's not to mention what Gertrude would have racked up with treatment for her various disease states over many years  before she succumbed.



> Dr. David Goodman, lead author of the study and director of the Center for Health Policy Research at Dartmouth's Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice. "About one-fourth of all Medicare spending goes to pay for the care of patients in their last year of life, and much of the growth in Medicare spending is the result of the high cost of treating chronic disease."


----------



## rumpole (22 February 2014)

> Um, how on earth did we get to considering even the remote possibility of eligibility for car insurance involving smoking???
> It's enough that the original question had, as far as I could tell, just to do with obtaining private health insurance, but has since been extrapolated to life insurance which is quite different, and now to car insurance??




I wasn't actually talking about car insurance, but I agree I was a bit obscure. A car accident was an example of a condition not caused by smoking and was meant to illustrate the difficulty of requiring smokers to declare their habit when applying for health insurance. In other forms of insurance , companies can refuse to pay if they were not told of factors that affect their risk. If someone didn't tell the company they were a smoker, but they claimed for something that was non smoking related (eg a car accident) should  the company be able to refuse to pay if it was found that the claimant was a smoker ( eg he turns up to claim and the assessor notices nicotine stains on his fingers) , even though smoking was not a risk factor in the condition claimed?  Just an example of how messy it could get.


----------



## rumpole (22 February 2014)

> Well, actually, no, that's just not right. A considerable number of people get lung cancer who have never smoked in their lives.
> You can equally produce people who have smoked 40 cigarettes a day and just die of old age, no cancer or lung conditions involved.




True, but if a lung cancer victim has nicotine stains on his fingers , one can draw conclusions. Also tar in the lungs could be a giveaway.


----------



## Smurf1976 (22 February 2014)

The problem with insurance is that it's "other people's money" and thus there's a huge incentive for abuse. No matter what rules are put in place, someone will find a loophole somewhere. 

So we may actually be better off just living with subsidies where at least everyone has access to medical treatment, either taxpayer funded or privately funded via insurance. All things considered, I suspect that's probably better than some of the alternative options. Just a thought. 

Back to actual smoking, I've long suspected that the official statistics are somewhat skewed by under-reporting. Nobody is likely to claim to be a smoker if they aren't a smoker but I can certainly see that a considerable percentage of smokers would likely deny it if asked as part of a survey etc. Go for a walk around the streets of any city at lunch time and you'll see quit a few people smoking. Go out on a Saturday night and it's even more common (possibly reflecting demographics to some extent).

Likewise any survey about eating habits, exercise etc is probably going to overstate the percentage of people who actually do eat healthily and exercise sufficiently. Everyone knows what they "should" do and it's human nature to not admit to doing something known to be bad.


----------



## sptrawler (22 February 2014)

rumpole said:


> True, but if a lung cancer victim has nicotine stains on his fingers , one can draw conclusions. Also tar in the lungs could be a giveaway.




Apparently more than 4 out of 5 cases of lung cancer are caused by smoking, it doesn't mean all smokers get lung cancer.

http://www.cancerresearchuk.org/cancer-info/healthyliving/smokingandtobacco/smoking-and-cancer

But it does mean, they spend a lot of money to increase the odds.


----------



## rumpole (22 February 2014)

sptrawler said:


> Apparently more than 4 out of 5 cases of lung cancer are caused by smoking, it doesn't mean all smokers get lung cancer.
> 
> [




Also interesting to speculate on  the possible causes of lung cancer in non smokers. 

- second hand smoke ?
- build up of natural radioactive gases (radon) ?
- car and truck exhausts ?
- emissions from coal fired power stations ?

lots of other factors we don't even know about like with a lot of cancers.


----------



## sptrawler (22 February 2014)

rumpole said:


> Also interesting to speculate on  the possible causes of lung cancer in non smokers.
> 
> - second hand smoke ?
> - build up of natural radioactive gases (radon) ?
> ...




- Emissions from gas fired power stations?
- photo copiers,laser jet printers?
- chalk from yesteryears blackboards?
- spray paint, nail polish removers,etc?

Thankfully they only account for less than 20%, apparently


----------



## Smurf1976 (23 February 2014)

rumpole said:


> Also interesting to speculate on  the possible causes of lung cancer in non smokers.
> 
> - second hand smoke ?
> - build up of natural radioactive gases (radon) ?
> ...




Asbestos is one. If you lived in any city, even a small one, then you have inhaled asbestos from vehicle brakes. Monitoring in the Hobart CBD in the 1980's found that the "background" level itself was of concern, and needless to say the levels were far higher in Sydney or Melbourne than in a much smaller place like Hobart.

So even just looking at one hazard, asbestos, just about everyone has had at least some exposure simply by living in or visiting a city. Then there's the huge number of people who worked in older thermal (fuel burning) power stations, factories, vehicle repair and even things like builders, plumbers and electricians doing household work who copped a lot of the stuff too. And asbestos is very clearly linked to cancer.

As for things like smoke from burning coal, most people old enough to have ended up with lung cancer will have been exposed to that too. Take Melbourne as an example. It was only 30 years ago that the last coal-fired power station in the metro area ceased production and for most of the 20th century there were three inner city plants in operation, one of them right in the CBD itself (in Lonsdale St, though it was oil-fired in the later years). Then of course there's factories using coal and historically the use of coal at home too. So if coal's a hazard then a large percentage of the population has been exposed to it historically.

Then there's heavy fuel oil, used extensively from the late 50's to the early 80's (including in city areas) and still used for some purposes today. It too has some nasty dust by-products (which almost always went straight up the chimney with no real attempt to control emissions). And one of the components of that dust is linked directly with lung cancer.

Also don't forget that exposure to passive smoke was pretty significant in the past, indeed even 10 years ago it was still going on in pubs and clubs. Go back a bit further and people smoked in department stores, offices and practically everywhere else too.

As for the current hazards, to my understanding vehicle exhaust is very strongly suspected as being a problem.

In short, practically everyone has inhaled something that is either known, or plausibly expected, to cause cancer. That doesn't mean everyone is going to die of cancer, but it goes a fair way to explaining the 1 in 5 lung cancer cases in non-smokers.


----------



## sptrawler (24 February 2014)

Smurf1976 said:


> Asbestos is one. If you lived in any city, even a small one, then you have inhaled asbestos from vehicle brakes. Monitoring in the Hobart CBD in the 1980's found that the "background" level itself was of concern, and needless to say the levels were far higher in Sydney or Melbourne than in a much smaller place like Hobart.
> 
> So even just looking at one hazard, asbestos, just about everyone has had at least some exposure simply by living in or visiting a city. Then there's the huge number of people who worked in older thermal (fuel burning) power stations, factories, vehicle repair and even things like builders, plumbers and electricians doing household work who copped a lot of the stuff too. And asbestos is very clearly linked to cancer.
> 
> ...




Yes smurph, I didn't want to make too much of an issue of the 'coal fired power station' claim.
Like how many people live near a coal fired power staion.lol

I just put it down to a cheap shot, lol
As though photochemical smog NOX, from cold starting gas turbines isn't a problem.lol
I just love that dark yellow plume, first thing in the morning. 
Non are so blind as those who can't see.IMO


----------



## lindsayf (24 February 2014)

Are there legal or practical barriers to a health insurer offering a niche product
that caters to people who can demonstrate healthy lifestyle?
Would this in some way be seen to be discriminatory to those that could not meet the criteria?


----------



## rumpole (24 February 2014)

lindsayf said:


> Are there legal or practical barriers to a health insurer offering a niche product
> that caters to people who can demonstrate healthy lifestyle?
> Would this in some way be seen to be discriminatory to those that could not meet the criteria?




Google "Health insurance community rating"

A community rating is required by law in many countries including Australia


----------



## lindsayf (24 February 2014)

that certainly answers that question thanks.
I understand the premise of the idea but it certainly does not provide any incentive
to modify lifestyle, nor does it place any level of responsibility on the individual
for their lifestyle choices.
I now see that this has been covered earlier in the thread, apologies.


----------



## Smurf1976 (24 February 2014)

sptrawler said:


> Yes smurph, I didn't want to make too much of an issue of the 'coal fired power station' claim.
> Like how many people live near a coal fired power staion.lol



I have no real knowledge of whether or not the fumes from burning coal cause cancer. And for the record I've never tried to smoke coal but I'd expect it's not too good. 

I was just responding to another comment and noting that, in the past, there was a lot more coal smoke where people lived than there is now. So if coal is a danger then, in the past at least, some people did get a fair bit of exposure to it. And it's not just Melbourne - there were similar facilities in other large Australian (and overseas) cities too in the past.

Anything relating to the causes of disease really comes down to probability and the ability to avoid it. Eg cigarettes have a high probability of causing disease in any individual who smokes them regularly and are easily avoidable. In contrast, the probability of coal fumes harming any one individual would seem to be much lower and it's also harder to avoid since relocation is the only real option at the individual level. 

As I see it, there's no real point worrying about coal, cars, gas, plastics and so on if you're a smoker. It's like worrying about being struck by lightning whilst there's a dozen bulls racing toward you. 

Back to the costs, a cigarette, that's one cigarette not the whole pack, will cost about $5 in the mid 2030's if the trend of the past 20 years continues. That alone will ensure that practically nobody smokes regularly by then. 

Whilst there is no formal prohibition, the ongoing price increases and restrictions on where smoking is allowed is slowly but surely forcing tobacco out of mainstream use. How long before it's banned not just in a few streets but in the entire CBD of major cities? How long before supermarkets and service stations stop selling cigarettes? 25 years ago cigarettes were still available at every checkout and clearly visible and nobody would have looked twice if you'd lit one up inside the shopping centre. 

But looking at it now, government has done practically everything they can possibly do short of actually banning it. Huge price increases due to tax rises. Not allowed to be publicly displayed for sale. The pack is covered in warnings and, apart from the actual name, branding has been extinguished in terms of logos etc. And of course the naming of strength variants has been complicated to the point that it no longer makes any sense. Etc. At some point I'm sure we'll see cigarettes cease to be available at many of the places which sell them today and it's probably only a few years until that happens. What other options are left next time government decides to toughen up further on smoking?


----------

