- Joined
- 2 June 2011
- Posts
- 5,341
- Reactions
- 242
That's how it works in the US, and it doesn't seem to have curbed obesity. If anything, it probably makes it worse.
How can any smoker claim to be poor?
- Thread starter sptrawler
- Start date
-
- Tags
- cigarettes poor smoker
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
Goldmember
- Joined
- 12 August 2008
- Posts
- 8,277
- Reactions
- 329
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.
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
Mod: Call me Dendrobranchiata
- Joined
- 23 May 2007
- Posts
- 6,637
- Reactions
- 7
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
In Memoriam
- Joined
- 10 May 2005
- Posts
- 16,986
- Reactions
- 1,973
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.
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
Mod: Call me Dendrobranchiata
- Joined
- 23 May 2007
- Posts
- 6,637
- Reactions
- 7
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
- Joined
- 14 February 2005
- Posts
- 15,367
- Reactions
- 17,732
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.
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.
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.
- Joined
- 3 July 2009
- Posts
- 27,809
- Reactions
- 24,801
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
Self Funded Retiree
- Joined
- 4 January 2008
- Posts
- 2,132
- Reactions
- 740
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
- Joined
- 3 July 2009
- Posts
- 27,809
- Reactions
- 24,801
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
In Memoriam
- Joined
- 10 May 2005
- Posts
- 16,986
- Reactions
- 1,973
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.
- Joined
- 3 July 2009
- Posts
- 27,809
- Reactions
- 24,801
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.
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).
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!
They are not as strong as you and me Freddie!But sometimes I wonder about you Freddie!
- Joined
- 14 February 2005
- Posts
- 15,367
- Reactions
- 17,732
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.
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
You are arguing with a Galah
- Joined
- 8 September 2006
- Posts
- 7,683
- Reactions
- 4,783
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.
As a right wing nut job of course he was laughing as he said it.