This is a mobile optimized page that loads fast, if you want to load the real page, click this text.

How can any smoker claim to be poor?

Jump to new
rumpole said:
Sure, it's an easy question to ask, but also an easy question to answer dishonestly.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
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,
Click to expand...
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 ?
Click to expand...
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??



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.

 

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.
 

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.
 
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 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.

[
Click to expand...

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.
 

- 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
 

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.
 

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
 
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?
 
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?
Click to expand...

Google "Health insurance community rating"

A community rating is required by law in many countries including Australia
 
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.
 
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
Click to expand...
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?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more...