Quote:

---

DieCommie said:

Quote:

---

mozartvicious said:
I don't see making them pay more.  Perhaps a personal insurance plan maybe, but a company health plan shouldn't be based on potential risks like smoking.

---

So you basically want non-smokers to subsidize smokers added health costs.  Well, a lot of people do want that, but not I.

---

Quote:

---

DeathCompany said:
Why not buy some detox shampoo?

---

I take it they won't tell you in advance when they are going to test you. I don't think "Hey, can you hold off on the test while I go and wash my hair real quick?" is an option here.

Quote:

---

German Kahuna said:

Quote:

---

DeathCompany said:
Why not buy some detox shampoo?

---

I take it they won't tell you in advance when they are going to test you. I don't think "Hey, can you hold off on the test while I go and wash my hair real quick?" is an option here.

---

Quote:

---

DeathCompany said:
I believe they would have to tell you in advance. They aren't going to test you in the employers office, they send you to a testing facility. In which case they would give you previous notice because I'm sure they don't assume you to have an open schedule for the week.

---

Quote:

---

mozartvicious said:


I'm saying a non-smokers health costs aren't substantially different than that of smokers.

---

Quote:

---

In 1991, smoking-attributable health care costs in Canada were $2.5 billion (CAN). Additional smoking-attributable costs included $1.5 billion for residential care, $2 billion due to workers' absenteeism, $80 million due to fires and $10.5 billion due to lost future income caused by premature death. Adjustments for future costs if smoking had not occurred and smokers had not died were estimated to be $1.5 billion. According to this analysis, smokers cost society about $15 billion while contributing roughly $7.8 billion in taxes. The results indicate that smoking-attributable costs in Canada have increased steadily since 1966 to the 1991 value of $15 billion. Nevertheless, while the determination of smoking-attributable costs is important, the issue continues to be public health. In addition, for the first time in Canada, the smoking-attributable cost for residential care has been estimated.

---

Quote:

---

mozartvicious said:

Quote:

---

DieCommie said:

Quote:

---

mozartvicious said:
I don't see making them pay more.  Perhaps a personal insurance plan maybe, but a company health plan shouldn't be based on potential risks like smoking.

---

So you basically want non-smokers to subsidize smokers added health costs.  Well, a lot of people do want that, but not I.

---

I'm saying a non-smokers health costs aren't substantially different than that of smokers.


I know non-smokers who were in the hospital all the time, people who played rugby and skateboarded and shit, costing their insurance company thousands of dollars for orthopedic surgery.
and then people like my uncle who has been smoking for 40 years and hasn't had one health problem as a result from it.
You can't just assume that a smoker is going to have added health costs over someone who doesn't smoke... that's insane.

---

Quote:

---

Ziggen said:
On the smoker's paying more/being excluded from company health plans :

My father is an actuary who is extremely fiscally conservative, ie., he hates the idea of anyone subsidizing anything for anyone else.  My father is recognized as one of, if not the, leading expert on COLI (corporate owned life insurance) in the country.  He has testified before congress and in numerous trials as an expert witness on various insurance related (mostly COLI) issues.

He is of the opinion, for reasons that I cannot articulate, that companies denying coverage, or raising rates, for employees who smoke, or are obese, or who demonstrate any number of similar risk factors, is nothing but bullshit.

---