pShould smokers have to pay more for health insurance?

Next>

Results

48 %

Yes, they should

42 %

No, they shouldn't

10 %

I can see both sides

@Mar '13 c 132 comments V 296 votes

Detailed Results Next Debate Vote Now

Activity Stmts Popular

296 Votes

u

11 hr
DesignerLM voted

v No, they shouldn't
17 hr

PayThatCEO

v I can see both sides

I don't have a problem with this as long as drinkers have to pay more. What about people who don't wear seatbelts? Shouldn't they have to pay more? How about people who play sports? They have more of a chance of getting hurt than people who don't. Where do we draw the line? And let's be realistic, when it comes to insurance companies...they want EVERYONE to pay more.

Post
u

17 hr

KyleMFb

v I can see both sides

If smokers pay higher insurance premiums than drinkers should pay more too and then smokers of weed should pay less. Weed comes straight from the hand of God.

Post
u

18 hr
Wooky endorsed Dan_Tien

v No, they shouldn't
u

20 hr
aledar voted

v Yes, they should
u

22 hr
Mlg1141 voted

v Yes, they should
22 hr
Yobyag endorsed AntiPorcheria

v Yes, they should
u

Sat
Brogan voted

v No, they shouldn't
Sat
doggie_luv voted

v No, they shouldn't
u

Sat
captbigtime voted

v No, they shouldn't
Sat
tomtheterrible endorsed Dan_Tien

v No, they shouldn't
May 18
sillybilly1b voted

v No, they shouldn't
May 18

LEC

v No, they shouldn't

What if I two people got lung cancer because they was exposed to toxic vapors from that manufacturing plant down the road but one of them also smoked? Should the coverage be denied to the smoker? You know that happens, you have insurance, you get sick, they kick you off the plan cause you had acne as a teenager and didn't disclose. No, we need to either clean up the food, water and air and/or Tax the polluters both business and personal [yea, a sin tax] and just cover everyone.

Post
u

May 17

seedtick

v Yes, they should

Smoking is probably the most invasive thing a person can do to their personal health....and to that of those around them. Yes, they should pay for doing so because everyone is paying for their habit.

Post
u

May 17
DrSilicon voted

v Yes, they should
May 16
MrEthiopian voted

v Yes, they should
u

May 16
RobG endorsed AntiPorcheria

v Yes, they should
May 16
Bill2E endorsed Aussieblossom

v No, they shouldn't
u

May 15
Bingo35 endorsed AntiPorcheria

v Yes, they should
u

May 15

tomincali

v No, they shouldn't

maybe those high taxes should be paying part of their insurance,if all those taxes are not going for that, who is stealing or wasting that money ? surely is is not being stolen or wasted on things that have nothing to do with tobacco.

Post
u

May 15
o_oo_e voted

v I can see both sides
u

May 15
bleakoutlook endorsed Dan_Tien

v No, they shouldn't
May 15
DanielZ endorsed AntiPorcheria

v Yes, they should
u

May 15
MongoAPillager endorsed commonsense51

v No, they shouldn't
May 15

PaulUK2901

v Yes, they should

That's a really dumb question.

Post
May 14
RadAuthNat voted

v No, they shouldn't
May 14
Bob72370 voted

v Yes, they should
u

May 13
Rpete endorsed Dan_Tien

v No, they shouldn't
u

May 13
SlimElmo91 voted

v No, they shouldn't
May 12
rangerjeff voted

v Yes, they should
u

May 12
skspls voted

v No, they shouldn't
May 12
warwil630 voted

v No, they shouldn't
May 12
Fyi1957 endorsed DogLady_1

v I can see both sides
May 12
looncraz endorsed MadAmerican

v Yes, they should
u

May 12
SESCOMM voted

v Yes, they should
u

May 12
Leonard endorsed MadAmerican

v Yes, they should
May 11

Glich

v No, they shouldn't

The question is "should they pay more" - the actual statement should be "Taxed more"! The Government squanders billions - they already use every activity under the sun to create a new/bigger tax. When was Government given the right to tax personal choice/personal freedoms.

B1

Post
u

May 10
yankeehusky voted

v Yes, they should
u

May 9
LilliB voted

v Yes, they should
u

May 9
Jimbo voted

v No, they shouldn't
u

May 9
Bill voted

v No, they shouldn't
May 9

JTHEM

v Yes, they should

Smokers (lung, throat, and mouth cancers, druggies (because they are worthless), alcoholics (liver),the obese (well, because they are all FAT), senior citizens (I am one and I am lol), the pregnant, motor cyclists (organ donors and serious injury), bicyclists, cell phone users (radiation), any male between the ages of 13 to 45 (high risk behavior), soldiers (war related ptsd and other injuries), car drivers in Phoenix (high risk of collision in intersection due to red light non compliance).....................One can always find a reason to make someone else pay more.

B1

r2 replies

Post
May 9

TerryConklin

v Yes, they should

I'd have to ask: "more than whom?" Yes they should pay more than non smokers all else being equal. I also like my "Safe drivers" discount on car insurance.

Post
May 8
busseja endorsed Dan_Tien

v No, they shouldn't
May 7
that1guy voted

v No, they shouldn't
u

May 6
gitrdone8383 voted

v I can see both sides
May 6

Canoochee

v I can see both sides

Insurance companies survive by knowing who costs the most to insure. However, it has been my experience that the smokers I am around are out sick less and at the doctor less than my non smoking colleagues.

B1

r2 replies

Post
u

May 5
oldnavyguy88 voted

v No, they shouldn't
May 5
Calfkiller voted

v No, they shouldn't
May 4

jeffreyknee

v Yes, they should

Yes, but insurance model should be scrapped anyway. Replace it with post-care billing and payments, shared among family and relatives, on a sliding scale corresponding with their wealth/poverty level. Abolish employer pools and premiums, which act as subsidies similar to public financed healthcare -- driving up or shifting costs with no limits.

Post

17 hr

PayThatCEO

v I can see both sides

I don't have a problem with this as long as drinkers have to pay more. What about people who don't wear seatbelts? Shouldn't they have to pay more? How about people who play sports? They have more of a chance of getting hurt than people who don't. Where do we draw the line? And let's be realistic, when it comes to insurance companies...they want EVERYONE to pay more.

Post
u

17 hr

KyleMFb

v I can see both sides

If smokers pay higher insurance premiums than drinkers should pay more too and then smokers of weed should pay less. Weed comes straight from the hand of God.

Post
May 18

LEC

v No, they shouldn't

What if I two people got lung cancer because they was exposed to toxic vapors from that manufacturing plant down the road but one of them also smoked? Should the coverage be denied to the smoker? You know that happens, you have insurance, you get sick, they kick you off the plan cause you had acne as a teenager and didn't disclose. No, we need to either clean up the food, water and air and/or Tax the polluters both business and personal [yea, a sin tax] and just cover everyone.

Post
u

May 17

seedtick

v Yes, they should

Smoking is probably the most invasive thing a person can do to their personal health....and to that of those around them. Yes, they should pay for doing so because everyone is paying for their habit.

Post
u

May 15

tomincali

v No, they shouldn't

maybe those high taxes should be paying part of their insurance,if all those taxes are not going for that, who is stealing or wasting that money ? surely is is not being stolen or wasted on things that have nothing to do with tobacco.

Post
May 15

PaulUK2901

v Yes, they should

That's a really dumb question.

Post
May 11

Glich

v No, they shouldn't

The question is "should they pay more" - the actual statement should be "Taxed more"! The Government squanders billions - they already use every activity under the sun to create a new/bigger tax. When was Government given the right to tax personal choice/personal freedoms.

B1

Post
May 9

JTHEM

v Yes, they should

Smokers (lung, throat, and mouth cancers, druggies (because they are worthless), alcoholics (liver),the obese (well, because they are all FAT), senior citizens (I am one and I am lol), the pregnant, motor cyclists (organ donors and serious injury), bicyclists, cell phone users (radiation), any male between the ages of 13 to 45 (high risk behavior), soldiers (war related ptsd and other injuries), car drivers in Phoenix (high risk of collision in intersection due to red light non compliance).....................One can always find a reason to make someone else pay more.

B1

r2 replies

Post
u

May 13

CommonSense

But research shows they save us money in the long run by dying at younger ages. I keep seeing this phrase "high risk behavior" as if that were inherently bad. Should we live in bubbles? YOLO. You only live once. It is more than a phrase. It's the truth.

Post @CommonSense
May 13

JTHEM

@CommonSense Darwin was right.

Post @JTHEM
May 9

TerryConklin

v Yes, they should

I'd have to ask: "more than whom?" Yes they should pay more than non smokers all else being equal. I also like my "Safe drivers" discount on car insurance.

Post
May 6

Canoochee

v I can see both sides

Insurance companies survive by knowing who costs the most to insure. However, it has been my experience that the smokers I am around are out sick less and at the doctor less than my non smoking colleagues.

B1

r2 replies

Post
u

May 15

tomincali

also seem to die off sooner which will save the insurance company in the long run. yet what the heck is those high taxes on cigarettes if not to cover this issue? i don't smoke ,yet i see what they pay in taxes.

Post @tomincali
May 16

Canoochee

@tomincali That has not been my experience either. The dieing early I mean. What the insurance companies should do though is raise premiums on Fat people. Ever see an old fat person? I have not. The tax part I am with ya 100%.

Post @Canoochee
May 4

jeffreyknee

v Yes, they should

Yes, but insurance model should be scrapped anyway. Replace it with post-care billing and payments, shared among family and relatives, on a sliding scale corresponding with their wealth/poverty level. Abolish employer pools and premiums, which act as subsidies similar to public financed healthcare -- driving up or shifting costs with no limits.

Post
May 3

MarkJM

v Yes, they should

Those who live healthy shouldn't have to foot the bill for those who choose to kill their lungs...

Post
May 2

NoAmnestyEVER

v Yes, they should

Not only should smokers pay more, the poorest of poor should pay the most. The dumb and poor suck up 80% of all the medical costs by getting shot, spreading diseases, overdosing on drugs, having countless babies and having the vast majority of health problems.

B1

Post
May 2

oldman75

v Yes, they should

Being a ex smoker with copd I am costing medicare thousands a year. I should pay more,but like all the plutocrats I am not volunteering .

Post
u

May 2

fraps

v Yes, they should

Insurance is a risked base contract between the insurer and the insured. Smoking is known to cause severe health issues in many. People should pay for their voluntary choices.

r2 replies

Post
May 2

NoAmnestyEVER

Agreed, and gays should pay triple for their risky sexual behavior.

Post @NoAmnestyEVER
u

May 3

fraps

@NoAmnestyEVER who determines which behaviour is risky. I was told there were two in particular. Sharing needles and promiscuous multi party unprotected sex. San appropriate but inhumane solution is to not have the public pay for their treatment. They can raise money from those to help them voluntarily then from taxpayers at the point of a gun.

Post @fraps
Apr 30

Hoosierdaddy

v I can see both sides

Everyone does something that is bad for our health, unless you live in a bubble

Post
Apr 30

ResqDogz

v Yes, they should

With respect to proposals to add significant surcharges to health insurance policies for smokers - why in God's name WOULDN'T that be a mandatory stipulation? In all other aspects of insurability - life, home, auto - the personal activities of the insured play a determining factor in establishing rates: Smokers pay higher life insurance premiums, those who scuba- and sky-dive pay higher life insurance rates, those who choose to drink-and-drive, or speed incessantly pay higher automobile insurance premiums (if they can even secure them!), and home owners who elect to purchase in flood plains, ocean beach front areas, or regions prone to earthquakes must purchase riders...

Post
Apr 28

suzzyq

v No, they shouldn't

If smokers have to pay more for health insurance then should people who knowing pass on diabetes or other issues.

Post
Apr 26
Post Removed by Moderators
Apr '13

pat310

v No, they shouldn't

should drunks have to pay more?

Post
R Load more comments...

Mar '13

MadAmerican

v Yes, they should

Thye do pay more and should continue to do so. It goes without saying that those who are wreckless on the roads with DUIs, speeding tickets, and causes of crashes pay more for auto insurance. So to me when you smoke you are placing an added burden to your health care provider just as someone who is obese. I believe that some obesity is preventable just as smoking is, so to pass on their extra charges to those of us who do not smoke is hideous, although we all pay school tax and alot of us do not have children.

r4 replies

e34 endorsed

Post
Mar '13

Dan_Tien

v No, they shouldn't

If so, then should other at-risk groups of people pay more? Should people who work with toxic chemicals pay more? Should cops pay more? Obese people? People who have been subjected to second hand smoke, asbestos or lead? I suspect that even though certain groups could be required to pay more for insurance, health insurance companies would still deny them coverage for health problems that could somehow be linked to the reasons for the increased rates.

B1

r9 replies

e24 endorsed

Post
Mar '13

AntiPorcheria

v Yes, they should

If you drive like a fool you pay more in car insurance insurance. If you live a high risk life (sky diver, mountain climber, shark wrestler) you pay more for life insurance. Unless you've been living on Mars for the last 40 years you know that smoking causes health issues...therefor you are foolishly taking high risks with your health. Why wouldn't you pay more for your health insurance?

B1

r12 replies

e18 endorsed

Post
Mar '13

bsking

v No, they shouldn't

What do you mean pay? I thought Obama Care was free...

r3 replies

e6 endorsed

Post
Mar '13

Aussieblossom

v No, they shouldn't

If that is the case then do overweight/obese adults, drug addicts/users, alcoholics/drinkers etc also have to pay more health insurance?

B2

r2 replies

e3 endorsed

Post
Mar '13

DogLady_1

v I can see both sides

I understand why insurance companies want to impose higher premiums on smokers, but these days there are other environmental factors that can similar cause health risks. Melanoma is a growing concern for everyone... should insurance companies also impose higher premiums on people who spend time in the sun? Are premiums higher for people who live in smog cities, mining towns, or work at power plants or shipbuilding industries? Are they higher for people who use pesticides or live near waterways polluted with heavy metals?

e4 endorsed

Post
Mar '13

zimm48

v No, they shouldn't

smokers pay more tax than non smokers aready. evertime a state needs money they taxs the smokers. u know its true.

B1

r1 reply

e3 endorsed

Post
Mar '13

harold_lloyd

v I can see both sides

Perhaps a small premium, but also offer help in quitting. As an ex-smoker, I have little sympathy for those of you who want to 'Just say no." to smokers. On the other hand, do we penalize everyone who puts themselves in a higher risk category? Bikers, drinkers, bad drivers, type II diabetics, fat people, firemen, policemen, the guy across the street who doesn't wear shoes when he mows his lawn, they are all legitimate targets. Where does it end?

B2

r1 reply

e1 endorsed

Post
Mar '13

Mr_GO_HERD

v Yes, they should

Smoking cigarettes brings deadly results and they deserve to pay for their actions.

r1 reply

e3 endorsed

Post
Mar '13

MattiMuck

v No, they shouldn't

While I don't understand how people can inhale smoke into their lungs without wretching, there is no evidence that it is the smoking that causes illness. All studies done on smoking related to diseases does not take into consideration any other factor such as healthcare availability and hygeine, diet, genes. Also, all the "carcinogens" in cigarettes can be found in higher doses in the processed foods we all eat. No study of smoking performed on animals has been able to induce cancer within the animal except one in which they conveniently selected a type of mouse prone to developing cancerous tumors throughout their lives anyway...The anti-smoking crusade has been disho...

B1

r12 replies

e1 endorsed

Post

Politix

pShould smokers have to pay more for health insurance?

Results