Tripper - 22 May 2008 08:27 AM

FrenchConnection -

If you squint your eyes, you’ll see the jump.  Smoking has been known to cause cancer, but it is not a definite.  What is the percentage of smokers that end up with cancer?  What is the percentage of gays with AIDS?  Either lifestyle is taking a risk that they see as a burden on the healthcare system.  So, once they get that taste of book burning… err… I mean trying to do the right thing for the citizens, it’s not a far jump from there.

I agree with you that refusing to hire people because they are smokers is dumb, but what do you think about LD’s suggestion that they should be able to refuse them insurance coverage because of it?

Still interested what you think of this, I can see how the question got lost in the other areas of debate.

Tripper - 23 May 2008 12:56 PM

Tripper - 22 May 2008 08:27 AM

FrenchConnection -

If you squint your eyes, you’ll see the jump. Smoking has been known to cause cancer, but it is not a definite. What is the percentage of smokers that end up with cancer? What is the percentage of gays with AIDS? Either lifestyle is taking a risk that they see as a burden on the healthcare system. So, once they get that taste of book burning… err… I mean trying to do the right thing for the citizens, it’s not a far jump from there.

I agree with you that refusing to hire people because they are smokers is dumb, but what do you think about LD’s suggestion that they should be able to refuse them insurance coverage because of it?

Still interested what you think of this, I can see how the question got lost in the other areas of debate.

How about a smoker’s rate for their copay? And it should be based on the actual costs* vs being punitive.

* which, btw, since I think the data on smoker’s causes of death are bogus will still be unrealistically sky high....

sl0re - 23 May 2008 12:58 PM

Tripper - 23 May 2008 12:56 PM

Tripper - 22 May 2008 08:27 AM

FrenchConnection -

If you squint your eyes, you’ll see the jump. Smoking has been known to cause cancer, but it is not a definite. What is the percentage of smokers that end up with cancer? What is the percentage of gays with AIDS? Either lifestyle is taking a risk that they see as a burden on the healthcare system. So, once they get that taste of book burning… err… I mean trying to do the right thing for the citizens, it’s not a far jump from there.

I agree with you that refusing to hire people because they are smokers is dumb, but what do you think about LD’s suggestion that they should be able to refuse them insurance coverage because of it?

Still interested what you think of this, I can see how the question got lost in the other areas of debate.

How about a smoker’s rate for their copay? And it should be based on the actual costs* vs being punitive.

* which, btw, since I think the data on smoker’s causes of death are bogus will still be unrealistically sky high....

It’s an interesting idea. Of course for it to be fair the insurance companies would have to include all the other risky stuff in there as well. It would probably end up with a long form of various activities considered to be a danger to health and you tick off which ones you do, perhaps with information about how often you partake in them, and then they feed it into a computer which through a complicated process spits out what your rate of copay or insurance cost should be.

In theory it could work and could be pretty fair. In practice though I can see a lot of problems, mainly coming from an increased cost to figure out the data (initially to decide what is dangerous, how much danger is involved in each activity etc) and there would probably be a lot of challenges to how each thing was rated as people try to argue for lower prices. That and the more complicated forms would probably just create a headache for the insurance companies that they probably don’t want to deal with.

Mind you, I know that insurance companies have higher rates for smokers now right? I suppose they get away with it without too much challenge from folks about other health risks being over looked.
You’d think the death rate of smokers wouldn’t really be much of a factor, after all, dead people don’t get healthcare. I think the issues is the variety of ways that smoking can influence health, not just lung cancer. I don’t have any studies handy but don’t most people agree that smoking usually has a negative impact on an individuals health, it’s just the degree that is in question no?

Personally I’m actually with Huckabee on this one, that people need healthcare, not jobs, and we need to get away from employment based healthcare and have people start to take more control of their own plans (and payments).
That should reduce the impact risky lifestyle choices have on hiring / employment issues. (though the increase copay for smokers thing would still be valid between individual and insurance company)

Tripper - 23 May 2008 01:12 PM

sl0re - 23 May 2008 12:58 PM

Tripper - 23 May 2008 12:56 PM

Tripper - 22 May 2008 08:27 AM

FrenchConnection -

If you squint your eyes, you’ll see the jump. Smoking has been known to cause cancer, but it is not a definite. What is the percentage of smokers that end up with cancer? What is the percentage of gays with AIDS? Either lifestyle is taking a risk that they see as a burden on the healthcare system. So, once they get that taste of book burning… err… I mean trying to do the right thing for the citizens, it’s not a far jump from there.

I agree with you that refusing to hire people because they are smokers is dumb, but what do you think about LD’s suggestion that they should be able to refuse them insurance coverage because of it?

Still interested what you think of this, I can see how the question got lost in the other areas of debate.

How about a smoker’s rate for their copay? And it should be based on the actual costs* vs being punitive.

* which, btw, since I think the data on smoker’s causes of death are bogus will still be unrealistically sky high....

It’s an interesting idea. Of course for it to be fair the insurance companies would have to include all the other risky stuff in there as well.

Ding ding… they won’t… because this is just anti smoker bias. Which is acceptable in this political climate. :)

Personally I’m actually with Huckabee on this one, that people need healthcare, not jobs, and we need to get away from employment based healthcare and have people start to take more control of their own plans (and payments).

Sure, it’s just happenstance that it ended up tied to employment. Makes no sense.

sl0re - 23 May 2008 12:58 PM

Tripper - 23 May 2008 12:56 PM

Tripper - 22 May 2008 08:27 AM

FrenchConnection -

If you squint your eyes, you’ll see the jump. Smoking has been known to cause cancer, but it is not a definite. What is the percentage of smokers that end up with cancer? What is the percentage of gays with AIDS? Either lifestyle is taking a risk that they see as a burden on the healthcare system. So, once they get that taste of book burning… err… I mean trying to do the right thing for the citizens, it’s not a far jump from there.

I agree with you that refusing to hire people because they are smokers is dumb, but what do you think about LD’s suggestion that they should be able to refuse them insurance coverage because of it?

Still interested what you think of this, I can see how the question got lost in the other areas of debate.

How about a smoker’s rate for their copay? And it should be based on the actual costs* vs being punitive.

* which, btw, since I think the data on smoker’s causes of death are bogus will still be unrealistically sky high....

Tripper, to answer the question…

Sure, how about the smokers have to pay the difference of a non-smoker rate?  Hmm… then we would get into the gays (I think of Lisa Lampenelli every time I write that) paying the difference of a breeder?  You see, we’re going back to the original question.  Is it fair to not offer someone equal share based on their behavior?  Next, all Mormons are rewarded due to the fact that they don’t drink or smoke, but if you’re catholic…

I don’t have the stat handy but this should demonstrate the problem with statistical information for smoking.

Penn & Teller’s Bullshit had an episode involving the effects of second hand smoke.  It made mention of a study by a government organization to prove that second hand smoke was dangerous.  And organizations like the American Heart Association and Cancer organizations cited this study for evidence of problems by second hand smoke.  The thing is, that a judge threw this study out of court because it was found that the authors “cherry-picked” and manipulated the data to arrive at their conclusions.

And they talked about some of this cherry-picked fudged data.  And even that data was statistically insignificant to prove that that people exposed to second hand smoke were more likely to develop lung cancer than people not.

There was also mention of a WHO study for second hand smoke, where the abstract or some forward about the study talked about how dangerous second hand smoke is, but actually in the study it mentions how it could not determine a link.

So I would really be skeptical of anything people are putting out involving stats of smoking.

frenchconnection - 23 May 2008 05:04 PM

Tripper, to answer the question…

Sure, how about the smokers have to pay the difference of a non-smoker rate?  Hmm… then we would get into the gays (I think of Lisa Lampenelli every time I write that) paying the difference of a breeder?  You see, we’re going back to the original question.  Is it fair to not offer someone equal share based on their behavior?  Next, all Mormons are rewarded due to the fact that they don’t drink or smoke, but if you’re catholic…

I think you’re missing a point here, you can’t just say all gays pay more because gay people are statistically at higher risk from aids. The risk of aids comes from having unprotected sex with various partners, and increased further if it is anal sex. This behaviour is not specific to gay people, nor does it mean that if somebody is gay, they are having sex with multiple partners.
In the same way, I also wouldn’t support all Mormons being rewarded because mormons in general don’t smoke and drink. A better suggestion would be that all people who don’t smoke and drink are rewarded, so that includes the catholics who don’t indulge as well.

The problem is, you’re taking something viewed as an “at risk” behaviour, or in the case of mormons, healthy behaviour and attributing it specifically to one group of individuals. You should compare smokers (who don’t fit into a racial or sexual preference category, but rather are a group as diverse as the general population) with sexual risk takers, or tee-totalers

As I said above, I can see an argument for denying health coverage, or charging more/less for it based on lifestyle choices. I think it might be tough to implement, but sure, why shouldn’t somebody who doesn’t smoke or who doesn’t drink excessivly (because one unit a day is shown to be healthy) catch a break on their payments?
I don’t support simply not hiring somebody because they made a choice to smoke, or to have unprotected sex with multiple partners, or doesn’t ride the motorcycle with a helmet on or whatever the excuse might be, I think that idea is stupid which is what I’ve been consistantly saying. So in summary, I think the folks in the article in your OP are in the wrong.

You ask the question above: “Is it fair to not offer someone equal share based on their behavior?”
Insurance wise I think it is. I think it’s fair that if I maintain a healthy weight / blood pressure / cholesteral etc. and make regular gym visits* I should get a break on my insurance payments compared to somebody who eats badly, doesn’t exercise, smokes or is obese.
I don’t think those things should be a factor in which of us gets a job though, unless any of those factors would prevent us from doing the job if hired, or unless as LD pointed out in the first page, they could show some kind of evidence that proved smokers die young, requiring replacements and the associated cost at a higher rate than non-smokers. (which so far, I don’t see any suggestion that they are making this argument)

*My insurance already does give me a break for making regular gym visits.

April 13, 1994

Researchers investigating why black men who smoke are 48 percent more likely to develop lung cancer than white male smokers have found a possible explanation: It may be genetic.

Dr. John Richie, a biochemist at the American Health Foundation in Valhalla, N.Y., has found that a disproportionate number of blacks have a less efficient enzyme for detoxifying NKK, a particularly virulent cancer-causing chemical in tobacco smoke.

Dr. Gail Shaw, an expert on cancer and metabolism at the National Cancer Institute in Bethesda, Md., said the “study is very provocative.”

“The potential exists for different metabolism of carcinogens in different races,” Dr. Shaw said. But, she continued, the new study has not yet proved that this is the case. Blacks and whites could have alternative pathways for detoxifying carcinogens, she said, and blacks could have a system that has not yet been identified.

THE MISUSE OF RACE IN MEDICAL DIAGNOSIS
by Richard Garcia
May 9, 2003

If by using a patient’s ancestry in medical discourse we can narrow the range of possible diagnoses, then at least we must be careful to describe accurately the genetic, ethnic, cultural, or geographical variables involved; guessing what category a person fits in is not acceptable. And when “race” cannot possibly matter, let us omit it. What difference does it make if it is an African-American or an Asian who has an earache or ingrown toenail?

The textbooks say that a patient’s race can, and should, influence the doctor’s thinking about possible diagnoses.

An emergency-room physician referred a patient to me with this history: “A 14 y.o. black male from South Central LA with a positive tox screen presents with headache. He’s probably in a gang.” I ordered a CT scan of the patient’s head and discovered a large cyst that had blocked the normal flow of cerebral spinal fluid until the fluid had backed up and squashed his brain against his skull. Yes, he had a headache, and he had smoked a joint before going to the hospital.

Those are just two examples of incorrect diagnoses caused by doctors who use racial assumptions to arrive at incorrect medical conclusions. As a physician, such misdiagnoses disturb me.

April 3, 2008

Smoking causes lung cancer. That much is known. But three new studies published today suggest that genes might play a role in why some longtime smokers get the deadly disease and others do not.

About 50 percent of Caucasians of European descent have the genetic variation, researchers found. Genetic studies have not been done on other ethnic groups

No word on race yet.. anymore…