Saliva test forces smokers to pay more for health insurance
Want to make your employees smoking mad? Tell them they have to prove they don’t smoke.
Surprisingly, sucking on a burning clump of dried vegetable matter and inhaling the smoke deep into sensitive lung tissue is bad for human health.
In Arizona, some Maricopa County employees have to submit to saliva tests that test for nicotine, according to an article in the Arizona Republic. If they don’t, they pay an extra $480-a-year health insurance premium.
The test is seen as a way to cut health-care costs, which, as you probably know, have skyrocketed in recent years.
Smoking, as anyone who has read the side of a cigarette package, is bad for you. “Smoking Causes Lung Cancer, Heart Disease, Emphysema, And May Complicate Pregnancy,” says one label, which seems pretty straight-forward. The Centers for Disease Control says smoking is the leading cause of preventable death in the U.S., and smokers die an average of 13 years sooner.
Some Georgia hospitals, including those in Gwinnett and DeKalb, won’t hire smokers. Job applicants have to pass a blood test for nicotine. With rising healthcare costs, that may become a trend. Georgia, unlike some states, does not have a law prohibiting discrimination against smokers.
According to the Arizona Republic article, the county made the test mandatory because an statistically unbelievable number of employees claimed to be non-smokers. Despite the warning labels, the percentage of smokers has stabilized in recent years at about 20 percent.
In the article, one disgruntled employee says ”it goes against our personal liberties. Whether you smoke or not should be between you and your doctor, not you and your boss.”
She’s wrong. Because she chooses to smoke, her co-workers have been paying more for health insurance.
How much more?
Here’s some facts from the Centers for Disease Control:
* Cigarette smoking costs more than $193 billion (i.e., $97 billion in lost productivity plus $96 billion in health care expenditures) per year.
* Secondhand smoke costs more than $10 billion (i.e., health care expenditures, morbidity, and mortality) per year.
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
58 comments Add your comment
Skinny Smoker
March 18th, 2011
1:54 pm
If our Nanny State Government charged as much tax on a doughnut-or a biggie sized fast food meal-as they do on a pack of cigarettes, we would not have any debt in this country! Could probably do away with the income tax as well……just sayin’
dotcom
March 18th, 2011
1:55 pm
Drunk drivers cause more deaths than smoking drivers. They also die from liver disease, kidney failure and other assorted diseases related to alcohol. Where is the added health insurance costs for them and the “test” to see if they drink alcohol. Oh no, that is socially acceptable!!
usually lurking
March 18th, 2011
2:02 pm
Hmmm, how about a higher insurance rate for people who participate in recreational sports for exercise as they are more likely than the couch potatoes to experience a sports-related injury requiring surgery and/or physical therapy? Slippery slope here…
Motorcyclist
March 18th, 2011
2:07 pm
OK, maybe I’m missing something. IMHO, this is just a way for the insurance companies to stick their hand into your pockets yet again.
If you smoke, yes, it increase the risks. You are more likely to have problems sooner, that will require the insurance company to ‘cough up’ money today.
If you do not smoke, you probably (but may not) live longer. Over that extra time you will likely need treated for various other illnesses. And as you age, you may still need insurance help for heart problems, cancers, alzheimers, etc. The insurance company still has to cough up the money. And in the end, we all still die.
So, if you die sooner, you aren’t a long term drain on their checkbook. If you live longer, you become a longer term drain on their checkbook, eventually aging towards those large cost problems. But not eliminating them.
So even though I am a non-smoker, it looks to me like they just want that extra $480 a year, just because.
And of course they want to control our lives, which is repulsive to me.
Or, more likely, the insurance company wants you to live healthy now and pay them the money. Then once you age enough they drop you and expect you to use socialized medicine, which they aren’t paying into.
fundad
March 18th, 2011
2:13 pm
All health/life insurance rates should be based on statistics and actuarial tables. Period. When you buy life or health insurance, the rates are and should be based on gender, weight, age, lifestyle, city & county where you live, blood type, family health history, & pre-existing conditions. Its the only fair way to do it.
Don't Understand Why People Smoke
March 18th, 2011
2:18 pm
It’s bad for their health, the second hand smoke is bad for those around them when they are around a smoker & it’s bad for the environment. Nothing good comes from smoking. Chew gum.
Edward
March 18th, 2011
2:26 pm
If everyone quit, like they want,what would they TAX, instead of cigarettes
DW
March 18th, 2011
2:38 pm
I smoke and I will pay extra for insurance, just like I do in taxes when I buy a pack of smokes. If anyone has a problem with it, well they can kiss my @$$!! MYOFB.
gatorman770
March 18th, 2011
2:59 pm
……then to be fair there should be increases for over-weight people and alcohol users since their habits lead to bad health and higher rates for non-fat-asses and non-drinkers. At what point do we stop the taxing madness?
Hey…did anybody else notice that the slew of new proposed sales taxes increases omitted taxes on golf equipment and rounds, but includes food? What’s that all about?
Grateful wage slave
March 18th, 2011
3:40 pm
My massa is so goood to me! He only pays me for 40-hours each week, but he keeps me in line for all 168-hours a week.