Thursday, February 28, 2013

Smoking Surcharge

With stories like this, as with almost every story, follow the money.

Gov. Scott Walker’s proposed $50-a-month fee for state employees who smoke faces some surprising opponents: anti-smoking advocates.

Smoke Free Wisconsin, the American Lung Association, the American Cancer Society and the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids don’t support such surcharges on health insurance.

The fees make coverage less affordable for smokers and aren’t proven to get them to quit, the groups say.

“A surcharge puts up a barrier for many people — particularly low-income people, where we see the higher rates of smoking,” said Dona Wininsky, a spokeswoman for the American Lung Association in Wisconsin.

...

Laura Smith — spokeswoman for Smoke Free Wisconsin, part of Health First Wisconsin — said the state should increase funding for tobacco prevention and control instead of implementing the surcharge.

Walker’s budget calls for $5.32 million a year for such efforts. As recently as 2008-09, the state spent nearly three times more.

I agree with the advocates that the $50 fee is not likely to deter smoking, but that’s not what it is for. It is for defraying a tiny fraction of the additional cost to insure smokers as compared to non-smokers. But the fee will have the same effect as cigarette taxes - it raises the cost of the activity. The difference is that the anti-smoking advocates lay claim to the money generated by cigarette taxes. Who do you think receives that state spending? But a $50 health insurance surcharge will never flow to them. That’s what they don’t like about it.

Oh, and I doubt that many state workers fall into the “low-income” category.

(11) Comments
Posted by Owen at 1331 hrs
Politics + Politics - Wisconsin

  1. Tobacco is a legal product.  Make tabacco a illegal product if it is so bad.  Walker is no better than Bloomberg outlawing large soda’s in NY.  If walker was truly concern with healthcare cost he should fine state workers workers who drink alchohol.  Why stop with state workers, WI will be more compettitive if all smokers have to pay the $50.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 28, 2013 at 1424 hrs


  2. How about a $50 credit to those who don’t smoke?

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 28, 2013 at 1621 hrs


  3. I knew someone who took intake phone calls from people who claimed they were homeless or about to be homeless.  She would ask them how much they spent on cigarettes - some would say how much right away, others would question why she assumed they smoked - she would tell them she could tell by their voice over the phone.  Then they would admit they smoked.  Anyway, if the insurance surcharge is a barrier to low-income smokers, why isn’t the cost of of cigarettes a barrier to smoking?

    the state should increase funding for tobacco prevention and control Sounds more like a job preservation program for somebody

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 28, 2013 at 1636 hrs


  4. Wait, if a surcharge on insurance will cause a barrier to folks, what does a medical device tax do, give them unicorns and faeries to provide them coverage?

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 28, 2013 at 1658 hrs


  5. “I doubt that many state workers fall into the ‘low-income’ category.

    Don’t worry—without the unions, we’ll get there eventually.

    Posted by Northern Pike on February 28, 2013 at 1727 hrs


  6. I’m not so sure smokers cost more to insure.  Since they invariably die younger, I bet it costs less over a lifetime to insure one.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 28, 2013 at 1748 hrs


  7. A fraction, and I mean a miniscule fraction, of cigarette taxes are used for anti-smoking efforts.  They vast majority is just thrown into Wisconsin’s general revenue fund.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 28, 2013 at 1806 hrs


  8. Don’t worry—without the unions, we’ll get there eventually.

    So, you’re admitting the unions are needed to drive up and inflate public sector salaries, and over-charge the taxpayers.  Thanks for sharing!

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 28, 2013 at 1925 hrs


  9. I’m not so sure smokers cost more to insure.  Since they invariably die younger, I bet it costs less over a lifetime to insure one.

    I assume you don’t know any actuaries.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 01, 2013 at 0808 hrs


  10. So, Mr. Pelican Pants, you’re admitting that the great union purge of the last 30 years has been the main factor in the downward trajectory of median wages and household income?

    Perhaps you’re from the Thomas Malthus school that the natural wage is the subsistence wage.

    Posted by Northern Pike on March 01, 2013 at 1223 hrs


  11. I am from the UK and smoking related illnesses cost our NHS a fortune. As a smoking cessation therapist, I have seen how support for those who want to quit is so important, more so I think than simply imposing a fee. Hypnosis to stop smoking in London

    Posted by Susannah on March 12, 2013 at 1000 hrs


Commenting is not available in this channel entry.