Question for Debate:
Should health insurance help pay for products, such as patches, gum, or therapy, to ween people off their nicotine addiction?

Should health insurance help pay for products, such as patches, gum, or therapy, to ween people off their nicotine addiction?


I don't believe it should be mandatory for them to do so, but I do believe it would simply make good business sense. Smokers tend to have more health problems then none smokers in general, and of course there is the massive costs associated with the various major diseases associated with smoking. All of those diseases being covered by almost any health plan.

My insurance company pays for these supplies. My insurance company also has a different monthly premium rate for smokers and non-smokers.

They semi-regularly mail information on various products and programs to assist in quitting smoking.

As for nicotine addiction this is not the real problem for smokers to quit. If you have been smoking less then 10 years you have a negligible nicotine addition.

The real problem is the activity and habitual ties smokers have. The mental addiction. A smoke with coffee, a smoke with a beer, a smoke when driving, a smoke outside at work when the stress is high, a smoke when taking on the phone or using the PC, etc.

These habits are far more difficult to break. The physical addiction for those who have smoked long enough is easily dealt with using the patch, or nicotine gum. But the mental addiction of a 20 year habit that has been pervasive throughout you life-style is far more difficult to overcome.

agree that it would be a good idea but don't know about requiring them to.
I saw on TV that some county employees somewhere were getting free gastic bypasses for their health. Officials will do a 5 year study to determine if the investment was worth it. That sounds like a waste of taxpayers money.

After smoking for almost 40 years, my brother quit cold turkey when his doctor told him to quit bothering him, go home and die, as he wasn't following the doctor's orders. He has actually gained some weight and looks less like a walking cadaver now.

Sometimes all the help that is needed is a good kick in the pants.

Should health insurance help pay for products, such as patches, gum, or therapy, to ween people off their nicotine addiction?

No. Here's why:

I've actually been a non-smoker for about 6 months. I started when I was like 12 and stopped when I was 22. Was it hard? Well, for about 3 days I had cravings (probably longer for the real hardcore, longterm smokers)--but after that, I wanted to smoke so I could have that "good" or "buzz" feeling. Then, I realised hey--I don't need the luxury of smoking--because it is that--a luxury. So, I didn't even turn back after that point.

So, like Bill said: All it takes is a good, swift kick in the butt. Just like any other bad habit (eating too much, being lazy, etc...)

And I don't want MY premiums going up so that other people can/cant quit smoking.

It seems pretty obvious to me that the fewer people who smoke, the LOWER your insurance rates will be.

In general, it's always a good idea to work on prevention of health problems rather than treatment, when possible. Anti-smoking aids are not extremely expensive, and can do a tremendous amount of good. The insurance compaines benefit; people trying to quit smoking benefit; the general public benefits. How often do you see a win-win-win situation?