But to add a whole new list of weighting factors to the underwriting guidelines for smokers begs the underwriter to do the same for non smokers.

I believe living in Denver as opposed to a small mountain community like I live in must have an impact on mortality. It is far more stressful. But where do you cut if off. Do you charge more if the city is more than a million people, or do you use air quality standards, murder rates, road rage incidences.

Basic underwriting as it stands today may have some flaws, but it is generally on the right track.

And, yes, each individual situation may be different, and there may be insurers who are willing to insure some occassional smokers at more reasonable rates. But, I know first-hand from some family members, that you may smoke more than a pack-a-day for over 50 years and still have clear lungs on your annual check-up.

So, maybe genetics, environment, and stress should play a role in determining smokers rates as well. If they don’t already. I think some smokers do live longer than others who may have more stress in their lives, or be overweight, or don’t exercise, or have poor genetics for longevity.

I guess what I’m trying to say is that much more research should be done on smoking and life insurance, and more factors be given weight in determining life insurance rates.

There could be many more categories for rates created by life insurers to really provide more competitive premiums for smokers based on individual niches realted to genetics, smoking habits, age, weight, and all demographics that may factor into lung cancer - such as occupation, living in a densely populated city with air pollution, etc.

Just some things to think about for those life insurance underwriters out there who develop the guidelines and rates for smokers life insurance.

You are certainly not without an opinion. Best of luck with that savings account. I hope for you and your family it works.

If insurance hustlers are so smart about risk maybe they can help me with the lottery. I’ll split the winnings.

In a perfect world insurance would be the province of the government with the same premium for all like Medicare.

Now you can opine as to what an idiot I am but my money is in my pocket for a better purpose than making hustlers rich.

Interesting logic. You’ll show the insurance companies by boycotting them. You’ll get even with them by not protecting your family.

Just so you don’t think life insurance companies are just “anti smoking”, let’s throw a different face on it. Say for a minute that you are a perfectly healthy 45 year smoker. Do you believe that you should pay the same for life insurance as a 45 year old who drinks abusively? How about a 45 year old who works as a civilian contractor in Iraq? How about a 45 year old whose father and three older brothers all suffered heart attacks prior to age 50?

Life insurance is discriminatory by its’ very nature. It has to be. Each person presents a different risk factor and they should all be measured on their own merit.

Obviously you think that smoking doesn’t present any risk and it’s OK for you to have that opinion. Just don’t expect insurance companies to jump on board.

As to your question. Mortality assumptions aren’t as simple as you want them to be for your argument. If an insurance company only thought you would live half as long as a comparable non smoker, they wouldn’t offer you coverage at all. The extra premium simply reflects the proven extra risk.

If smoking is the only criterion used by insurance companies when they say smokers die sooner they are misleading the public. What else is new?

Animal studies done way back in the fifties proved smoking is not unhealthy–unimpeacheably, incontrovertibly and commonsensically. So your policy is fraudulent.

I once had an auto insurance company raise my rates–no accidents–because some legal hustlers were milking the no fault law. So insurance premiums are not strictly by the numbers.

Question: If smokers’ premiums are double,does that mean
they live half as long?

You can believe or not believe all the scientific data that both sides put out but it is hard to ignore a hundred years worth of mortality data. Insurers charge those higher rates to smokers, not because the surgeon general tells them too, but because the smokers the insurance companies have written policies to over time have actually died that much sooner.

Just like auto insurance companies don’t charge teenagers higher rates because studies show they are worse drivers or that everyone agrees they are worse drivers. They charge them higher rates because teenagers have produced higher claims over the years.

You can argue whether or not smoking increases the change of X disease by Y% all you want, but in the end the life insurance data shows that on average smokers die sooner than nonsmokers.

You can believe the (ex)Surgeon General if you wish, but I say he’sa bald faced liar and I can prove it with common sense alone.

If insurance writers think it’s their mission to coerce smokers into quitting I’ll do without life insurance. Smokers, unite!
Boycott!

(