The largest tobacco investor on the list, the 160-year old Prudential company with branches in the US and the UK, has more than $1.5 billion invested in tobacco stocks. The runner-up was Toronto-based Sun Life Financial, which apparently holds over $1 billion in Philip Morris (Altria) and other tobacco stocks. In total, seven companies that sell life, health, disability, or long-term care insurance, have major holdings in tobacco stock.
Why is it a big deal? "If you own a billion dollars [of tobacco stock], then you don't want to see it go down," says Himmelstein, "You are less likely to join anti-tobacco coalitions, endorse anti-tobacco legislation, basically, anything most health companies would want to participate in."
Sun Life Financial denies that they hold any tobacco stock, a claim Himmelstein delicately called a lie.
It's just another thing to keep in mind this summer as Congress debates whether we can continue trusting our private health insurers to look out for our best interests.
Health insurers want you to keep smoking, Harvard doctors say [Scientific American]
(Photo: Kevin Dean)
@IT-Chick: Insurers don't cover smoking cessation products because they're not proven to work.
Insurers also won't cover your homeopathic snake oil, acupuncture, or faith healing.
]]>@avantartist: Your welcome
]]>That will get your point across.
p.s. You smell like goat ass.
]]>@missy070203: Thank you
]]>Russel Tee
www.online-privacy.vze.com
This isn't a credit union system...
]]>Hell, it might even happen with a government run system if the trust fund(s) were allowed to be invested in stocks.
]]>Tobacco stocks are strong performers and strong businesses.
Fundamentally, smokers are subsidizing the nonsmokers among us, and I'm fine with that.
]]>If Tobacco shares drop, they'll sell their stock holding, and buy other profitable stocks.
]]>reminds me of the stories you hear about how the mafia offered protection from the mafia.
haha, this just shows how corrupt health care is and how those of us who pay out the A$$ for it are really just cattle to them...
]]>As long as the smokers are not your policy holders, I don't see the problem here. If a company can make money to pay claims, they can still tell their customers to not smoke and make it in their best interest to not smoke.
]]>It appears to be a huge conflict of interest, but money is money.
]]>I'll bet the pharmaceutical companies are likewise invested in killer industries. They claim to use our money for R&D for cures, yet if they find a cure for something like lung cancer they'll lose a fortune in selling their maintenance drugs.
Solution (I've said this before): Deny health coverage to smokers, who each have to register in order to buy tobacco products. Let big tobacco provide them with health plans if they choose to. That'll be a real incentive to not start smoking or to quit and more of the financial risk will be put where it belongs.
]]>Don't forget that Obama has agreed with and expanded on Bush's unwarrented wire taps, has pardoned CIA people for any torture they may have committed, floated ideas of cutting ALL veteran benefits and making them supply their own health care, written executive orders okaying massive bonuses for bank CEO's under the bailout, etc...
]]>Well, at least in theory, since smoking represents an additional cost to them, no reason not to hedge against it. In practice, there are three glaring problems with this:
1) The health-related impact lags the sales of the tobacco. An uptick in sales now will not manifest itself in the form of increased health problems for about 20 years.
2) Smokers already pay a greater premium for coverage.
3) Conflict of interest with smoking cessation drugs (as mentioned by several before me).
I'm not seeing that this is the case here. They might make money off of smokers (which they probably pay out a lot more on) but I don't see them not paying benefits because they own tobacco stock.
]]>Over the years, the company has built a diversified portfolio of assets by providing the equity portion of lease financing of domestic and international assets such as aircraft, manufacturing facilities, power generation assets and real estate.
Since they invest in alcohol companies, do these insurance companies also deny alcohol treatment, as many commenters here claim they do with non-medical smoking cessation products?
]]>As long as insurers aren't holding large, concentrated positions in tobacco, it doesn't seem like a big deal. It's not clear from the blurb what $4.5 billion represents in the context of their overall stock holdings ($100's of billions?)
]]>Basically, I think we're screwed either way.
]]>I like the Picture..... I doubt that came naturally... someone would have had to take the time to place the dead rat next to the marlboro.... nice job
]]>@youbastid: I expect if you look at any huge companies portfolio you can find apparent conflicts of interest. I wouldn't be surprised if these companies were invested in other blue chip companies that can be perceived as unhealthy (Coke, fast food joints). It all still boils down to preserving wealth versus aggressive growth.
]]>It kinda makes sense: health insurers know tobacco sickens people, and so as long as people are smoking, why not profit from the killer?
That's one way to look at it.
I'd say insurance companies were hedging themselves against scenarios where the cost of treatment for a smoker is greater than the aggregate of his premiums paid. Does that negative offset equal the ROI? Who knows?
But in reality, I suspect we're both wrong.
]]>My health insurance covers Chantix, but not cessation aids that contain nicotine.
They also offer a program of some sort for support.
]]>Uh, big deal. Insurance companies are looking so sustain their wealth. No need to put money into high risk investments, enter blue chip stocks like tobacco companies.
]]>Not surprised, I've been talking about this for years, it pisses me off.
Health insurance will not cover ANYTHING related to quitting smoking, but will cover rehab for other addictions.
Atleast smoking cessation products are covered by Flex Spending benefits, so it's better than nothing.
@pezstar:
Strictly speaking, they dont. They care about making a profitable return for their stockholders, health insurers being corporations.
Their primary responsibility is making money, not saving lives.
]]>As long as it's for profit our interests won't be what their looking out for. Universal Health Care for the win.
]]>Tobacco related healthcare has cost $14B/year according to this study ("The Economics of Tobacco Use"),:
Most of this is paid by insurance companies.
]]>This is nothing more but another conformation of how big a BUSINESS the health care industry is. Just business...
This also more proof that too much time is being spent on WHO is paying for healtcare rather than controlling HOW much/controlling the costs that the health care industry sticks YOU with.
And surprisingly health care stocks pay just about as much in dividends as alot of other non-tobaco companies. The kicker here is that the tobacco industry is doing a ton of business overseas so these insurance companies are investing in something where the $$$ probably won't make it back to the US economy.
]]>