Vaping and Healthcare... Are we nonsmokers?

[Cavediver]

My current healthcare company recently asked that I fill out a survey, presumably because I checked the tobacco user box last year. Here is the important part of the survey:

Please mark the statement that is true for you:

Yes, I do use tobacco products
 No, I do not use tobacco products

Tobacco use includes cigarettes, pipe, cigars, snuff, or chewing tobacco used on
average four or more times per week within the past six months. Religious or
ceremonial uses of tobacco (for example, by American Indians and Alaska
Natives) are exempt.

There is absolutely no ambiguity there, and no mention of NRTs, so I checked "No".
If they had mentioned NRTs, I'd have asked for clarification or simply checked "Yes".

I printed the survey and have it signed, cosigned, and dated, and it's stored in my HR folder. Since this was only a survey and not a part of the official application or renewal process, I doubt it'll matter. However, it does set the stage for what constitutes a tobacco product, and could help if there is a dispute somewhere down the line.

 

[JWM2]

I concur. I answer the "Smoking" question honestly. Do I smoke? No. Do I use tobacco products? No. If I were to elaborate and say, "But I vape" is to perpetuate the myth that vaping is so like smoking that it must be qualified. Vaping is so unlike smoking that it is an entirely different subject. No one would respond to, "Do you smoke?" with "No, but I read books." Different question, different subject.

+1, i also find it odd that people would equate vaping as smoking. I mean with smoking you are putting thousands of harmful chemicals into your lungs and body with vaping, there are no harmful chemicals at all. I mean VG and PG are found in most foods we eat on a daily basis. The only similarity is we both ingest nicotine, which is a naturally occurring substance. They'd rather we eat processed foods by the truckload than ingest something in pure form from the earth. Unbelievable.

 

[Jman8]

So, what if FDA succeeds in classifying ecigs as "tobacco products?" Do you think big insurance will go with FDA logic or vapor's logic?

 

[Cavediver]

So, what if FDA succeeds in classifying ecigs as "tobacco products?" Do you think big insurance will go with FDA logic or vapor's logic?

Which way earns them more money?

+1, i also find it odd that people would equate vaping as smoking. I mean with smoking you are putting thousands of harmful chemicals into your lungs and body with vaping, there are no harmful chemicals at all. I mean VG and PG are found in most foods we eat on a daily basis. The only similarity is we both ingest nicotine, which is a naturally occurring substance. They'd rather we eat processed foods by the truckload than ingest something in pure form from the earth. Unbelievable.

While I believe in the huge risk reduction of vaping over smoking, to state that there are "no harmful chemicals at all" is carrying it a bit far. Do you know what's in every last flavoring element out there? Sure, they're mostly recognized as safe, but that's for consumption, not inhalation. Who's to say they won't eventually cause problems? What about the silica fibers that break off of the wicks and end up in our lungs?

 

[kristin]

Do you know how the silica fibers supposedly get past the atomizer and carried in the vapor to end up in our lungs? I drip on a bridgeless atty, so I don't know how that would work.

 

[2coils]

IMHO....I don't believe lying to our doctors or insurance companies does any individual any good. I tell my doctors everything. I am honest about it. I will not withhold prudent information when it comes to my health. I don't believe we are smokers or tobacco users. I say, Lets fight the laws regarding e-cigs, not dance around them! By the way, to each their own, just my

 

[Mushroomie]

Came across this thread and I have a perfect example had a tooth pulled about a week ago. They give you the instructions not to suck and stuff and rinse and all the B/S every knows that have had teeth pulled. So the dental tech asked me if I smoked and I said I just quit a week ago but I vape. She says well that's good just vape light and not on the side the tooth was pulled and you should be fine. I was shocked. So I think some health professionals take it different ways IMO. I can say though this is the fastest time I have ever had a tooth pulled that healed so quickly since I have smoked analogs. The whole is almost closed already and it only been about a week and 3 days. So Yay! Vaping is making me heal quicker!.

 

[BradleyNIN]

I'm checking no and making sure I let my healthcare providers know I've quit.

Also, remember all of those free cigarette tents you saw at concerts, festivals, etc. Yup, they put you in a database that they let insurance companies cross reference. Marlboro sent me a birthday present for the past two years. Torn between telling them I've quit.

 

[Whitechapel]

I think it depends on the healthcare provider. I would consult your HR rep.

Also, I liked your post based on your username. Bravo!

 

[patkin]

If they can get more money in the form of higher premiums because you're vaping, then you'll be classified a smoker where they've already won the right to charge you more for that. From what I've heard even the Obama albatross is doing it.

 

[Cavediver]

Do you know how the silica fibers supposedly get past the atomizer and carried in the vapor to end up in our lungs? I drip on a bridgeless atty, so I don't know how that would work.

Most of the atomizers I use have a clear path between the wick and the opening. Evods, for example, have wick both inside the coil and on top of it, directly below the opening.

Take a look at the pictures in the first post of this thread:
Wick materials. Safe vs dangerous.
Just this week I learned how to re-wick my clearo heads with cotton (my favorite local vape shop holds weekly classes / seminars / leaning sessions; head rebuilding was this week's topic). I'll use 'em as they are when new, but don't think I'm going to use silica in any future rebuilds.

 

[Jman8]

So, was doing a google search along lines of "could smoking be considered a pre-existing condition?" which I realize is pretty much established as a no, but was kinda thinking there would be some technical loophole with ACA that might make it plausible.

Didn't find it, but did find this article published yesterday that I think is rather interesting.

ObamaCare slams smokers with sky-high premium costs, could backfire | Fox News - Politics

 

[kristin]

So, was doing a google search along lines of "could smoking be considered a pre-existing condition?" which I realize is pretty much established as a no, but was kinda thinking there would be some technical loophole with ACA that might make it plausible.

Didn't find it, but did find this article published yesterday that I think is rather interesting.

ObamaCare slams smokers with sky-high premium costs, could backfire | Fox News - Politics

It's interesting how smoking is a "choice" only when it suits them. What about the ANTZ claim that "nicotine is more addictive than he-roin?" (Yet those addicted to THAT drug don't pay a penalty.) Alcoholics have an increased risk of cancers (such as oral cancers once blamed on smokeless tobacco alone) yet people have sympathy for alcoholics and hard drug addicts (as helpless against their addiction), so they would never charge THEM a 50% increase in premiums. (And companies don't test employees to find out if they are heavy drinkers off-duty, either.) Just more proof smokers (and other tobacco/nicotone users) are unfairly singled out.

Interestingly, the final ACA rules define tobacco use as the "use of tobacco products 4 or more times a week for the past 6 months." How exactly do they intend to prove that based on a test?

Also interesting to find ourselves on the same side as the ACS and Campaign for Tobacco-free Kids with this issue, as they oppose the penalty. Of course, they oppose this because they want insurance to cover Big Pharma products, rather than forcing smokers to drop coverage.

Here is a thought: tobacco/nicotine users never had a recourse against private employer policies and insurance company discrimination against us, but does that change with a law that unfairly penalizes one higher-risk group without penalizing others with similar risks? Especially one that penalizes low-risk users along with high-risk users? (For example, would they justify the same penalty for someone who is 10 lbs overweight as someone who is 150 lbs overweight? Both are "overweight," but one is obviously much higher risk than the other. The same applies to smokeless tobacco/nicotine use vs. smoking, so they shouldn't be charged as higher risk. Not that I believe smokers should pay such high penalties when 90% of smokers never get "smoking-related diseases" in the first place.)

 

[patkin]

+1 There need to be class-action law suits.