Add me to the list of those getting screwed...

[supertrunker]

It is clumsy for insurance purposes to group nicotine use as equating to tobacco use. They are patently dissimilar.

The argument used to be something like 'we care about your health and so we heavily tax things that are bad for you such as cigarettes and booze'.
That has been replaced with 'so many people are now making rational decisions to reduce tobacco harm that we have to find ways of ensuring a continuing income stream'.

There is nothing to stop insurance companies differentiating between smokers and vapers - but they deliberately choose not to do so, yet that is precisely what they do in other areas, for example life insurance is naturally enough age-biased.

It is disingenuous to claim that there is not enough evidence to support such "special" treatment of vapers. There is nothing special about it - it's a simple risk assessment: i like to ski on my holidays, but i don't like to box, ski off piste or base jump and so i get cheaper insurance than someone that does.
Compare that with - i like to vape rather than ingest the 10-fold increase in carcinogens present in burned tobacco, so i get cheaper.....not a bit of it!

T

 

[NicoHolic]

You do know they're starting a new campaign against caffeine, don't you?

 

[Nermal]

If you want to harass them, their numbers in that form are off if they are using bi-weekly pay periods. Correctly, 50 per month is 600. $600 divided by 26 pay periods comes out to 23.08 per bi weekly pay period. Man, you are getting screwed again.

 

[EddardinWinter]

You do know they're starting a new campaign against caffeine, don't you?

I have seen it. Shocking, yet predictable. Ugh.



Tapped out

 

[wv2win]

...................

The interesting part is that our premium went from $303 a month to $609 the year Obamacare was announced. This year it went to $917 a month (for employee and spouse).

I think we are destined to be soaked regardless of what we do.................

Wait, wait - how is that possible??? Obama said only the really rich might have to pay a little more for health insurance. I'm pretty sure, Dave, you are not in the 1% bracket.

Maybe some of the vapers on ECF who have expressed many "simpatico" statements, about the wonders of the current administration, will stop by and explain how this is just impossible. Something tells me we won't here a "peep" from them.

Mine went up also, Dave, but not quite as much as yours did. But it is just a matter of time. Health insurance is now just another big tax increase in so-called sheep's clothing.

 

[Uncle Willie]

The problem and reason why they will stick you with that is, at least some manufacturers, extract their nicotine from whole leaf tobacco, which makes it by definition a "tobacco derivative". That and, as usual, the FDA is putzing around with ANTZ special interest groups because the anti-nicotine folks are the ones that most heavily (second to BT) fund the lawmakers campaigns.

the lion's share of campaign funds comes from individual American citizens .. tobacco industry's campaign contributions during the 2012 election cycle : $54 million overall .. a paltry number ..

 

[DC2]

You do know they're starting a new campaign against caffeine, don't you?

I did not know that... any specific links to look at?

 

[wv2win]

Here is the policy...

Isn't it interesting that NRT products are not on the list??? DC, I think you would have a case to say "no" to this requirement. If you had a procedure, all they could do is test you for nicotine. You could pull out your nic gum, inhaler, etc and circumvent their idiotic policy. I'm generally not one to advocate deception, but in this case, I think an exception is warranted.

 

[DC2]

Isn't it interesting that NRT products are not on the list??? DC, I think you would have a case to say "no" to this requirement. If you had a procedure, all they could do is test you for nicotine. You could pull out your nic gum, inhaler, etc and circumvent their idiotic policy. I'm generally not one to advocate deception, but in this case, I think an exception is warranted.

I think I am going to ask them about long-term use of NRT products.

 

[NicoHolic]

It's for the children.

 

[NicoHolic]

I think it would be hilarious if compounds that make nicotine more addictive were found in NRT products.

 

[EddardinWinter]

I think it would be hilarious if compounds that make nicotine more addictive were found in NRT products.

Or, even better, it could be demonstrated that BP manipulated the ingredients in some way that made it so!



Tapped out

 

[DC2]

It's for the children.

Well, isn't this just fascinating...

Cracker Jack'd: Frito-Lay announces Caffeinated Cracker Jacks | TIME.com

 

[DC2]

From the Federal Register...
Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act; Health Insurance Market Rules

Comment: Several commenters requested additional consequences for individuals who fail to disclose tobacco use during the application process, such as allowing issuers to collect additional premiums or other penalties, to rescind the policy in the case of intentional misrepresentation or fraud, and to determine the individual to be ineligible for certain enrollment periods. In addition, commenters suggested there should be clear and prominent warnings to applicants about the consequences of failing to answer questions about tobacco use truthfully.

Response: If an enrollee is found to have reported false or incorrect information about their tobacco use, the issuer may retroactively apply the appropriate tobacco use rating factor to the enrollee's premium as if the correct information had been accurately reported from the beginning of the plan year. However, an issuer must not rescind the coverage on this basis. Tobacco use is not a material fact for which an issuer may rescind coverage if there is a misrepresentation because these regulations already provide the remedy of recouping the tobacco premium surcharge that should have been paid since the beginning of the plan or policy year. Accordingly, it is the view of the Department of HHS, Labor, and the Treasury (which share interpretative jurisdiction over section 2712 of the PHS Act) that this remedy of recoupment renders any misrepresentation with regard to tobacco use no longer a “material” fact for purposes of rescission under PHS Act section 2712 and its implementing regulations. [13] Additionally, under guaranteed availability of coverage rules, an issuer may not deny an enrollee or their covered dependents an enrollment period described in this final rule because an enrollee provided false or incorrect information about their tobacco use.

 

[DC2]

I think I am going to ask them about long-term use of NRT products.

And when I talk to them I'm going to give them this...
FDA: OK to use nicotine replacement therapies for longer than 12 weeks - CBS News

Now, if people feel they need to use the product for a longer period of time or need more than one NRT at the same time, the FDA says it is okay. There are also no significant safety concerns when using an NRT and another nicotine product at the same time. If someone trying to quit slips up and smokes a cigarette, the FDA said they should not stop using the NRT and continue on their smoking cessation plan.

 

[alisa1970]

From the Federal Register...
Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act; Health Insurance Market Rules

Response: If an enrollee is found to have reported false or incorrect information about their tobacco use, the issuer may retroactively apply the appropriate tobacco use rating factor to the enrollee's premium as if the correct information had been accurately reported from the beginning of the plan year. However, an issuer must not rescind the coverage on this basis.

Hey DC--however much it sucks, this portion speaks directly to your insurer, not your employer. As of yet (I'm not crossing my fingers it will always be this way), the feds cant control your employer with regard to conditions of employment.

If you live in a right to work state, which I generally support, they can boot your behind for pretty much anything if it's not traditionally discriminatory. Since we know that it's OK to discriminate against tobacco users, they CAN fire you if you report non-tobacco user and they find out. Even if you're not using tobacco but an ecig instead. Your employers' HR department are ANTZ, in other words. You have protection against having your policy cancelled; you have no protection under Obamacare against getting fired.

 

[EddardinWinter]

Hey DC--however much it sucks, this portion speaks directly to your insurer, not your employer. As of yet (I'm not crossing my fingers it will always be this way), the feds cant control your employer with regard to conditions of employment.

If you live in a right to work state, which I generally support, they can boot your behind for pretty much anything if it's not traditionally discriminatory. Since we know that it's OK to discriminate against tobacco users, they CAN fire you if you report non-tobacco user and they find out. Even if you're not using tobacco but an ecig instead. Your employers' HR department are ANTZ, in other words. You have protection against having your policy cancelled; you have no protection under Obamacare against getting fired.

A good point there.



Tapped out

 

[DC2]

Hey DC--however much it sucks, this portion speaks directly to your insurer, not your employer. As of yet (I'm not crossing my fingers it will always be this way), the feds cant control your employer with regard to conditions of employment.

If you live in a right to work state, which I generally support, they can boot your behind for pretty much anything if it's not traditionally discriminatory. Since we know that it's OK to discriminate against tobacco users, they CAN fire you if you report non-tobacco user and they find out. Even if you're not using tobacco but an ecig instead. Your employers' HR department are ANTZ, in other words. You have protection against having your policy cancelled; you have no protection under Obamacare against getting fired.

Yes, I understand that, but thank you for making sure.


It is just another thing I have in my arsenal if I want to push this further.
I've already got my opening round salvo ready to go.

I'm going to start off slow and ramp it up as much as I feel comfortable doing.

Before I'm done, I hope to at least leave them with a solid impression of the absurdity and hypocrisy of this whole thing.
That, unfortunately, is the least I can do.

 

[alisa1970]

I think it's ridiculous that it's even in question, honestly. Your company's policy sucks. I hate HR people. Can't do much right now about the insurance company though. "It's the law of the land" and all that.

 

[potholerepairman]

sorry DC, I have been on this program for 3 years now here on uhc and brought it up here a few times.Its crazy but true..Its 600 a year now but next year will be worse.Its possible that if you do not take the doc's heart(blood presure meds you lose the 600 also.Some insurance companies are charging 1200-1500 for the smoke thing now.As a spouse all I have to do is lie but blood work is still needed.