Status
Not open for further replies.

DaveP

PV Master & Musician
ECF Veteran
May 22, 2010
16,733
42,646
Central GA
I guess that a doctor prescribed nicorette gum or inhaler would get you the high insurance rate and a refused employment application test.

In the high stress environment of a hospital, I would expect people to have a few drinks after work and drive home under the influence.. That's fine as long as you don't vape while you are having them? Sheesh, first it was political correctness and now war on smokers ... and we hate people with those fake cigarettes, too, because it reminds us of those real ones that stink up the entrances we walk through to get to work!
 
Last edited:

Semiretired

Vaping Master
ECF Veteran
Sep 24, 2011
5,404
58,647
Middle Georgia
Has anyone who's been vaping 0mg juice gone and got tested? Will 0mg nic juice (for the most part) guarantee that it doesn't show up on a test?


I would be interested if someone vaping even 4 mg came up positive. Vaping absorbs a lot less nicotine than analogs did so there could be a threshold besides 0.
 

keydcuk

Senior Member
ECF Veteran
Sep 21, 2011
232
13
United Kingdom
I told my HR rep that I had switched to using an e-cig and learned that I no longer have to pay the tobacco surcharge on my health insurance. The only requirement was that I had to sign a statement that I had stopped smoking. I have Blue Cross if that makes any difference.

Your very lucky for this as a lot of insurances consider nicotine replacement therapy as bad as smoking... My mortgage insurance is higher and will remain higher until I stop vaping with nicotine for a year...
 

mgordon1100

Super Member
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
May 24, 2011
785
599
58
A, A
Found it finally!
http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...5-greatest-myths-we-heard-about-e-cigs-6.html
Not sure jlarsens reply is correct though. I can't do the math myself.

I'm too lazy to do the math. Besides, I can't even comprehend a nanosecond. "My wife just had a nanogram the other day, and her boobs are just fine." Whatever the correct math may be, the food excuse is just grasping at straws. Truth is, you can't lie about anything. Technology can tell them what you ate for breakfast on that day.
 
Last edited:

rolygate

Vaping Master
Supporting Member
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Sep 24, 2009
8,354
12,405
ECF Towers
Insurance companies have the right to charge more for smokers, as healthcare costs are 25% to 50% more likely to be very much higher for a smoker than for the average non-smoker. Morally, if they are paying, then they have the right to exclude smokers unless taken on at a higher premium. There is no reason to treat people differently from confirmed, honest smokers just because they lie on their applications or they fool themselves that they are not smokers (a percentage of people have no real grip on reality: when questioned as to whether they have quit or not in quit-smoking health programmes, some people who answer that they have quit are then found in tests to be still smoking).

However, enlightened companies know that e-cig users have about the same health risks as non-smokers, as do Swedish Snus users (which of course is proven), and they do include e-cigarette users in the non-smoking group. This does not apply to other types of smokeless tobacco users. But insurance being what it is, you have to AGREE with the insurance company on this issue or they have the right not to pay out, as nicotine use may be interpreted by a court as being equal to tobacco use for this purpose (even though it's not) - especially as e-cigarettes are of course legally now a tobacco product in the US.

Remember - you can't PROVE that e-cig use is as healthy as being a non-smoker. It's proven for Snus, but there is no long-term data for e-cig use as it's too soon for that, they were only sold in the US from late 2006.

Keep in mind also that they certainly have the right to exclude NRT users, since around 98% of them will go back to smoking - as is proven by reams of research. Almost all NRT users revert to smoking, so in effect NRT users are smokers - and there's no way to differentiate an NRT user from an e-cig user by any kind of test.

There are several types of test: some specifically test for a tobacco smoker and no other type of user, but most tests just show nicotine or its recent use. A CO test (carbon monoxide in the bloodstream) will just reveal tobacco smokers but not other types of nicotine user, but this is an expensive test. It was common in the past, and is still used in some labs with access to blood test equipment, for precise determination of smoking status (for example during a quit-smoking programme where NRTs are being used). However the cotinine test for urine is much more widely available now - it's quick and cheap, and just tests for the nicotine metabolyte cotinine. Any/every recreational or other type of nic user tests positive.

As it detects different levels, excuses cannot be used. Although everyone tests positive for nicotine as it is part of the diet, non-nic users test very low. On a scale of 0 to 300, non-smokers register between 1 and 3, e-cig users register 50 to 200, smokers register 100 to 300. Therefore the levels are used as a guide. On cheap tests, anything below about 10 does not show, but anything above that registers 'as a smoker'. Therefore you will test positive if you are a normal e-cig user.

There are no excuses accepted for failing a nicotine test (i.e. the urine cotinine test) when the insurance company does not specifically exclude e-cig users. However those open-minded companies do not normally test, as there could be several reasons why a test comes out positive. Companies that test normally accept no excuses. In any case, NRT users are effectively smokers, since they almost certainly will be again soon; and insurance companies have no financial incentive to be nice to e-cig users as there is no market pressure to do so.

If you are choosing your own insurance provider, you could look for one who specifically grants e-cigarette users exemption from the smoking provisions. In the case of a claim they would be within their rights to order a carbon monoxide test, to test for smoking but not nic use.

If you are filling in a form at work or where you do not know if they allow e-cig users exclusion from classification as smokers, then you will need to either contact the company to find out, or answer 'no' to the 'are you a smoker?' question and note in the comments that you are exclusively an e-cigarette user (and risk being classed as a smoker).

If you answer 'no', then legally they may be within their right to refuse you employment or refuse to pay for treatment when tests show nicotine use. For example if you go to hospital needing treatment then blood will be taken immediately, and one of the tests performed will be for nicotine, so you can't avoid this test, and it may be taken in an emergency situation. If you have have one test on file that shows positive, then your medical records will show that, at that time, you were a smoker.

Employment tests
If you think that an employer is confused about the health implications of smoking vs vaping, and you think you should not be excluded from employment on health grounds since you will not suffer from the health negatives that smokers may experience, then perhaps you might decide to abstain from nicotine for a week in order to get the job. You could try vaping zero-nic as it could be better than stopping altogether for a week.

Zero-nic liquid does not contain any nicotine and therefore will not cause a positive result in any type of test. However, it has been shown in the past that some zero-nic liquids did in fact contain nicotine, probably due to cross-contamination (using the same containers and mixing tools used for nic liquids). In this case you will test positive even though you thought you were on zero-nic. Note also that it will take at least 3 days to remove all the nicotine and metabolytes from your system and test clean, and that is if you take positive steps to hasten the process by drinking lots of diuretics / cranberry juice etc - probably a week if you don't do this. In order to be absolutely certain of passing any kind of nic test you will need to:
1. Use zero-nic liquid for a week.
2. Make sure it is in fact zero by testing it with an e-liquid nicotine assay kit (get one on Ebay).
3. Get a nicotine drug test kit (again on Ebay) and test yourself 1 full day before the test. If you fail then you'll have to work very hard with diuretics.

Sorry this has been a TLDR post but it isn't possible to put all this info in a short post.
 
Last edited:

pyro13g

Senior Member
ECF Veteran
Jan 31, 2011
265
52
57
NE Ohio
Hello All,
I am asking opinions here, I already know that all insurance is different and may or may not specify E-cig use. At my place of work there is a question on the yearly form about tobacco use. I am going to mark no due to the fact that I do not consider nicotine as tobacco use. This will save me $50 dollars every month on my health insurance premium. In my opinion, if they don't specify E-cig use then I am being truthful. After all if I were using a patch, gum, etc. I would still be using nicotine.
My questions are:
1. Have others on the forum had the question arise with their health (or for that matter life) insurance and if so how did it play out?
2. In your opinion would it be unethical to mark no? My integrity is very valuable to me and I don't want to split hairs just to save money.

I know I can ask my HR department but I don't really want to give them any ideas about adding specifics about E-cigs if it has not occurred to them. :facepalm:

Ours, and I'm in IT for a health insurer, states Tobacco product, not tobacco use. E-cigs are a tobacco product and we have check boxes for if you are currently using things like the patch, gum, etc. I bet if you tested positive for nicotine, it would be an "issue" with your employer/insurance
 

Laffs

Senior Member
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Jul 28, 2011
118
43
Texas
I told my HR rep that I had switched to using an e-cig and learned that I no longer have to pay the tobacco surcharge on my health insurance. The only requirement was that I had to sign a statement that I had stopped smoking. I have Blue Cross if that makes any difference.

I also have Blue Cross, but just don't have to fill out a smoker's form with my company.

Also, earlier in this thread I said the smoker/tobacco users' surcharge was $75 for each covered user, but it is only $30. I apologize for the error. I am just pleased that I don't have to pay it.
 

fray

Unregistered Supplier
ECF Veteran
Jan 13, 2011
1,555
518
arkansas
www.ejoose.com
So rolygate, what you're saying is that we should all cheat the system and lie about our usage in order to get lower health care costs and to get jobs we wouldn't be able to otherwise? It's always easier to cheat and lie than it is to tell the truth.

I see it more as a "work around" lol
 

cookiebun

Ultra Member
ECF Veteran
Mar 6, 2011
1,296
616
Central Ohio
So rolygate, what you're saying is that we should all cheat the system and lie about our usage in order to get lower health care costs and to get jobs we wouldn't be able to otherwise? It's always easier to cheat and lie than it is to tell the truth.

I'm not sure if you noticed but Rolygate is in the U.K. Health care there is vastly different there than it is here in the good old U.S.of A

My advice, if you are going to use Nicotine don't lie about it. You could find yourself without heath care insurance just when you need it.

We get to deal with this kind of garbage here in the States:
http://consumerist.com/2010/04/report-wellpoint-targeted-then-dropped-breast-cancer-patients.html
http://consumerist.com/2011/01/cancer-patient-loses-health-insurance-over-02-error.html
 
Last edited:

rolygate

Vaping Master
Supporting Member
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Sep 24, 2009
8,354
12,405
ECF Towers
Yeah, I don't really know the healthcare situation in the US. In the UK it's free and they make no distinction about who does what, they just fix it, as it's pre-paid by the taxpayer (and that includes the smokers and drinkers, who have all paid in a lot more tax than their treatment costs). But actually I didn't write that post suggesting that insurers are defrauded, if you look at the first paragraph you'll see that I agree that insurers have the right to charge an appropriate premium for the risk.

If you are a smoker then you should cover the increased risk of the insurer with a higher premium. I regard NRT users as smokers taking a short vacation, since ~95% of them will be back on the cigs sooner or later. Vapers are not NRT users since most of them will not return to smoking.

The population-level data for Snus says it is about the same risk as quitting totally, and by inference that any and all use of Snus reduces the burden of mortality and morbidity. I see no reason why e-cigs should prove substantially different to Snus in that regard.

However I'm not happy at all about employers confusing smokers with vapers, as there is no increased risk for them in any way. I believe that stance to be a morally indefensible position and sympathise with those seeking employment who are being discriminated against. It makes a lot more sense to discriminate against heavy drinkers and the obese as the intrinsic costs may be higher than for the average employee, but apparently these groups are not being excluded. To me, there is no comparison between costs that may exist for employing smokers versus those for employing vapers. The cost of employing a vaper is the same as employing an ex-smoker - so if the question is, "Are you an ex-smoker?" then you should answer in the affirmative. If the question is, "Are you a smoker?", and it is accompanied not by a test for smokers (the carbon monoxide blood test) but by a test for nicotine users (any other type of test, such as the cotinine urine test), then if you are not a smoker then I feel it is acceptable to answer in the negative as you are not a smoker. You then need to pass the test, to confirm you are not a smoker. The cost of employing you will equal that of an ex-smoker and that is what you should own up to if asked.

I can't see any way employing an e-cigarette user would have elevated costs over those for non-nicotine users, and the idea that smokers and e-cigarette users are equally subject to health issues is plainly ridiculous. Furthermore I regard such equivalancies as being the result of corrupt processes engendered by the pharmaceutical industry and its agents.

Corruption in all its guises needs to be resisted and exposed.
 
Last edited:

GIMike

Ultra Member
ECF Veteran
May 15, 2009
1,822
719
Around OKC, OK
I can't see any way employing an e-cigarette user would have elevated costs over those for non-nicotine users, and the idea that smokers and e-cigarette users are equally subject to health issues is plainly ridiculous.

The only way I could see this working in the UK, would be if the Queen herself came out and made an annoucement that they were OK to use. The USA probably wouldn't listen to anybody even if the whole government spoke up for us. We'd just see that some person driving while smoking an e-cig hit a bug, and that threw off the bird that was chasing it causing it to fly into a tree, which made the cat chase it into the road where it was runover by a dump truck and made the 5 year old owner of the cat cry. Therefore e-cigs make kids cry, so we have to ban them. That's the US for ya.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread