How can insurance companies charge extra for nicotine use...
- Thread starter Barbara21
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
Unfortunately, "legal" has nothing to do with nicotine use. insurance companies are free to analyze risk and assign values based on said analysis. If they weren't, all insurance would require the same pay fees and have the same benefits (assuming an equal level of coverage).
Analysis clearly shows smokers / tobacco users present a higher risk for certain (usually serious) health issues than do non-users. Statistics show that former users present a higher risk than those who never got hooked. Statistics also show that quitters tend to relapse.
If I were betting on this in Las Vegas, I 'm sorry to say that my money would be to bet just as they are betting theirs.
Which will no longer be the case under the affordable care act.
You have a great deal of faith in a legal system that awards people 50 million bucks for dropping coffee in their lap? Or maybe one that watches a video of a dude getting beat to a pulp by cops, then acquitting them?
As for the higher courts, they are just as bought and sold as the lower courts. Corporations are people? Obamacare is constitutional because it's a tax?
The problem is, when it comes to fighting any entity large enough to have full time lawyers, IE a disputed insurance claim, before you even have a hope of trying to win, you'll be in court for years. They can charge you for doing anything, as long as it isn't prohibited by law, and you can pretty much either find someone who doesn't, or deal with it.
Sent with Tapytaptap or some such...
Calling your reps is 99% useless. I work in the industry, and unless you are a business or group big enough to do something, they say "thanks for your call" then proceed to listen to the people who fund their campaigns, and maybe run political risk assessments.
The only reason a politician says "I've received tons of calls about blah blah" is when public sentiment mirrors the will of the donors and special interests.
Sent with Tapytaptap or some such...
It should be obvious why any nicotine user in any form is a higher risk to pick up a cigarette tomorrow than a non-user.
I don't care if you've been vaping exclusively for 3 years, you're still hooked on nicotine and when the going gets tough it's possible you'll pick up a cigarette (your vape may break etc).
Someone who's never used nictotine would be significantly less likely to pick up a cigarette and is a lower risk deserving a lower rate. I know that won't be a popular answer here but unfortunately its reality.
I don't care if you've been vaping exclusively for 3 years, you're still hooked on nicotine and when the going gets tough it's possible you'll pick up a cigarette (your vape may break etc).
Someone who's never used nictotine would be significantly less likely to pick up a cigarette and is a lower risk deserving a lower rate. I know that won't be a popular answer here but unfortunately its reality.
That isn't actually true. The only thing I'm aware of the ACA barring is discrimination based on sex. The only reason THAT was shot down was because through years of study it was found that there was no evidence to show that women were more costly to insure than men.
If you think anyone in the government is about to fall on their sword for nicotine alternatives after a 50 year propaganda campaign against anything that releases smoke... You've got another thing coming.
Especially considering that general public sentiment toward e-cigs ranges from disgust, to mistrust, to outright ...... madness worries... I wouldn't hold my breath on logic prevailing.
Sent with Tapytaptap or some such...
You didn't read my link did you?
There is a governmental study showing the 3 MAIN ingredients found in every cigarette, every time, without fail and in what ratios (ordered by the government of the tobacco companies) 3 ingredients, nicotine, tar and carbon monoxide (go find out what carbon monoxide does to the human body...so bad in fact there is an ENTIRE safety industry built around that ONE single colorless odorless gas)
The proof and evidence is in my post! (with links at the bottom showing the governmental studies!!!)
Why you disrespecting me and calling em a horse? I'm a bird baby!
My apologies WarHAWK, my sister and I are debating whether to buy tickets to the musical WarHORSE and I guess that was on my mind.
Yes, I did read the link but I'm looking for actual studies proving that a carbon monoxide test could determine whether someone was vaping or smoking.
Hmm, I'll have to carry a pack of nicorette with me in case of accident, etc.
I think you can commit suicide within 1-3 years of buying the policy. Not advocating this; but think your life insurance is only null and void if you commit suicide within the terms stated by the policy. Again I believe most policies is 1-3 years. So if you plan on doing it you need to think about it a while.
you can buy em on ebay, right next to the patches
But OH NO YOU DON'T dare sell personal vaper stuff online! (so sayeth the government...or at least looking for a way to say that)
There are many points brought up to which I would like to respond. But many of them are not really relevant so I'll stick to the main points.
1) The FDA has said that long-term nicotine use is safe.
2) Many insurance companies do not differentiate between someone smoking (unsafe) versus someone using nicotine patches/gum (safe) versus someone vaping (leaning toward safe) because they consider any nicotine use unsafe.
Obviously these two viewpoints cannot be reconciled.
Currently insurance companies test for nicotine which does not differentiate between the various safe/unsafe forms of nicotine consumption. If there were a test (carbon monoxide?) that could make that differentiation, that could annihilate the insurance company's stance that people vaping/using a patch should pay higher premiums.
The assumption that someone who currently vapes is more likely to go back to smoking in the future is 1) unproved and 2) moot. At many insurance companies, former smokers pay non-smoker rates after a year of being tobacco free. So have people who vape/use patches take a yearly test to make sure they are still not smoking. (Obviously this only works if there is a test that can differentiate between the two.)
It all comes down to the appropriate test - one able to reliably differentiate between smoking and vaping/patches. Once we have that, the insurance companies won't have a leg to stand on (in terms of charging vapers/patch users higher rates).
1) The FDA has said that long-term nicotine use is safe.
2) Many insurance companies do not differentiate between someone smoking (unsafe) versus someone using nicotine patches/gum (safe) versus someone vaping (leaning toward safe) because they consider any nicotine use unsafe.
Obviously these two viewpoints cannot be reconciled.
Currently insurance companies test for nicotine which does not differentiate between the various safe/unsafe forms of nicotine consumption. If there were a test (carbon monoxide?) that could make that differentiation, that could annihilate the insurance company's stance that people vaping/using a patch should pay higher premiums.
The assumption that someone who currently vapes is more likely to go back to smoking in the future is 1) unproved and 2) moot. At many insurance companies, former smokers pay non-smoker rates after a year of being tobacco free. So have people who vape/use patches take a yearly test to make sure they are still not smoking. (Obviously this only works if there is a test that can differentiate between the two.)
It all comes down to the appropriate test - one able to reliably differentiate between smoking and vaping/patches. Once we have that, the insurance companies won't have a leg to stand on (in terms of charging vapers/patch users higher rates).
ok, what does vaping NOT have in it that smoking does?
What wouldn't be in your system in concentrated form if you were vaping rather than smoking
Nicotine...nope
Tar...no a test available
Carbon Monoxide...ding ding ding
Yes if you lie when filling out life insurance form they can deny any/all benefit as you committed fraud when filling out form. So I'd be careful even when vaping only if you check the do not smoke box. You would probably need lawyer to counter the claims as well as exhuming body for extra testing if you really wanted to fight them on the matter.
ok, what does vaping NOT have in it that smoking does?
What wouldn't be in your system in concentrated form if you were vaping rather than smoking
Nicotine...nope
Tar...no a test available
Carbon Monoxide...ding ding ding
WarHawk - We're not disagreeing. Your logic is impeccable. If you know of any studies that have proved that a carbon monoxide test can reliably differentiate between vapers/patch users and smokers, I would be very interested in seeing it.
Only life insurance I have is 1 times my annually salary with work. I'm in my 50's and don't have any kids but if I was in my 20's and had kids life insurance would be a different story. It's not a saving account you use in an emergency it's a plan to pay for your wife, kids, home, college, etc in the absence of having no income for 50 years if you die prematurely. Because I have no kids and house is good wife can fend for her self if I die
That's my opinion on life insurance.It's the what if I can't contribute to my savings account for 50 years that is the main question...if that doesn't matter you don't need it.
Yeah home/auto is a different animal when compared to life insurance. Completely agree about risk of being sued and you can't put millions into a saving account to account for accidental death or someone falling on your sidewalk.
You will pay a fine for "smoking". As my understanding nicotine consumption is still considered "smoking" under that act. Was just reading thread regarding nicotine and obama care...assuming posts are based on facts.
I am so sick of the nannying!! So glad to be self employed--really that is over the top!
- Status
Similar threads
