Interesting insurance question.
- Thread starter DoomsDay
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
I did that. I believe they are asking about smoking, not about nicotine. As far as I know, if a blood test comes positive for nicotine, the companies allow that due to cessation products like patches resulting in similar results. But you would probably need to explain if asked. Others may have more experience...
I think it depends on how the question is worded. Some ask, rather than smoking, whether you are or have used nicotine products within the past year.
I believe the question is worded as "used tobacco products in the past year (or whatever time frame)." Technically, the juice is a tobacco product. You should be able to explain, though.
So basically, if you used even 0 nic juice, you would need to state that you have used tobacco products. Hrmm, that brings up the question of how do insurance companies feel about the e-cigs then and if they classify you as a smoker if you use them.
No nicotine = no tobacco products. But if you used nicotine 6 months ago, and they go back a year, then answer yes.
Ecigs haven't been categorized as either a 'tobacco product' or a 'drug' yet. So, if asked if you had used tobacco products, you should say NO...and you wouldn't be providing false information.
Eventually, insurance cos. may amend their wording to include e-cigs, but until that is done, or the FDA categorizes them, they are in an unregulated grey area. If you are asked about products containing nicotine, then the answer has to be yes, but I've never seen that.
...If I eat "Chicken Marsala", which is made with wine,...do I have to say that I consume alcoholic beverages?
Eventually, insurance cos. may amend their wording to include e-cigs, but until that is done, or the FDA categorizes them, they are in an unregulated grey area. If you are asked about products containing nicotine, then the answer has to be yes, but I've never seen that.
...If I eat "Chicken Marsala", which is made with wine,...do I have to say that I consume alcoholic beverages?
Last edited:
If they find nicotine in your blood or urinalysis, they're going to think you lied.
And that is why I was asking the question. Gray areas can be gray for both sides. So how long does nicotine stay in your system? I read the thread talking about if we are actually getting much nicotine from these things and the consensus seemed to be that we weren't. Since analogs get nicotine into your system quickly, does the slow absorption rate from vaping stay in your system longer?
I read that it takes 72 hours MAX for all the nicotine in your body to be metabolized.
then i found this quote:
Nicotine stays in the blood for several hours, up to 48 hours to be precise. After this it cannot be detected in the blood or urine. However, the metabolite of nicotine which is known as Cotinine leaves its traces in blood as well as in urine for up to 7 days.
Nicotine stays in the blood for several hours, up to 48 hours to be precise. After this it cannot be detected in the blood or urine. However, the metabolite of nicotine which is known as Cotinine leaves its traces in blood as well as in urine for up to 7 days.
It really depends on the testing method. I understand a urine test can detect 'cotinine' (a byproduct of nicotine metabolism) for 96 hours. Some blood tests can detect it for a week and saliva tests can detect it for up to 10 days.
The questions always do you smoke. I'm saying no. If its do you use Tobacco I'm saying no. If its do you use nicotine I'm saying no because I don't think you get alot from vaping unless your drinking it or getting it on your hands.
I have a note on my desk to call my health insurance company to ask if my premiums will decrease if I'm no longer a smoker. Just got a letter from them two days ago notifying me that my monthly premium will go up by $88 (an 18% increase) on Nov 1st. This is the largest increase I've had with this company in over 25 years. Yup, this is due to the new health care law.
Edit: Called the health insurance company, and my premium is not based on whether I smoke or not. The rates are the same for everyone, based on age.
Edit: Called the health insurance company, and my premium is not based on whether I smoke or not. The rates are the same for everyone, based on age.
Last edited:
Well, I'm not just an internet guru, I wrote insurance for 25 years - the question is "have you used tobacco products in the last 12 months" on the majority of life and health applications. On auto and homeowners, it may be different. I've seen different variations of the question and sometimes no question at all. The risk they are evaluating is the risk of fire, so no big deal there.
With life and health, if you have a claim in the first 2 years. and they find that you were not honest, it can void the entire contract. After the first 2 years, the contract is irrevocable. Personally, I wouldn't take the risk - I would give an explanation and let the underwriters decide. Things happen. You may argue "they wouldn't do that" but they would. They have other options - they can just deduct the difference in premiums.
With life and health, if you have a claim in the first 2 years. and they find that you were not honest, it can void the entire contract. After the first 2 years, the contract is irrevocable. Personally, I wouldn't take the risk - I would give an explanation and let the underwriters decide. Things happen. You may argue "they wouldn't do that" but they would. They have other options - they can just deduct the difference in premiums.
I'm on the same page as you. To me this is all a bunch of crap and I've often wondered about employers (though there aren't many) that do not hire people who smoke. It seems very unjust to me that they put ex-smokers who may be using NRT in the same category as smokers as far as hiring/firing goes. People who use lozenges, for however long, are not smokers. They do not present the same health risks as smokers and if their stupid drug screen can't detect the difference between the use of tobacco and NRT products, whose fault is that? All that tells me is that their idiotic drug screen is worthless (I feel this way about most drug testing actually) because it isn't telling them what they supposedly really want to know. I'm sick of all the smoker bashing anyway. As for the people who defend companies that elect not to hire smokers because smokers aren't a protected class: well, neither are fat people or ugly people (or parents for that matter) but I doubt that most rabid anti-smokers would approve of people being denied jobs because they have diabetes, high blood pressure, because they aren't fun to look at or because if they have children it might mean they have to miss work more often..
Last edited:
@crumpet: Yeah!
And even if they don't discriminate based on 'certain things', they still manage to pay some people less than others. Tall people make more money than short, men make more than women, skinny make more than fat, good looking make more than not. And don't get me started on protected classes!
And even if they don't discriminate based on 'certain things', they still manage to pay some people less than others. Tall people make more money than short, men make more than women, skinny make more than fat, good looking make more than not. And don't get me started on protected classes!
This question has been raised serveral times and most of the people that have tried to get reduced rates have come back to report that the test is based on nicotine usage (cotinine) and they did not get any rate reduction.
Yes, that brought up all the rate/raves about the gum/mint/patch but the insurance companies don't care - they only way they can prove/disprove is with the currently available test.
Yes, that brought up all the rate/raves about the gum/mint/patch but the insurance companies don't care - they only way they can prove/disprove is with the currently available test.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
