obamacare and vaping?

[Racehorse]

I think the number of people that still smoke is quite a bit less than you think.
You may be forgetting (or not believing) how many people find cigarettes disgusting

Well I'm glad somebody said this, because it is true.

I don't have one friend who smokes. I don't even know anyone who does, actually.

I was thinking about this when people were saying how, if children were tempted to smoke, they would have ecigs instead. But i think for those of us who smoke or did smoke, because of our attraction/addiction to it, we kinda assume that other people have that SAME attraction.

and the truth is......they don't.

I don't believe the "at risk for smoking" group is anywhere near what it was 30 years ago. Not even close.

Only 1 of my siblings ever smoked....and my twin never did. Neither did my other brother. I always felt like the oddball.

 

[Luisa]

The law has many parts which have been phased in over the years since it was passed. 80/20 rule, pre-exsiting conditions , 0 co-pays for standard preventative medical tests. The biggest and most controversial part of the law goes into effect 2014. How the heck did you miss the earlier stuff it's been all over the news for years?
https://www.healthcare.gov/how-does-the-health-care-law-protect-me/ Actually,the ACA pre-existing condition portion does not officially begin until January 1,2014 when the whole law goes into effect. In 2010,children under 19 were to be covered on all insurance programs. The adult portion begins 2014. There was a pool offered in 2010 with 36 States offering it. Only 8000 people signed up probably because the premiums were so high as were the deductibles and copays. So the pool was not available in all States and the costs were prohibitive.


To answer your earlier question, yes I vape a little, I just don't use nicotine. The company I work for has 2500 employees

Honestly, Id have been very happy with just the 80/20 rule.
Breaking your arm is no big deal, I've done it twice.

Actually,the ACA pre-existing condition does not go into effect until January 2014 when the whole law goes into effect. In 2010,all children under 19 were to be covered by all insurance policies. The adult portion would not go into effect until 2014 when the entire bill goes into effect. There was a pool offered in 2010 for adults. There was a pool offered by 36 states. Only 8000 people enrolled. This was probably due to the high premiums, high deductibles, and copays. So the pool was available but only in certain States and the costs were prohibitive for most people.

 

[ClippinWings]

I am so sick of how many threads get turned into anti Obama rants. This was about whether vaping qualifies as tobacco use, not your political opinions.

Uh... but Vaping IS the same as Smoking according to the ACA(OBAMAcare)

His name is in the thread title... how could this not evolve into a discussion of Obama's policies?

 

[wv2win]

I am so sick of how many threads get turned into anti Obama rants. This was about whether vaping qualifies as tobacco use, not your political opinions.

Maybe well informed vapers would not be so "anti-Obama", if it wasn't his administration, his head of the FDA and his liberal political supporters in the Senate who started the attack on vaping and are doing everything possible to have vaping banned or severely restricted.

 

[Petrodus]

Maybe well informed vapers would not be so "anti-Obama", if it wasn't his administration, his head of the FDA and his liberal political supporters in the Senate who started the attack on vaping and are doing everything possible to have vaping banned or severely restricted.

Very well said, and I agree !!

 

[BuGlen]

Uh... but Vaping IS the same as Smoking according to the ACA(OBAMAcare)

His name is in the thread title... how could this not evolve into a discussion of Obama's policies?

Please do point me to the section(s) of the ACA that actually equates vaping (or any alternative tobacco product) directly to smoking cigarettes. Beyond having all tobacco products being addressed in the FSPTCA, I have read nothing that equates cigarettes to other tobacco products, including the ACA, so please do enlighten me.

As for the conversation not devolving into partisan talking points and sound bites, that's easy. Just stay on topic and resist the urge. Really, it's not that hard.

Maybe well informed vapers would not be so "anti-Obama", if it wasn't his administration, his head of the FDA and his liberal political supporters in the Senate who started the attack on vaping and are doing everything possible to have vaping banned or severely restricted.

See my points above.

I've said this before in this forum, and I'll keep saying it as it bears repeating. Regardless of your opinion of the President, the current administration, or liberals in general, it does not help our cause to divide the public opinion with unrelated partisan rhetoric. Over the past year, the President's job approval rating has averaged out to about 50%, so that is about half of the population of this country that you could inadvertently "turn away" from our cause just because you have a bone to pick. We (vapers) are the minority in this country, and we need all of the public support that we can get if we are to stand a chance of limited and sensible regulation.

If you want to enlighten people of actual legislators that vote against THR and vaping, then great! We should all know who these people are so we can call / write / email / fax them and let them know that their on the wrong side of this issue. However, if you just want to blow off steam without providing any factual and relevant information, please take it to the OUTSIDE forums and have a blast. There are quite a few people in the OUTSIDE that love to debate partisan view points.

 

[ClippinWings]

Please do point me to the section(s) of the ACA that actually equates vaping (or any alternative tobacco product) directly to smoking cigarettes. Beyond having all tobacco products being addressed in the FSPTCA, I have read nothing that equates cigarettes to other tobacco products, including the ACA, so please do enlighten me.

As for the conversation not devolving into partisan talking points and sound bites, that's easy. Just stay on topic and resist the urge. Really, it's not that hard.

Are you serious?

It didn't DEVOLVE anywhere... in fact I should not have even said "Evolve" as by the very title of the thread, this was a discussion of Obama's flawed Public Health Policies...

Oh BTW:
Obamacare Text
SEC. 2701. FAIR HEALTH INSURANCE PREMIUMS.

‘(a) Prohibiting Discriminatory Premium Rates-

‘(1) IN GENERAL- With respect to the premium rate charged by a health insurance issuer for health insurance coverage offered in the individual or small group market--

‘(A) such rate shall vary with respect to the particular plan or coverage involved only by--

‘(i) whether such plan or coverage covers an individual or family;

‘(ii) rating area, as established in accordance with paragraph (2);

‘(iii) age, except that such rate shall not vary by more than 3 to 1 for adults (consistent with section 2707(c)); and

‘(iv) tobacco use, except that such rate shall not vary by more than 1.5 to 1; and

‘(B) such rate shall not vary with respect to the particular plan or coverage involved by any other factor not described in subparagraph (A).

I bolded it to try make it as coherent a single thought as possible... translation:

Premiums for Tobacco Users shall very, but not more than 1.5x the non-user rates.

Considering Cotinine test is the common method for insurers to determine tobacco use, and the fact that vaping shows up on cotinine tests... Vaping is smoking, in the eyes of the ACA.

Thanks for playing.

 

[WarHawk-AVG]

Maybe well informed vapers would not be so "anti-Obama", if it wasn't his administration, his head of the FDA and his liberal political supporters in the Senate who started the attack on vaping and are doing everything possible to have vaping banned or severely restricted.

FDA didn't start the fire...they are carrying the torch though

 

[ClippinWings]

See my points above.

I've said this before in this forum, and I'll keep saying it as it bears repeating....

1st,
I'm not partisan, I just love america and what it stood for.
Let me clarify, I think Obama is the worst president in History... I think GW Bush is right up there too.
It doesn't matter which of the 2 parties you vote for... having either in power just continues, in perpetuity, the mess we're in...

Next,
I've said this before in this forum, and I'll keep saying it as it bears repeating...

Ignorance is not bliss.
Ignorance of your ignorance, is bliss.
Knowing it, sucks.

 

[Petrodus]

I Love the Freedoms we used to have.
George Carlin

 

[BuGlen]

Are you serious?

It didn't DEVOLVE anywhere... in fact I should not have even said "Evolve" as by the very title of the thread, this was a discussion of Obama's flawed Public Health Policies...

Oh BTW:
Obamacare Text
SEC. 2701. FAIR HEALTH INSURANCE PREMIUMS.


I bolded it to try make it as coherent a single thought as possible... translation:

Premiums for Tobacco Users shall very, but not more than 1.5x the non-user rates.

Considering Cotinine test is the common method for insurers to determine tobacco use, and the fact that vaping shows up on cotinine tests... Vaping is smoking, in the eyes of the ACA.

Thanks for playing.

You did not demonstrate how the ACA equates vaping (or other alternative tobacco products) with cigarette smoking. What you did was identify how the ACA loosely defines tobacco use, and then added one method (cotinine testing) which wasn't even identified in the ACA text you posted. In fact, in the text you provided, it states a limit on how much more may be charged in premiums, but there is no provision saying that premiums must be adjusted. It provides a framework of adjusted rates, not a mandate.

1st,
I'm not partisan, I just love america and what it stood for.
Let me clarify, I think Obama is the worst president in History... I thing GW Bush is right up there too.
It doesn't matter which of the 2 parties you vote for... having either in power just continues, in perpetuity, the mess we're in...

I never claimed you were a partisan. I don't know you, so that would be a false assumption on my part. What I said was that partisan talking points and sound bites could be detrimental by potentially "turning off" half of the population of the country to our cause. I firmly believe the public opinion is essential in our ongoing fight, and I stand by that belief.

Next,
I've said this before in this forum, and I'll keep saying it as it bears repeating...

Ignorance is not bliss.
Ignorance of your ignorance, is bliss.
Knowing it, sucks.

I disagree. Knowing ones own ignorance gives one a chance to get educated and grow. However, one has to be able to hear and decipher the actual context of the conversation to be able to do so.

 

[rothenbj]

I'll just say that anytime tobacco is used as a major point in premium discussions, it is an affront to that quarter of the population that uses tobacco, whether it's cigarettes, smokeless or vaping. Do they have a stipulation in the legislation for increased premiums for those that drink alcohol? How about those that are overweight? How about any of the lifestyle choices that increase risk?

I would not be nearly as offended by a stipulation listing risk factors that may increase premiums that affect the entire population. There are a lot of lifestyle risks that effect our health. Continuing to attack only one of those risks and placing an umbrella over all products labelled "tobacco" is prejudicial. They didn't stipulate cigarettes or smoking, they named tobacco and nicquid is considered tobacco. To think otherwise is placing ones head in the sand.

 

[WarHawk-AVG]

I'll just say that anytime tobacco is used as a major point in premium discussions, it is an affront to that quarter of the population that uses tobacco, whether it's cigarettes, smokeless or vaping. Do they have a stipulation in the legislation for increased premiums for those that drink alcohol? How about those that are overweight? How about any of the lifestyle choices that increase risk?

I would not be nearly as offended by a stipulation listing risk factors that may increase premiums that affect the entire population. There are a lot of lifestyle risks that effect our health. Continuing to attack only one of those risks and placing an umbrella over all products labelled "tobacco" is prejudicial. They didn't stipulate cigarettes or smoking, they named tobacco and nicquid is considered tobacco. To think otherwise is placing ones head in the sand.

Didn't you get the memo..they don't care

Now hush and pay your taxes

(don't worry they will get around to the overweight, motorcycle riders, yadda yadda)
Never heard of an insurance company charging you LESS than what they thought they could get out of you

 

[Fulgurant]

I'll just say that anytime tobacco is used as a major point in premium discussions, it is an affront to that quarter of the population that uses tobacco, whether it's cigarettes, smokeless or vaping. Do they have a stipulation in the legislation for increased premiums for those that drink alcohol? How about those that are overweight? How about any of the lifestyle choices that increase risk?

I would not be nearly as offended by a stipulation listing risk factors that may increase premiums that affect the entire population. There are a lot of lifestyle risks that effect our health. Continuing to attack only one of those risks and placing an umbrella over all products labelled "tobacco" is prejudicial. They didn't stipulate cigarettes or smoking, they named tobacco and nicquid is considered tobacco. To think otherwise is placing ones head in the sand.

Yeah, at best the ACA implicitly rubber stamps the insurance companies' established policy of de-facto discrimination against nicotine users. To argue otherwise on the basis that the ACA doesn't explicitly equate vaping with smoking is, I think, naive.

That said, BuGlen is absolutely right to say that ours is not a partisan issue, and it behooves us to try not to make it a partisan issue. There are elements of the anti-vaping crusade that appeal to both parties. And although government workers may generally trend Democrat, bureaucracies like the FDA tend towards corruption and self-expansion regardless of which party is in power at any given time. And there isn't a politician alive, irrespective of his ideology, who doesn't at least appreciate the revenue stream from purportedly altruistic sin taxes like those imposed on cigarettes (and potentially to be imposed on vaping products).

Let us agree foremost that we are surrounded by powerful groups both in the public and private sectors that for a whole host of reasons would like to see the vaping industry marginalized. They have money, influence, and the ignorance of a largely apathetic public on their side. Our only asset is the truth. Call me crazy, but I think the truth will win eventually. It's just gonna be a really rocky, and probably very lengthy ride to get there.

 

[AttyPops]

Long thread. TLDR. I skimmed some.

Did anyone post this info? Market Rating Reforms - Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services
These are exceptions to the 1.5/1.0 ratio. If a state is listed here, it deviates from the default. So basically, it varies BY STATE (as do a lot of other things).

As to premiums this year....the ACA makes fundamental changes to the concept of "heath insurance" in America. It eliminates the preexisting condition thing, for example. Also says women can't be charged more than men. etc. So rate changes happen. However most of them should be in effect this year already. So rate changes for next year should be minimal...unless your employer is also "playing games" at the same time. (This is a broad assumption, but many have been "found out" blaming Obamacare while using it as an excuse to make changes and pass on costs). You need to double check the subsidies too.

As a general rule, if you're paying more you are getting more coverage. Yeah, its a change for the whole country. I'm convinced it will evolve. Remember it started as a single payer system too (I saw that mentioned in one of these threads) but couldn't get past congress.

Meh. The funding seems to be messed up for the super-low income side (they kick to medicaid and some states didn't pass reforms so there's a gap).

 

[WarHawk-AVG]

Long thread. TLDR. I skimmed some.

Did anyone post this info? Market Rating Reforms - Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services
These are exceptions to the 1.5/1.0 ratio. If a state is listed here, it deviates from the default. So basically, it varies BY STATE (as do a lot of other things).

As to premiums this year....the ACA makes fundamental changes to the concept of "heath insurance" in America. It eliminates the preexisting condition thing, for example. Also says women can't be charged more than men. etc. So rate changes happen. However most of them should be in effect this year already. So rate changes for next year should be minimal...unless your employer is also "playing games" at the same time. (This is a broad assumption, but many have been "found out" blaming Obamacare while using it as an excuse to make changes and pass on costs). You need to double check the subsidies too.

As a general rule, if you're paying more you are getting more coverage. Yeah, its a change for the whole country. I'm convinced it will evolve. Remember it started as a single payer system too (I saw that mentioned in one of these threads) but couldn't get past congress.

Meh. The funding seems to be messed up for the super-low income side (they kick to medicaid and some states didn't pass reforms so there's a gap).

I do agree with the pre-existing conditions...

Too many people are finding out that it's NOT affordable, especially those with already tightened belts and limited budgets...

Plus the unattended consequences of employers cutting hours to 29 to escape the 30hr limit, and 50 employee thing, more people will have to seek subsidies that wouldn't normally have had to due to the strain

This fiasco with the funding and shutdown junk will end soon, either we will have ACA unfunded, or we will get to see just how REALLY bad it's going to get

Remember, it can stay a law, just like the 2006 Border Security Act, they just don't have to fund it

Cig smokers (and us vapers) can be charged at a max 1.5x the rate non-smokers get...penalized, wait till they figure out how to shoehorn overweight or other "dangerous" activities, remember it has changed numerous times since it was ramrodded thru at 1am Christmas eve 2009...Like a thief in the night

Very sad that some states had to defend themselves with legislation from something we didn't want in the first place

Great post, open, honest, and actually very enjoyable and not jabs of discontent or malice...I really like discussing stuff with you sir. (plus it's not in the OUTSIDE! so we have to play extra nice )

 

[WarHawk-AVG]

Anyone care to discuss "Ponzi Scheme"?

 

[AttyPops]

Anyone care to discuss "Ponzi Scheme"?

OMG. Someone close this thread....or make it a tobacco surcharge thread....oh wait, it already is.

War, you know dang well there's plenty of places for your scheme theory in the several OUTSIDE threads on the ACA topic.....

(you asked. lol)

 

[WarHawk-AVG]

OMG. Someone close this thread....or make it a tobacco surcharge thread....oh wait, it already is.

War, you know dang well there's plenty of places for your scheme theory in the several OUTSIDE threads on the ACA topic.....

(you asked. lol)

fair enough

 

[AttyPops]

fair enough

Can't be that easy......lol