So my company has been charging all smokers $20 a month as a penalty to help with the supposed higher insurance costs incurred by smokers. This has been going on for a couple of years and now we are being told that this is increasing to $50 a month as of Jan 2013. You must be smoke free for 6 months to avoid the penalty. I am guessing they would blood test you to insure that you do not have any nicotine in your system. I will have been vaping for 7 months by then but I dont think I can argue that I am not smoking. Anyone else have that fee at work or thoughts?
- Status
Any chance you can get down to 0 nic. Then you could vape and they'd never know.
Is that even legal? That is really bizarre. Never heard such a thing.
And you should be able to claim that you do not smoke because you are literally not smoking. There is NO smoke coming out of a vaporizer.
Sent from my DROID BIONIC using Tapatalk 2
And you should be able to claim that you do not smoke because you are literally not smoking. There is NO smoke coming out of a vaporizer.
Sent from my DROID BIONIC using Tapatalk 2
We have the $20.00 fee as well and higher insurance premiums if you are a smoker... i said i am a non smoker so far no blood testing... yet
Sent from my DROID Pro using Tapatalk 2
Sent from my DROID Pro using Tapatalk 2
1. Would this even be legal?
2. Does this penalty also extend to people who use chew, snuff, Nicorette, nicotine lozenges, etc.....Or is there a way to determine via blood test the exact source of the nicotine in your bloodstream....
3. This sounds like complete CRAP and I'd fight it tooth and nail.
4. Can they really PROVE someone smokes, as opposed to snuff/chew/NRP's/vaping?
5. I'm going to end this now, the entire premise of this "fee" is just making my blood boil........
2. Does this penalty also extend to people who use chew, snuff, Nicorette, nicotine lozenges, etc.....Or is there a way to determine via blood test the exact source of the nicotine in your bloodstream....
3. This sounds like complete CRAP and I'd fight it tooth and nail.
4. Can they really PROVE someone smokes, as opposed to snuff/chew/NRP's/vaping?
5. I'm going to end this now, the entire premise of this "fee" is just making my blood boil........
I as a consumer would like to know what companies these are. No way they will ever get any business from me!!!
Marty
Marty
Most insurance companies charge extra for smokers. I'm not sure how this will work out in the future, but at present they have to have some way to check that people are telling them the truth and this seems (to them) to be a simple way to check. Hopefully we can get some discussion going so that vapers can enjoy the lower premiums.
My thoughts: Welcome to the United States of Corporations. You're screwed.
Insurance companies test for contanine, usually by urinalysis, because it's cheaper than a blood test.
If they do a urinalysis, then find a way to cheat. I would claim I don't smoke, because you don't. Then, put the money aside in case they test you in the future and stick you with back payments. More likely though, is the formal question will be "Do you use tobacco?"
Insurance companies aren't interested in nuance. They detect the presence of a metabolite of nicotine. They don't care how it got there. If you tell them you're using a patch or chewing nicorette, they'll tell you to come back in 6 months or a year when your course of cessation therapy is over and you're nicotine free.
In fairness to your insurance company, it's your employer who is the biggest sleazeball involved. Group health plans don't individually assess employees for smoking. They don't assess them for snow-skiing, alcohol drinkin, motorcycle riding or parachuting either. Your employer has taken it upon himself to impose a sin tax on his employees and he's a lowlife of the highest order. If you didn't live in a state suffering from a fascist government, I'd say sue his brains out. But, I'm sure your Governor has seen to it that your employer has free rein to treat you like the feudal serf he envisions you to be.
Find another job. That's your best course of action.
Insurance companies test for contanine, usually by urinalysis, because it's cheaper than a blood test.
If they do a urinalysis, then find a way to cheat. I would claim I don't smoke, because you don't. Then, put the money aside in case they test you in the future and stick you with back payments. More likely though, is the formal question will be "Do you use tobacco?"
Insurance companies aren't interested in nuance. They detect the presence of a metabolite of nicotine. They don't care how it got there. If you tell them you're using a patch or chewing nicorette, they'll tell you to come back in 6 months or a year when your course of cessation therapy is over and you're nicotine free.
In fairness to your insurance company, it's your employer who is the biggest sleazeball involved. Group health plans don't individually assess employees for smoking. They don't assess them for snow-skiing, alcohol drinkin, motorcycle riding or parachuting either. Your employer has taken it upon himself to impose a sin tax on his employees and he's a lowlife of the highest order. If you didn't live in a state suffering from a fascist government, I'd say sue his brains out. But, I'm sure your Governor has seen to it that your employer has free rein to treat you like the feudal serf he envisions you to be.
Find another job. That's your best course of action.
That's not true. Most INDIVIDUALLY UNDERWRITTEN policies charge extra for smokers. A group policy is not supposed to be individually underwriting employees and assessing extra premiums on people due to lifestyle. That's the whole idea of a group policy. You are rated by age and sex. That's it. I would ask my scumsucking employer for a copy of the master policy and find out exactly what he's trying to pull.
But, then again. I was an insurance agent way back in the 80's, before regulations were written by the corporations being regulated. So, what do I know. This is Wisconsin, after all. The O.P. is lucky they still have a minimum wage.
I agree. It is the company. There are many others companies that dont do this otherwise we I and everyone else would have known it to be common. It is common, actually standard that insurance companies charge more their premiums to smokers which will be the hardest to make a special case for vaporers. But your employer is likely double dipping at your expense.
Sent from my DROID BIONIC using Tapatalk 2
Sent from my DROID BIONIC using Tapatalk 2
That's the thing though. The application for a group policy is not nearly as probing as for an individual policy. Insurance companies don't individually assess the risk of their insureds with a group policy. They want to know certain major things, but that's just to decide whether to cover you now, later or at all. If they cover you, your insurance premium will be exactly the same as everyone else of the same age and sex in the group. They don't charge you, individually, for smoking or any other risky behaviors.
Sounds to me like this employer heard somewhere that smoking is responsible for x% of the cost of health insurance. Then, he did some arithmetic and decided that he was going to charge back the smokers for the difference of what he's paying over the theoretical premium he might be paying if there was no such thing as a cigarette.
Next, he'll hear some BS data about how alcohol contributes x% to the cost of health insurance, so he'll be making people go to AA or charge them x% of their premium as a "fee".
Seriously, I'd run this by a lawyer. Unless this employer is self-insured, I smell a scam.
Sounds to me like this employer heard somewhere that smoking is responsible for x% of the cost of health insurance. Then, he did some arithmetic and decided that he was going to charge back the smokers for the difference of what he's paying over the theoretical premium he might be paying if there was no such thing as a cigarette.
Next, he'll hear some BS data about how alcohol contributes x% to the cost of health insurance, so he'll be making people go to AA or charge them x% of their premium as a "fee".
Seriously, I'd run this by a lawyer. Unless this employer is self-insured, I smell a scam.
Last edited:
hmmm, smokers cost the public more (sorry, it's true). There's no denying that....
I've never heard of an employer charging more, but it's totally normal for insurance companies to do so. I pay a higher premium for being a "smoker" and unfortunately until I vape 0 nic for at least a year theres no way to prove differently. In other words, if you claim "non-smoker" and are tested (+) for nicotine, they will not pay (legally).
I've never heard of an employer charging more, but it's totally normal for insurance companies to do so. I pay a higher premium for being a "smoker" and unfortunately until I vape 0 nic for at least a year theres no way to prove differently. In other words, if you claim "non-smoker" and are tested (+) for nicotine, they will not pay (legally).
My father in law works for a company that charges a $15 extra per person under his insurance, and yes they test by urine. One of his co-workers vapes and still gets charged because of the nic in his juice. The inssurance company has told him that as long as there is nic in his blood streem that they will charge him extra because they have no way of verifying that he doesn't smoke, so if he has nic in him he must be smoking.
That is just bat-$#!%. Its like saying if they find alcohol in you after taking a cold medicine you were drinking.
Sent from my SPH-D700 using Tapatalk 2
That is just bat-$#!%. Its like saying if they find alcohol in you after taking a cold medicine you were drinking.
Sent from my SPH-D700 using Tapatalk 2
No point in running this by a lawyer in the US a private company has all rights to do this as smokers are not considered a protected group. Companies can fire smokers or simply not hire them at their own discretion. It sucks but not too much you can do about it. As far as getting around it you could try to claim you're on the patch or gum and hope they won't charge you for quiting. Also if they don't smell smoke on you they may have no reason for a test.
It's totally normal for an ins. co. to do that when they write a policy on an individual. Individual underwriting happens in some very small group policy, typically less than 50 employees. For a true Group health insurance policy, it's highly unusual and most likely illegal in most states.
If it's being done like this in PA and Wisconsin, that's just an example of how state insurance commissioners all over the country are bought and paid for by the industry. And, it's a perfect example of why insurance companies would just LOVE it if all they had to do was own one federal insurance commissioner instead of having to buy off 50 of them. Better yet, they'd rather just incorporate in a state with an owned insurance department and be allowed to sell their scam policies all over the country to people in states they haven't yet been able to buy off.
If insurance companies are able to individually underwrite true group health ins. policies, it's something they've recently been allowed to do by a corporate prostitute posing as a state insurance commissioner. Welcome to U$A, Inc.
If it's being done like this in PA and Wisconsin, that's just an example of how state insurance commissioners all over the country are bought and paid for by the industry. And, it's a perfect example of why insurance companies would just LOVE it if all they had to do was own one federal insurance commissioner instead of having to buy off 50 of them. Better yet, they'd rather just incorporate in a state with an owned insurance department and be allowed to sell their scam policies all over the country to people in states they haven't yet been able to buy off.
If insurance companies are able to individually underwrite true group health ins. policies, it's something they've recently been allowed to do by a corporate prostitute posing as a state insurance commissioner. Welcome to U$A, Inc.
Hmmm. What everyone else said about group policies yeah. My company is huge, I believe the largest single site employer in the SE USA, and we all pay the same for insurance. Well, we have 5 plans to choose from based on our needs. But each plan costs the same for each person. What happens, every year if you take a personal health assessment, have a good BP level, and a BMI in range, you get a $100 bonus for each. My BMI ad PHA were good. Just squeaked in on the BP. Hoping that starts to go down now that I'm vaping.
It's not a matter of employer rights, or the lack of smoker rights, or even the lack of employee rights. The issue is what health insurance companies are allowed to do in the context of group health insurance.
The last I heard, insurance was still a regulated industry, due to the tremendous potential for abuse. I have no doubt that, at least in some states, an employer is allowed to fine you for smoking or drinking or sleeping around too much. That's the neo-feudalistic society we've allowed ourselves to fall into. But what an employer can do to HIS serfs is different than what an insurance company can do to them. At least it used to be. Maybe we've descended further down the crapper than even I had realized.
In that situation at least you can say that you are saving still alot a money by vaping (-$15 to -$50 fee) per month versus smoking, and the fact that you will likely prolong you life. If the job and money is better than rebelling and finding another job then I say just deal with it. Hell I may find more income overall if I drive an hour more per day, but it may cost me more in the end.
Sent from my DROID BIONIC using Tapatalk 2
Sent from my DROID BIONIC using Tapatalk 2
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
