Steep smoke penalty to start

[BuGlen]

An article on the ACA (ObamaCare) and how it might effect vapers, with some good commentary in the text of the story from vapers:
http://www.news-press.com/article/20130929/HEALTH/309290042/Steep-smoke-penalty-to-start

 

[Petrodus]

Obama Care is a "sensitive" subject right now.

 

[BuGlen]

Obama Care is a "sensitive" subject right now.

Yes, it's a very hot topic in the media right now. However, the article does outline one important distinction that people should be aware of regarding the ACA and vapers:

Former smokers who use electronic cigarettes may be subjected to the surcharge as well, but it will be up to insurers to define who is classified as a smoker, said John Banzhaf. He is the public interest law professor at George Washington University who authored the concept of differential health insurance premiums for smokers and nonsmokers.

The bolded part of the quote above clarifies that the provision in the law that ALLOWS (not mandates) the insurance carriers to charge more for vapers (and other nicotine users). It would have been nice if the ACA made that distinction specifically, but that distinction could be added as an amendment if the people in congress really do care about public health. We shall see how it goes as the battle in congress (and the media) continues.

 

[pamdis]

"but it will be up to the insurers to define who is classified as a smoker"

This always gets me angry. Last year, my insurance company, when asked about e-cigs, says "If you have nicotine in your system, you are a smoker", so I have to pay smoker's rates.

Why are we letting words get re-defined??????

A smoker is someone who lights something on fire and inhales the smoke. End of discussion!

I think we all need to start putting pressure on the insurance companies for doing this. Unfortunately, my insurer is my employer (who is self-insured), so the only pressure I can put on them is to quit my job. Talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face

 

[Petrodus]

 

[Petrodus]

Obama has granted a ton of waivers to Obama Care.
Maybe he would be willing to grant vapers a waiver from being punished
because we use nicotine.

 

[Ranic85]

I am waiting to go to prison, I wont pay for the insurance and I will try my best to evade the penalty. At least in prison I will get truly free health care and room and board. What a wonderful country this has turned into.

 

[BuGlen]

"but it will be up to the insurers to define who is classified as a smoker"

This always gets me angry. Last year, my insurance company, when asked about e-cigs, says "If you have nicotine in your system, you are a smoker", so I have to pay smoker's rates.

Why are we letting words get re-defined??????

A smoker is someone who lights something on fire and inhales the smoke. End of discussion!

I think we all need to start putting pressure on the insurance companies for doing this. Unfortunately, my insurer is my employer (who is self-insured), so the only pressure I can put on them is to quit my job. Talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face

Actually, you may be in a better position that you might realize. The first step might be to contact HR (or whoever handles insurance in your company) and have a discussion with them about nicotine use. Cite the fact that those who are using approved NRTs will test positive for nicotine, and in effect, they are punishing people who are trying to comply. Send them recent literature and studies on nicotine, e-cigs, and the fact that the FDA recent approved long term NRT use for people that require it.

I'm not saying this will work, but it is something you can do to at least try to rectify the situation at your place of employment.

 

[Ranic85]

Actually, you may be in a better position that you might realize. The first step might be to contact HR (or whoever handles insurance in your company) and have a discussion with them about nicotine use. Cite the fact that those who are using approved NRTs will test positive for nicotine, and in effect, they are punishing people who are trying to comply. Send them recent literature and studies on nicotine, e-cigs, and the fact that the FDA recent approved long term NRT use for people that require it.

I'm not saying this will work, but it is something you can do to at least try to rectify the situation at your place of employment.

No one will be able to test me for nicotine. I have no problem with a pre drug test screen for a job, but I will out right refuse any blood or drug tests from a health insurance company, and if they try to force me, well God help them. They want to violate my constitutional right to unreasonable search and seizure. I will not stand for it

 

[pamdis]

Actually, you may be in a better position that you might realize. The first step might be to contact HR (or whoever handles insurance in your company) and have a discussion with them about nicotine use. Cite the fact that those who are using approved NRTs will test positive for nicotine, and in effect, they are punishing people who are trying to comply. Send them recent literature and studies on nicotine, e-cigs, and the fact that the FDA recent approved long term NRT use for people that require it.

I'm not saying this will work, but it is something you can do to at least try to rectify the situation at your place of employment.

We have already tried the NRT argument, they said "Well, once you stop the NRT, then you will pass the test and be a true non-smoker. If you are still on NRT, then you could easily revert to smoking again. Once the nicotine is out of your system, we'll know for sure you have quit smoking."

I am going to try to convince them to switch to a CO Breath Test and also send them info on smoking vs nicotine health problems.

I know someone will chime in about just switching to 0 nic for a few days prior to the blood test, but I WANT policy to change from "Smoking/Nicotine use is harmful" to "Smoking is harmful and we don't care if you use nicotine apart from that"

 

[Rickajho]

Yes, it's a very hot topic in the media right now. However, the article does outline one important distinction that people should be aware of regarding the ACA and vapers:

Former smokers who use electronic cigarettes may be subjected to the surcharge as well, but it will be up to insurers to define who is classified as a smoker, said John Banzhaf. He is the public interest law professor at George Washington University who authored the concept of differential health insurance premiums for smokers and nonsmokers.

The bolded part of the quote above clarifies that the provision in the law that ALLOWS (not mandates) the insurance carriers to charge more for vapers (and other nicotine users). It would have been nice if the ACA made that distinction specifically, but that distinction could be added as an amendment if the people in congress really do care about public health. We shall see how it goes as the battle in congress (and the media) continues.

This isn't exactly earth shattering news. This is how insurance companies proceed now and have been doing for quit a while. For some it's a positive "pee in a cup" test for nic - no matter what the source. For others it's check off a yes/no box and that's all that is asked. For still others it might be a positive test for nic, but their "ruling" on you can be reversed with compelling evidence that you use e-cigs instead of smoking. So... not breaking any new ground here.

 

[PoliticallyIncorrect]

As I see it, an insurance company would have two options:

(1) Go for the green, categorize vapers as smokers, line your pockets with their cash. Nothing, no one stops them. What motivation would they have to do otherwise? Well, there's...

(2) See through the smoke the FDA is blowing up their ... (ANTIFREEZE! CARCINOGENS! HEAVY METALS! FORMALDEHYDE! THINK OF THE CHILDREN!) and put their eyes on the long-term prize: reduced claims consequent to harm-reduction bordering on harmlesness--as sure a bet as they ever see in their particular cynical gambling casino--and, if they have such a capacity, the satisfaction of having done the right, moral thing for their public.

Which do I expect? Well, I've always known insurance companies to be color-blind to all but green, and to possess an amorality utter and complete.

 

[Petrodus]

I suggest the overwhelming vast majority of vapers never heard about the ECF
and for that matter ... don't really care.

I also suggest there are many vapers who are attorneys or in the legal profession
and when they find out their insurance premiums will be increased because they
switched to vaping ... very well may file legal actions and class action law suits
gainst insurance companies ... and win !!

Well ... we do live in a "sue happy" country.

It ain't over till that famous lady sings

 

[BuGlen]

We have already tried the NRT argument, they said "Well, once you stop the NRT, then you will pass the test and be a true non-smoker. If you are still on NRT, then you could easily revert to smoking again. Once the nicotine is out of your system, we'll know for sure you have quit smoking."

I am going to try to convince them to switch to a CO Breath Test and also send them info on smoking vs nicotine health problems.

I know someone will chime in about just switching to 0 nic for a few days prior to the blood test, but I WANT policy to change from "Smoking/Nicotine use is harmful" to "Smoking is harmful and we don't care if you use nicotine apart from that"

For the NRT argument, did you tell them about the recent FDA decision, and maybe provide them with the details (or a link)? I don't know that it will make a difference, but it does put the FDA (unwittingly) in our corner to some degree.

Another thing that might help is if your doctor(s) would be willing to provide you with a letter on your improved health since quitting smoking and taking up vaping. Depending on your doctor(s), they may or may not be willing to support vaping as a method of quitting, and distinguish nicotine use vs. smoking as well.

In any case, I wish you the best of luck in your efforts and I admire your persistence!

As I see it, an insurance company would have two options:

(1) Go for the green, categorize vapers as smokers, line your pockets with their cash. Nothing, no one stops them. What motivation would they have to do otherwise? Well, there's...

(2) See through the smoke the FDA is blowing up their ... (ANTIFREEZE! CARCINOGENS! HEAVY METALS! FORMALDEHYDE! THINK OF THE CHILDREN!) and put their eyes on the long-term prize: reduced claims consequent to harm-reduction bordering on harmlesness--as sure a bet as they ever see in their particular cynical gambling casino--and, if they have such a capacity, the satisfaction of having done the right, moral thing for their public.

Which do I expect? Well, I've always known insurance companies to be color-blind to all but green, and to possess an amorality utter and complete.

I'm somewhat skeptical as well, and I agree that the business model of the insurance companies in general is to maximize profits for share holders (like all other corporate entities). I'm hopeful that we will see a certain percentage of companies that add a "nicotine isn't smoking" feature to their policies as the exchanges go live and they have to compete for customers. I'm waiting to see how that plays out...

 

[BuGlen]

I suggest the overwhelming vast majority of vapers never heard about the ECF
and for that matter ... don't really care.

I also suggest there are many vapers who are attorneys or in the legal profession and when they find out their insurance premiums will be increased because they switched to vaping ... very well may file legal actions and class action law suits gainst insurance companies ... and win !!

Well ... we do live in a "sue happy" country.

It ain't over till that famous lady sings

Excellent points, and I sincerely hope you are right. If the advent of competition through the exchanges doesn't force them to re-think the tobacco policy (smoking vs. nicotine use), then I hope legal battles will ensue and be plentiful.

 

[xpl0it]

I am waiting to go to prison, I wont pay for the insurance and I will try my best to evade the penalty. At least in prison I will get truly free health care and room and board. What a wonderful country this has turned into.

You do realize that they put the cost of any medical services on your 'books'. Meaning you'll always be in debt to whichever prison/jail that you enter. Those who do not pay of their 'books' will have their account sent to collections and it will remain their until paid in full. If you were to return to prison/jail any money you receive on your 'books' will be taken until you pay the entire debt off.

 

[Vocalek]

"but it will be up to the insurers to define who is classified as a smoker"

This always gets me angry. Last year, my insurance company, when asked about e-cigs, says "If you have nicotine in your system, you are a smoker", so I have to pay smoker's rates.

Why are we letting words get re-defined??????

A smoker is someone who lights something on fire and inhales the smoke. End of discussion!

I think we all need to start putting pressure on the insurance companies for doing this. Unfortunately, my insurer is my employer (who is self-insured), so the only pressure I can put on them is to quit my job. Talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face

Here is a thought. You might talk to them about how you perceive that they are not making a reasonable accommodation for your disability. (I know many hate the thought of referring to themselves as "addicted", etc. etc. but...hear me out)

See this brochure: http://partnersforrecovery.samhsa.gov/docs/know_your_rights_brochure_0110.pdf

Medication-Assisted Treatment (MAT) is treatment for opioid addiction that uses medications such as methadone or buprenorphine to treat addiction to short-acting opioids, such as ......, morphine and codeine, as well as synthetic opioids, including oxycodone, OxyContin®, and hydrocodone.1 MAT operates to normalize brain chemistry, block the euphoric effects of opioids, relieve physiological cravings, and normalize body functions without the negative effects of the short-acting drugs of abuse.

I believe that it could be argued that the FDA has approved products that contain nicotine for long-term treatment of smokers to prevent relapse. The nicotine in your e-cigarette is chemically identical to the nicotine in NRTs. BTW, your employer's discrimination, if enforced by blood tests for nicotine would also incorrectly identify those using the patch, gum, or lozenges as smokers, too.

P.S. All it would take would be for one or two well-publicized cases to make it universal that employers cannot discriminate against those using the "highly addictive" drug nicotine.

 

[Ranic85]

Don't care id rather die than pay these traitors! That is if my state Arizona doesn't tell the fed to go to hell and not enforce any of these new laws. We have a pretty awesome sheriff!

 

[Exhaler]

Ahh, see any restrictions on MaryJane users? Use to be a lot of news where MaryJane smoking was almost as bad for you as using analogs.
Probably those who make these regs are big MaryJane users and want it legalized.
Nic use would be easy to test for but convincing anyone that you use vaping only could be tough, IF, vaping was deemed safe by the FDA which seems highly unlikely.

 

[cookiebun]

Obama Care is a "sensitive" subject right now.

I hate to tell you but since I got off the nic and Obama care is about to start, my health insurance bill is going to drop by more than half.
Hooray for Obamacare.