And imagine the size of that problem if 20% or more of the adult population becomes unemployable because all employers have jumped on the "we don't hire anyone that tests positive for nicotine) bandwagon.
The majority (i.e. "nearly half") support reduced levels of nicotine in tobacco cigs
- Thread starter Vocalek
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
And imagine the size of that problem if 20% or more of the adult population becomes unemployable because all employers have jumped on the "we don't hire anyone that tests positive for nicotine) bandwagon.
To me, this is one of many areas where Obamacare could be really really bad for the economy while aimed at being really really good for the long term economy.
I'm one who supports Obamacare because I essentially despise the idea of private health insurance within a free market and since no political party wants to get rid of health insurance or be associated with that, then I say pass Obamacare and let the chips fall where they may. Now that it has passed, those chips are falling all around us. I say good, even while part of me loathes most aspects of it.
I used to be a big-time Liberal but over time I've come to realize that the more power that government gets the more it does to screw up everything.
They can cut the levels of nicotine but that won't reduce addiction for those who start and it will only boost the amount of smoking by those who are already hooked. Great plan.
Of course they could apply the same logic to alcoholic beverages - lower the level of alcohol in beer and whiskey so that people will drink the same amount in a bar but won't leave drunk and drive intoxicated. Never mind the fact that people would just consume more to get the same buzz they were getting before.
They can cut the levels of nicotine but that won't reduce addiction for those who start and it will only boost the amount of smoking by those who are already hooked. Great plan.
Of course they could apply the same logic to alcoholic beverages - lower the level of alcohol in beer and whiskey so that people will drink the same amount in a bar but won't leave drunk and drive intoxicated. Never mind the fact that people would just consume more to get the same buzz they were getting before.
You do realize, don't you, that Obama has OK'd having health insurers under Obamacare charge 150% of the regular premium to "tobacco users"? That's not "smokers". It's "tobacco users". So that would include people that stopped smoking by switching to smokeless tobacco, switching to an e-cigarette, and even by switching to pharmaceutical nicotine products. Reason for the last two? They test for tobacco use by measuring nicotine levels (indirectly by measuring levels of cotinine)) Many health plans say that it's smoking they are charging extra for, but instead of using the definitive test for smoking (exhaled carbon monoxide) they test for nicotine.
So if you support Obamacare, you're saying you don't mind paying $1.50 for every $1 in health insurance premiums paid by folks who don't use any form of nicotine.
What frosts me about the situation is that there is at least some evidence that smokers use more health services (probably not 50% more, and probably none at all up through age 35). But the evidence clearly shows that smokeless tobacco users (at least in North America and Europe) don't have any higher rates of "tobacco-related" (truthfully, "smoking-related") diseases than non-smokers. So there is no good health reason or financial reason for what they are doing. It is just pure persecution of nicotine users.
I believe when I was a smoker and last had insurance, I paid higher premiums then, on top of rider for PEC. If it were only this reason for me not liking health insurance, I'd probably have a whole bunch of people that agree with me, but many who do not. I dislike how insurance completely manipulates the free market. Be glad to provide examples of this both as one who has had insurance and has not. Obamacare exacerbates the situation, I acknowledge that, but I think it just speeds up the inevitable (healthcare costs bankrupting the populace). With insurance in the game, my view is very pessimistic and yet, I think it is very realistic. I do think there are 2 solutions, and both are optimistic IMO. One I've already hinted at / brought up, and I see us as long ways from that (unless system is bankrupted). The other I prefer to keep to myself for now, but suffice it to say, doesn't need a politician / economist to be invoked. And harms no one. Though admittedly, that depends on how one defines 'harm.' I'm saying no actual harm.
I support Obamacare because we were not given a better alternative, but that doesn't mean I support every single thing in it.
The real bummer about this provision is that nobody will ever ever be able to get rid of it because the majority are NOT going to vote for something that would shift more of the cost onto them, and they can avoid this cost by keeping the provision. And the courts will probably not be willing to say Congress does not have the right to persecute nicotine users because it is not a disability. Even if nicotine is prescribed for dementia, it would be easy to say people with dementia cost more for health care.
I think we'll be stuck with this one for the rest of my lifetime for sure, maybe longer.
This is a nice example on how some people that are clueless of what tobacco addiction means start to give their opinions... What harms more is the smoke not the nicotine, that's why the light cigarettes are a complete failure because people smoke more than with non-light cigarettes, Now, I am not saying that instead they will double the amount of nicotine on cigarettes to make people smoke less but reducing nicotine will aggravate the problem
The issues concerning health insurance and "tobacco use" is what caused my husband and I to drop the insurance his employer provided two years ago. The company decided, in its wisdom, that at some future point, there would be a 10% increase to users testing positive for nicotine at their annual health checkup. Hubby asked, at the meeting they held to explain the changes, how they would differentiate between those wearing "the patch" and those actively smoking. "Hmm. Well, we'll have to look into it." was the only answer given. A blood test to discern nicotine levels remains the only tool they use in their annual checkup. No increase in premiums for diabetes, heart disease, or drinking alcohol, only tobacco use (nicotine levels, in reality which is, of course NOT the same thing).
Enter government demanded healthcare, buy insurance or pay the price. We've gone back to Hubby's employer's healthcare, but have really tried to present our case. I'm not too hopeful about the future, and believe that in 2014 we will indeed be hit with an increase, because both of us vape. We keep trying to inform people to counteract the misinformation they're being fed, but most are content to believe the lies. Unless a person is personally inconvenienced, has some skin in the game, so to speak, they see it as something that's just not their problem.
It is their problem, as more and more of their freedom of choice and to live as they see fit is being whisked away by the hour. My father, in his later years, told me that he had real concerns for me, that I would be living in a time that people believed they were free but were not. I look at my grandchildren now, and have to agree with what he was saying. This issue is a small part of a much larger problem. Having the freedom to live as you see fit as long as it doesn't interfere with the rights of others to do the same should not, at this point, be such a foreign concept. It's so frustrating!
Anyway, off the soapbox. Thanks for allowing me to chance to vent.
Enter government demanded healthcare, buy insurance or pay the price. We've gone back to Hubby's employer's healthcare, but have really tried to present our case. I'm not too hopeful about the future, and believe that in 2014 we will indeed be hit with an increase, because both of us vape. We keep trying to inform people to counteract the misinformation they're being fed, but most are content to believe the lies. Unless a person is personally inconvenienced, has some skin in the game, so to speak, they see it as something that's just not their problem.
It is their problem, as more and more of their freedom of choice and to live as they see fit is being whisked away by the hour. My father, in his later years, told me that he had real concerns for me, that I would be living in a time that people believed they were free but were not. I look at my grandchildren now, and have to agree with what he was saying. This issue is a small part of a much larger problem. Having the freedom to live as you see fit as long as it doesn't interfere with the rights of others to do the same should not, at this point, be such a foreign concept. It's so frustrating!
Anyway, off the soapbox. Thanks for allowing me to chance to vent.
Actualy insurance companies are bookies, they play the odds and the fact is that people who test positive for nicotine are smokers or on patches, gum, whatever and smokers are a higher risk. The ones on nrt are former smokers with a return to smoking rate of about 93%. Hell I'd put my money on them failing to quit. Smokeless tobacco products are such a small percentage of the market that they don't affect the odds of insuring nic positive results.
This isn't the fault of insurance companies, it's the fault anti smoking campaigners who failed to promote smokeless alternatives. Indeed actively campaign against them.
I bet in Sweden, Snus users get treated differently to smokers because their the Insurance Co's have the data for the risk analysis.
This isn't the fault of insurance companies, it's the fault anti smoking campaigners who failed to promote smokeless alternatives. Indeed actively campaign against them.
I bet in Sweden, Snus users get treated differently to smokers because their the Insurance Co's have the data for the risk analysis.
99 percent of statistics found on the internet are made up. This sounds like the commercial with the girl who believes everything she reads on the internet.
Do they actually think people are that stupid?
Do they actually think people are that stupid?
Legalized gambling is all it is, plain and simple. We will never have a quality comprehensive health care system in the United States without a complete overhaul of insurance and thats not going to happen because it would cost hundreds of thousands of jobs
Denying people coverage can be outsourced. Outsourcing jobs to countries that have single-payer would be legal, too. Only hands-on medical care REQUIRES hiring local people (including teachers in schools for health care.)
The original plan called for building more AMERICAN schools to produce local health-care workers, but that got shot down by the anti-spending crowd.
Well, at least Eileen has made it clear why the FDA and ANTZ and the American Lung Association are not showing any signs of backing down. They think they've won and everybody will quit nicotine in 2014. I think there are likely to be workspace shootings over smokers 1. losing their houses because they lost their jobs and 2. not having an alternative that would keep their houses and jobs.
Denying people coverage can be outsourced. Outsourcing jobs to countries that have single-payer would be legal, too. Only hands-on medical care REQUIRES hiring local people (including teachers in schools for health care.)
The original plan called for building more AMERICAN schools to produce local health-care workers, but that got shot down by the anti-spending crowd.
Well, at least Eileen has made it clear why the FDA and ANTZ and the American Lung Association are not showing any signs of backing down. They think they've won and everybody will quit nicotine in 2014. I think there are likely to be workspace shootings over smokers 1. losing their houses because they lost their jobs and 2. not having an alternative that would keep their houses and jobs.
I go to a local doctor who still has his office in his house. He's become a local legend for bucking the system and providing affordable rural healthcare.
My last doctors visit cost me 20 bucks
Several years ago, I needed health insurance and was introduced to a "cooperative" of sorts that you joined for a fee...it was introduced through our church. They made it clear that it was not insurance but a way to pay for medical bills and to care for and love each other as Jesus had directed us to do. There were no prerequisite requirements. Anyway, the way it worked, when you had a medical bill (doctor's visits too), you sent in your receipts and promptly you were sent a check for the amount. The only stipulation was to submit a letter each month if/when you incurred fees for more than a routine doctor's visit regarding what was going on with your health. This information was compiled into a monthly newsletter and sent out to all the "members." The serious cases were of course highlighted and you were asked to pray for those people and their families/friends. This worked very well for several years and was very affordable. But then one day, the program abruptly stopped. I figured that at that point, the cost of the "program" most likely outweighed the expenditures. But then again, it could be that what was going on was deemed to actually be insurance in some way and the government may have put a stop to it.
It seems to me that there are insurance companies out there "who get it," or who are willing to listen, take in the facts (that vaping does not do the harm that smoking does) and write policies that are reasonable to us vapers. In fact, if such a list is compiled, CASAA or some other group could post up these "vaper friendly" companies...and/or, insurance company involved vapers could start such companies or provide such policies...
I could see it now: VUIC (Vapers United Insurance Company)!!
It seems to me that there are insurance companies out there "who get it," or who are willing to listen, take in the facts (that vaping does not do the harm that smoking does) and write policies that are reasonable to us vapers. In fact, if such a list is compiled, CASAA or some other group could post up these "vaper friendly" companies...and/or, insurance company involved vapers could start such companies or provide such policies...
I could see it now: VUIC (Vapers United Insurance Company)!!
Last edited:
Here is some ammo that might be used when discussing insurance with employers or companies. This is a copy of a comment I left on an article about Tobacco and Obesity.
It is frustrating to see "tobacco use" appear as a synonym for "smoking" because the health risks are very different. Smoking cessation lowers health risks of lung disease, heart attacks, strokes, and cancer by 99% or more. Smokers that switch to North American or European smokeless tobacco products have no higher rates of the smoking-related (currently inaccurately referred to as "tobacco-related) diseases than former smokers that gave up all use of products that contain nicotine.
See: Harm Reduction in Tobacco Control, [Harm reduction strategy in tobacco c... [Epidemiol Prev. 2011 May-Aug] - PubMed - NCBI
Systematic review of the relation between smokeless tobacco and cancer in Europe and North America. Systematic review of the relation between smokeless tobacco and cancer in Europe and North America
Snus Use in the U.S.: Reducing Harm or Creating It? Snus Use in the U.S.: Reducing Harm or Creating It?
Targeting "tobacco use" instead of "smoking" and punishing both equally (through higher health insurance premiums and refusing to hire tobacco users) work to delay or prevent cessation among those who are dependent on nicotine's beneficial effects such as enhancing the ability to concentrate, pay attention, remember, and maintain a stable mood. Because of the need for these effects, some inveterate smokers may never be able to quit unless they can be persuaded to switch to less hazardous delivery methods such as smokeless tobacco, electronic cigarettes, and/or long-term use of NRTs.
Switching to snus has lowered male smoking rates in Sweden to 11% and even though total tobacco use is high (19% of men use snus), Sweden has the lowest lung cancer mortality rate in the EU.
Acceptability of smokeless tobacco products as a substitute for smoking in the US will require the US government to stop hiding the facts from the public. Lacking accurate information, some folks that started out using a lower risk product switched to smoking because the government implied there was no higher level of danger in doing so. That's unacceptable..
It is frustrating to see "tobacco use" appear as a synonym for "smoking" because the health risks are very different. Smoking cessation lowers health risks of lung disease, heart attacks, strokes, and cancer by 99% or more. Smokers that switch to North American or European smokeless tobacco products have no higher rates of the smoking-related (currently inaccurately referred to as "tobacco-related) diseases than former smokers that gave up all use of products that contain nicotine.
See: Harm Reduction in Tobacco Control, [Harm reduction strategy in tobacco c... [Epidemiol Prev. 2011 May-Aug] - PubMed - NCBI
Systematic review of the relation between smokeless tobacco and cancer in Europe and North America. Systematic review of the relation between smokeless tobacco and cancer in Europe and North America
Snus Use in the U.S.: Reducing Harm or Creating It? Snus Use in the U.S.: Reducing Harm or Creating It?
Targeting "tobacco use" instead of "smoking" and punishing both equally (through higher health insurance premiums and refusing to hire tobacco users) work to delay or prevent cessation among those who are dependent on nicotine's beneficial effects such as enhancing the ability to concentrate, pay attention, remember, and maintain a stable mood. Because of the need for these effects, some inveterate smokers may never be able to quit unless they can be persuaded to switch to less hazardous delivery methods such as smokeless tobacco, electronic cigarettes, and/or long-term use of NRTs.
Switching to snus has lowered male smoking rates in Sweden to 11% and even though total tobacco use is high (19% of men use snus), Sweden has the lowest lung cancer mortality rate in the EU.
Acceptability of smokeless tobacco products as a substitute for smoking in the US will require the US government to stop hiding the facts from the public. Lacking accurate information, some folks that started out using a lower risk product switched to smoking because the government implied there was no higher level of danger in doing so. That's unacceptable..
Also, there is a definitive test for smoking: Exhaled carbon monoxide. It doesn't cost any more than testing for nicotine, and it has the advantage of differentiating between nicotine users that are inhaling smoke and those that aren't.
- Status
