Vaping and Healthcare... Are we nonsmokers?

[TyPie]

.......................

The thing is, it's the employer companies who choose to charge the smokers, not the insurance companies. They can choose to not charge smokers more (or, more precisely, charge non-smokers less) and Obamacare will extend those options to charging people more for being overweight, as well. One major problem with having nearly 60% of people covered under employer-paid health insurance. Suddenly, employers have a much greater stake in what you do when you aren't even at work (and can make your life miserable for it) because they now have minimum coverage standards that will significantly increase costs.

Anyhow, employers need to be educated about the difference between the health risks of smoking and those (non-existent) health risks of smoke-free tobacco and nicotine use. ................................................................

We will soon be needing a whole new series of privacy laws (which I thought was already protected under the Constitution.) I'm all for good health and healthy choices. That's why I switched to vaping. But frankly, it is NONE OF MY EMPLOYER'S DAMN BUSINESS what I do when I am not clocked in, unless they also want to compensate me for my downtime (which WILL be EXTREMELY EXPENSIVE.). They want to monitor you non-stop, but they don't want to pay for anything. If they want to boss me around 24/7/365, I'm all for it, but they better come up with some large compensation. I can do just about anything, for the right price.

 

[kristin]

Interesting article on this topic. Even some ANTZ who even hate vapers don't agree with higher rates: A Handful Of State Marketplaces Opt Not To Charge Smokers More For Premiums - Kaiser Health News

"The surcharge could make insurance unaffordable" for many smokers, says Matthew Myers, president of the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, an advocacy group....

"We believe it's a fairly pernicious form of discrimination" that largely affects the working poor, says Cheryl Healton, president of Legacy, an ANTI-SMOKING advocacy group.

 

[Mohamed]

Random testing definitely makes it a gamble. My husband's company has annual testing and no random testing for smoking, so we could prepare. But, personally, I still think I'd take my chances. (I'm not recommending this for others nor does CASAA tell people to do this - this is just my personal opinion.) Most companies don't want to pay for random nicotine testing unless they actually suspect that someone is smoking. Those lab tests get expensive. If they catch us, so be it. It could take years for them to catch us and that could add up to thousands of dollars now that Obamacare is allowing up to 50% higher rates to be charged to smokers.

The thing is, it's the employer companies who choose to charge the smokers, not the insurance companies. They can choose to not charge smokers more (or, more precisely, charge non-smokers less) and Obamacare will extend those options to charging people more for being overweight, as well. One major problem with having nearly 60% of people covered under employer-paid health insurance. Suddenly, employers have a much greater stake in what you do when you aren't even at work (and can make your life miserable for it) because they now have minimum coverage standards that will significantly increase costs.

Anyhow, employers need to be educated about the difference between the health risks of smoking and those (non-existent) health risks of smoke-free tobacco and nicotine use. The best example of that is former smokers who need to continue to use nicotine to keep from smoking. Requiring complete abstinence would only cause them to relapse to smoking and supposed higher health costs. There are plenty of smokers who will just pay to be able to keep smoking if not smoking using nicotine alternatives doesn't give them any financial benefit. (Why would they use a harmless, smoke-free alternative when they'll be charged as a smoker anyhow?)

I think the more scary thing were if you were to have a heart attack. Then the insurance company wanted a blood sample at the time of the heart attack. If you said no you were not a smoker and in the fine print they defined that as any product containing nicotine, they could simply deny all claims.

Have no idea if they want a blood test sampled but just saying what if.

 

[kristin]

We will soon be needing a whole new series of privacy laws (which I thought was already protected under the Constitution.) I'm all for good health and healthy choices. That's why I switched to vaping. But frankly, it is NONE OF MY EMPLOYER'S DAMN BUSINESS what I do when I am not clocked in, unless they also want to compensate me for my downtime (which WILL be EXTREMELY EXPENSIVE.). They want to monitor you non-stop, but they don't want to pay for anything. If they want to boss me around 24/7/365, I'm all for it, but they better come up with some large compensation. I can do just about anything, for the right price.

A lot of people don't know the history of employer-paid insurance. It got started years ago when the government froze wage increases, so companies got creative with ways to entice employees without higher wages. The insurance was meant to be catastrophic insurance - in case of emergencies. It was never intended to pay all healthcare costs. Ironic, huh? If insurance companies were forced to cater to individuals instead of huge corporate budgets, insurance costs would come down because of the competition, individuals would have more options than just what is offered by their employer and companies could pay higher wages rather than substitute health insurance for increased pay. Smokers could shop around to find more affordable insurance for smokers (which I'm sure would become a niche.)

And Obamacare has locked all employees who get employer-paid insurance into this ridiculous system (can't get insurance on the ACA marketplace if your employer offers insurance), now with required coverage they may not even need. If they really wanted to make health insurance more affordable, they probably should have just banned employer-paid insurance. Ironic, huh?

 

[kristin]

I think the more scary thing were if you were to have a heart attack. Then the insurance company wanted a blood sample at the time of the heart attack. If you said no you were not a smoker and in the fine print they defined that as any product containing nicotine, they could simply deny all claims.

Have no idea if they want a blood test sampled but just saying what if.

Well, one good thing about the ACA is that it now prohibits that from happening:
"Insurers cannot rescind or deny coverage based on misrepresentations of tobacco use, but can recoup premiums that should have been paid based on tobacco rating since the beginning of the policy year."
Implementing Health Reform: The Final Market Reform Rule – Health Affairs Blog

 

[EvilZoe]

A lot of people don't know the history of employer-paid insurance. It got started years ago when the government froze wage increases, so companies got creative with ways to entice employees without higher wages. The insurance was meant to be catastrophic insurance - in case of emergencies. It was never intended to pay all healthcare costs. Ironic, huh? If insurance companies were forced to cater to individuals instead of huge corporate budgets, insurance costs would come down because of the competition, individuals would have more options than just what is offered by their employer and companies could pay higher wages rather than substitute health insurance for increased pay. Smokers could shop around to find more affordable insurance for smokers (which I'm sure would become a niche.)

And Obamacare has locked all employees who get employer-paid insurance into this ridiculous system (can't get insurance on the ACA marketplace if your employer offers insurance), now with required coverage they may not even need. If they really wanted to make health insurance more affordable, they probably should have just banned employer-paid insurance. Ironic, huh?

I think it's ridiculous that we had to accept the ACA over what we REALLY should have....universal single payer....which would be cheaper for everyone in the long run.

Still, there is much improved with the ACA over the old system.

It's not enough, dammit. I hate the hoops we all have to jump through and why is it costs are allowed to be so high? Where is the money going?

 

[Tempesta]

So, if you vape zero nic? That's not using nicotine at all! Seriously, the insurance companies are getting crazier and crazier. There are some health insurers who don't want to insure motorcycle riders, either.

 

[kristin]

I think it's ridiculous that we had to accept the ACA over what we REALLY should have....universal single payer....which would be cheaper for everyone in the long run.

Still, there is much improved with the ACA over the old system.

It's not enough, dammit. I hate the hoops we all have to jump through and why is it costs are allowed to be so high? Where is the money going?

A single payer system with no choices and government set rules and fees (and higher taxes) vs. an open market with companies competing for our business with lower rates and better benefits? No, thank you.

The ACA is still "the old system" now made more complicated (and possibly more expensive) with new rules and requirements. The insurance companies don't have to compete and have monopolies in their areas because they "aren't allowed" to cross state lines. Government regulations is what set up this current system in the first place.

 

[Mohamed]

Say we were all still smoking tobacco. How long before you can claim are a non-smoker? Is it when all the nicotine is out of your system or is it defined as say 1 year of no tobacco use? I'm just curious if you could say you were a non smoker after quitting for a month but than relapsed? Probably need some insurance guy in here to answer that.

 

[EvilZoe]

A single payer system with no choices and government set rules and fees (and higher taxes) vs. an open market with companies competing for our business with lower rates and better benefits? No, thank you.

The ACA is still "the old system" now made more complicated (and possibly more expensive) with new rules and requirements. The insurance companies don't have to compete and have monopolies in their areas because they "aren't allowed" to cross state lines. Government regulations is what set up this current system in the first place.

I respectfully disagree.

And that's all I'm going to say.

 

[JHf]

Hi Vannessahuxtable,

I just wanted to chime in, if it hasn't been said already (sorry didn't read tthe whole thread):
Some contracts/forms either say - tabacco/tabacco products OR nicotine/nicotine products
Your answer lies in the words of the contract, just truthfully answer the question.
my 2 cents

 

[kristin]

So, if you vape zero nic? That's not using nicotine at all! Seriously, the insurance companies are getting crazier and crazier. There are some health insurers who don't want to insure motorcycle riders, either.

Of you only vape non-nicotine liquid then you don't have to worry at all about this.

 

[ScootenNewton]

I dont say anything about it.

 

[dahlialady]

You are a non smoker.
Why? Because when you die and those insurance agents want an autopsy report on your lungs because they don't want to pay out on your claim the autopsy will show NO TAR. (As long as you don't die within months of quitting analogs.)

Sorry to be blunt. But that's the way it is.

 

[EvilZoe]

You are a non smoker.
Why? Because when you die and those insurance agents want an autopsy report on your lungs because they don't want to pay out on your claim the autopsy will show NO TAR. (As long as you don't die within months of quitting analogs.)

Sorry to be blunt. But that's the way it is.

Good luck winning that debate with your health insurance company...lol

 

[Orb Skewer]

You are a non smoker.
Why? Because when you die and those insurance agents want an autopsy report on your lungs because they don't want to pay out on your claim the autopsy will show NO TAR. (As long as you don't die within months of quitting analogs.)

Sorry to be blunt. But that's the way it is.

I think you'll find that those cunning profiteers in Insurance have 'moved the goal posts'

 

[Albantar]

What I find most baffling about this, is that research clearly shows that people who have unhealthy lifestyles (smoking, overweight, no sports, etc.) actually cost LESS over their entire lives. This is simply because people with unhealthy lifestyles die younger. On average, smokers' life expectancy is 10 years less than non-smokers'. And it's exactly in those 10 years that are "cut off" that the MAJOR health care costs are expended due to geriatric care. Yes, smokers have a higher risk of getting lung cancer and other smoking related diseases, but even if you factor that in, SMOKERS ARE CHEAPER.

That people who don't do any sports are cheaper is also quite obvious. People who do practice sports have a higher risk of sports related injuries - while people who just sit on their fat behinds watching tv die younger and thus save lots of expensive geriatric care.

Same goes for obesity - which usually kind of goes hand in hand with the "no sports" category.

Case in point, the Netherlands. 16 million inhabitants. Extensive public health care system. If all smokers were to quit instantly, it would COST the government 10 BILLION EUROS PER YEAR. And missed tax income from tobacco taxes is only a tiny part of it. Increased health care cost is the brunt of it, because all those ex-smokers will now live longer and will therefore incur MORE health care costs. The extra retirement costs are also a sizeable chunk though not by far as big as health care.

So, paradoxically, people with unhealthy lifestyles are CHEAPER for health insurance companies (when viewed over their entire lives). But the companies charge them more. Why? Because it sounds logical and it's a nice scheme to rake in more money. But it's a complete and utter lie...

 

[kristin]

You are a non smoker.
Why? Because when you die and those insurance agents want an autopsy report on your lungs because they don't want to pay out on your claim the autopsy will show NO TAR. (As long as you don't die within months of quitting analogs.)

Sorry to be blunt. But that's the way it is.

You've been misled by the ANTZ's "smokers' lung" or "black lung" myth. A healthy smoker's lungs (ie. no actual disease present such as cancer or emphysema) look no different at autopsy than a non-smoker's lungs. There is no "tar buildup" or blackness even after decades of smoking. Those pictures the ANTZ use are of diseased lungs and would look that way even in a non-smoking patient with the same disease. Sometimes the photo is actually a human or pig lung, actually DYED black just for effect, for them to use in anti-smoking campaign presentations.

 

[blondeambition3]

I was looking into health insurance and I got into a heated argument with a friend about whether I should identify as a "tobacco" user when filling out the forms.

Friend says yes... I should put down that I am a smoker.
I say hell no. I don't use tobacco or tobacco products. I vape.

My friend smokes cigerattes. I vape flavored nicotine.

So what do you guys think? Should I put down that I am a tobacco user?

I'll have to read the fine print. I don't want to be accused of insurance fraud or anything lol. But seriously, I am not a smoker. I vape.

NON SMOKER. PERIOD.

 

[Anjaffm]

What I find most baffling about this, is that research clearly shows that people who have unhealthy lifestyles (smoking, overweight, no sports, etc.) actually cost LESS over their entire lives. This is simply because people with unhealthy lifestyles die younger. On average, smokers' life expectancy is 10 years less than non-smokers'. And it's exactly in those 10 years that are "cut off" that the MAJOR health care costs are expended due to geriatric care. Yes, smokers have a higher risk of getting lung cancer and other smoking related diseases, but even if you factor that in, SMOKERS ARE CHEAPER.

That people who don't do any sports are cheaper is also quite obvious. People who do practice sports have a higher risk of sports related injuries - while people who just sit on their fat behinds watching tv die younger and thus save lots of expensive geriatric care.

Same goes for obesity - which usually kind of goes hand in hand with the "no sports" category.

Case in point, the Netherlands. 16 million inhabitants. Extensive public health care system. If all smokers were to quit instantly, it would COST the government 10 BILLION EUROS PER YEAR. And missed tax income from tobacco taxes is only a tiny part of it. Increased health care cost is the brunt of it, because all those ex-smokers will now live longer and will therefore incur MORE health care costs. The extra retirement costs are also a sizeable chunk though not by far as big as health care.

So, paradoxically, people with unhealthy lifestyles are CHEAPER for health insurance companies (when viewed over their entire lives). But the companies charge them more. Why? Because it sounds logical and it's a nice scheme to rake in more money. But it's a complete and utter lie...

Precisely.
Most health care cost is incurred in the last years of an aged person's life. Smokers die 10 years earlier on the average.
That is 10 years where the health insurance saves this very expensive old-age care. Add to this the 10 years of pension payments that the government saves. That amounts to a LOT of money. Was it like 22 billion GBP in the UK in one year? (I have the bookmark at home).

And don't get me started on the sports injuries that my young male colleagues have all the time. A shattered shoulder from snowboarding does not exactly come cheap. Neither do many weeks of missed work, and rehab measures for about 6 months. In Germany, the health insurance and employer pays for all that.

.. Well, I am on the side of Winston Churchill who explained his reaching such an old age in two words "No sports"

/edit:
about old age pension:
In Europe, we have to pay mandatory old-age pension fees which the government takes out of our paychecks every month. That is a lot of money. Every month.
Thus, of course, any worker who dies shortly after retiring - instead of happily consuming the pension payments for which they paid in all their lives - does the government a big huge favor.