Why are nicotine users treated as smokers for life insurance policies?

[SuperStack]

http://insurance.yahoo.com/lh/smoking.in.html

We all know that nicotine itself doesn't kill people who use it in a rational manner (much like caffeine). So to me this is a flat-out scam. Even those who only chew gum end up paying the same (much higher) premiums as those who are heavy smokers [!]

They do a urine analysis for nicotine to determine it.

So what I'm saying is, those who vape are going to be treated as smokers and pay through the nose, even if there was proof of it being infinitely safer.

Now the street savvy person applying for a new policy might say, "screw it, I'm just gonna lie about nicotine use and then not vape for 3-4 days before the urine test to pass it". And I think, they'd be well within their rights to proceed like this because it's already grossly unfair to begin with.

What does everyone else think?

 

[RjG]

Too funny. Yahoo - Document Has Expired
The requested document, `/lh/smoking.in.html', is no longer available.

I search with yahoo search, it can't find it the yahoo document.

Google, NO PROBLEM, here's a link that works:
Yahoo! Can You Hide Smoking From Life Insurance Companies?

 

[Myk]

Nicotine is bad for your heart. It is a health risk.

 

[SuperStack]

Too funny. Yahoo - Document Has Expired
The requested document, `/lh/smoking.in.html', is no longer available.

That's odd, works ok on my end (?)

Ah well, everyone is guaranteed to have access now

 

[RjG]

I'm not entirely sure how true that is. My insurance has changed a couple times in the last 10 years, my answer has always been "I smoke a pipe". And they always say that doesn't count as smoking. I thought that was weird, but didn't contest it, lol.

I would definitely have nic in my blood though. I don't think they would be able to take blood from your dead body without some large legal steps though, like a court order. The nicotine content of your blood wouldn't be on your death certificate or coroner report either, unless they determined you died from nic poisoning. So I wonder how'd they would find out, exactly?

 

[SuperStack]

Nicotine is bad for your heart. It is a health risk.

Even if that's true, nicotine risks are still nowhere near as dangerous compared to smoking. Otherwise doctors would never recommend NRT.

 

[Myk]

I'm not entirely sure how true that is. My insurance has changed a couple times in the last 10 years, my answer has always been "I smoke a pipe". And they always say that doesn't count as smoking. I thought that was weird, but didn't contest it, lol.

I used to be on some pipe forums who would like you to tell them who that insurance company was.
I seem to recall a thread especially dedicated to insurance that didn't count pipes as smoking (and they really shouldn't because statistically pipe smokers live longer than even non-smokers).

 

[Myk]

Even if that's true, nicotine risks are still nowhere near as dangerous compared to smoking. Otherwise doctors would never recommend NRT.

I think it's just like e-cigs, they figure it's better than smoking. It's not like they recommend NRT for anyone other than nicotine addicts.

 

[SuperStack]

I think it's just like e-cigs, they figure it's better than smoking. It's not like they recommend NRT for anyone other than nicotine addicts.

According to this article, it might even be good for the heart...

Is Nicotine Good For The Heart?

I'm just not convinced that nicotine is very dangerous at all. Not at all in the same leagues as smoking.

 

[RjG]

I used to be on some pipe forums who would like you to tell them who that insurance company was.
I seem to recall a thread especially dedicated to insurance that didn't count pipes as smoking (and they really shouldn't because statistically pipe smokers live longer than even non-smokers).

Great-West Life | Selectpac (3 to 35)

 

[Dale]

It's pretty well established that nicotine use leads to hardening of the arteries. The only hazard we're ducking is cancer... and without positive confirmation from medical authorities we don't even know that PG is entirely safe for inhalation.

 

[Frankie]

Nicotine also speeds up herat rate which is a factor for heart attacks. But that is not the answer to the original question. The answer to the question is:

The companies want to make as much money as possible. They will use *any* pretext to make you pay more. Nicotine is demonized from smoking and the diseases caused by smoking, so it gives them an ideal pretext to substantially raise fees for a quarter of the population.

 

[yvilla]

It's pretty well established that nicotine use leads to hardening of the arteries. The only hazard we're ducking is cancer... and without positive confirmation from medical authorities we don't even know that PG is entirely safe for inhalation.

Dale, I'm not so sure that is true. I believe it is the nicotine in combination with carbon monoxide, and/or other toxic effects of smoking, that is the culprit in atherosclerosis (artery hardening). Take a look at some studies done with respect to both NRT and smokeless tobacco products such as SNUs, etc:

treatobacco - Nicotine is not a significant risk factor for card

And here is one particularly interesting snippet:

In 2003, Asplund completed a comprehensive review of the cardiovascular
effects of ST use [102]. He concluded that, in distinct contrast to smokers, ST users do not exhibit any significant differences from nonusers of tobacco with regard to the following measures of cardiovascular health: heart rate, blood pressure, cardiac output and maximal working
capacity, levels of hemoglobin and hematocrit, leukocytes, antioxidant vitamins, fibrinogen, components of the fibrinolytic system, C-reactive protein and thromboxane A2 production. In addition, ST users did not show important smoking-associated vascular changes, including
increased thickness of blood vessels and atherosclerotic plaque development. In summary, most of the medical and epidemiologic evidence documents that ST users do not have elevated risks for cardiovascular diseases.

The above is taken from page 10 of the foloowing pdf:

http://dissolvabletobacco.com/papers/Rodu Godshall Smokeless Overview.pdf

 

[TropicalBob]

The problem here is the test for "smoking". The aim is to identify smokers among a workgroup, to fire them outright (legal) or charge them higher insurance premiums.

A urine test is made for the presence of cotinine, a byproduct of nicotine breakdown. That's the only inexpensive way to separate those who use nicotine from those who don't. So, yes, this is a test for nicotine and not tobacco usage. It also raises questions about second-hand smoke from living with a heavy smoker, about using approved and prescribed NRT, etc.

A South Florida court had a test case on whether an employer could fire a smoker for this. The business won. The cotinine-positive employee lost. If you take nicotine into your body, by snus or pipe or e-cig, by this definition, you're a smoker just like the pack-a-Marlboro-a-day addict.

I disagree, but that's the way it's going these days.

 

[Papa Lazarou]

What sort of a business can fire you for being a smoker?

You are correct about the cotinine tests. I've worked in the life insurance industry and it would be routine to test people applying above a certain level of cover. Clearly smokers are a higher risk than non smokers, so they pay more. Long term nicotine users who are not smokers are not really catered for..

Years ago when most people smoked, most policies used to be on an aggregate rate. They then started discounting for non smokers.