Why insurance companies penalize vapers

[lorikay13]

Hi everyone....I just thought people might be interested in a conversation I just had with an insurance salesman. I asked him why they have such an issue with nicotine use instead of smoking. He said even though they do know that it isn't the nicotine per-se that makes smoking and chewing so dangerous....it is the only thing they have the ability to test for. So they have no way of knowing rather you are smoking or vaping and to protect themselves they assume your smoking. I hate to say this...but that makes sense. The other issue they have is that they believe vapers will immediately switch back to cigarettes if they cannot get access to their vaping supplies. Again, unfortunately in many cases that is true. I personally could not honestly answer the question.....would you smoke if all of a sudden you lost your ecig? I can't answer it honestly because since I started vaping I have made dang sure I was never in that situation. I WANT TO BELIEVE that I would not smoke....I would use gum...a patch....even those hideous Commit lozenges...but I don't honestly know.

Maybe this isn't news to many of you but it was something I have always wondered and I was happy to finally get an honest answer. So it appears that what REALLY needs to happen is we need to push for a different method of testing for TOBACCO use. Lord knows there is enough other crap in tobacco they should be able to test for something besides the byproducts of nicotine, no?

 

[CES]

there are other things they can test for for smoking, carbon monoxide for one...it's just that conitine tests are simple and inexpensive.

I also think that the rationalization that a nicotine user would run right back to cigs if they couldn't get nicotine is sort of a cop out. Though there's way too much truth in the fact that the approved nicotine replacements are only 10% effective at most, I think they're really more afraid of the fact that it would be fairly easy for someone to use NRTs only for long enough to get the discount. But considering that I haven't had a cigarette in more than 3 years, it still really annoys me that an insurance company could can get away with an extra charge for something i *might* or might not do under some circumstances. grrr.

Also, the surcharge on chewing is BS, because it doesn't have the same harms as smoking- there's decades of data from swedish snus.

So, for their own ease and profit everything gets lumped everything together....

 

[lorikay13]

ya I figured there had to be some other way to test for it. And I do agree with all your points CES....I also can still see a lot of people switching to ecigs just to get better insurance...but the difference in premiums is not small....especailly when you start getting older...it is huge. If they can test for the presence of other drugs months after you use them..there MUST be some evil chemical in cigarettes that they can test for right?

 

[Allazar]

I know that it depends on the insurance company. My insurance allows the use of NRTs such as e-cigarettes without it being considered smoking. When they made the change for us in 2012 to put a surcharge in place for tobacco use where I work, e-cigarettes were specifically excluded from that surcharge.

 

[CES]

that's fantastic Al...glad to know that some insurance companies are reasonable about nicotine use.