no you wouldn't... I think nicotine leaves the body after around 48-74 hours....
Editing this... I just read where it takes 7 days to leave your body... but it can take weeks to be completely gone.....
Last edited:
You've got to be kidding.....Tobacco Affidavit
- Thread starter Zee2006
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
no you wouldn't... I think nicotine leaves the body after around 48-74 hours....
Editing this... I just read where it takes 7 days to leave your body... but it can take weeks to be completely gone.....
Here's a question..... who is behind this?? The employer? The wellness group?? The insurance company? who???
any opinions??
I'm guessing it's the insurance company??????
any opinions??
I'm guessing it's the insurance company??????
I walked into the office this morning and had the same crap on my desk. I AM SO F'ING MAD! 7 months, no cigarettes, IM NOT A SMOKER! What is the dif between a person who uses the patch and person who uses and e-cig? Answer: The guy on the ecig is happier and does not want a cigarette. I've done the patch, I've done chantix, Ive done cold turkey, wellbutrin etc. etc. and the one thing they all had in common is I never stopped wanting a cigarette. I'm going to stop there before I really say whats on my mind, but it's nice to have a place to rant.
This is all just part of the big plan. They consider us nicotine users and since smokers end up costing more for medical treatment later in their lives, "they should pay more". So while this sux big time, we will probably pay the equivalent of several cartons of analogs per month in increased healthcare costs as we try to improve our health with ecigs. You gotta' love it, NOT! Welcome to ObamaCare and the federal government's continuing desire to control our lives, through regulations, taxes and fees.
It's the insurance companies, because they can. If you want to do something about it you can try complaining to them, or write your government representatives asking them to propose legislation stating that it is unfair to single out a group of people to pay higher premiums, especially when addiction is a medical condition.
If they did this nationally all at once, maybe we would speak up.
But if they do this slowly, little by little, then we'll boil like a frog in a pot of water.
Which is exactly how they did it to us as smokers.
The time to speak up is now.
The time to raise a stink is now.
But what are we to do?
But if they do this slowly, little by little, then we'll boil like a frog in a pot of water.
Which is exactly how they did it to us as smokers.
The time to speak up is now.
The time to raise a stink is now.
But what are we to do?
The first place I would look would be the companies who have an investment in smoking cessation products and who also campaigns for a "healthier world".
Employer-Sponsored Insurance - Robert Wood Johnson Foundation
http://www.rwjf.org/content/dam/web...cations-at-the-robert-wood-johnson-foundation
http://www2.aap.org/richmondcenter/pdfs/PACTReimbursementforSmokingCessation.pdf
I'm sure there's more...
http://www.rwjf.org/en/topics/search-topics/T/tobacco-control.html
http://www.rwjf.org/en/topics/search-topics/T/tobacco-cessation.html
(scattered throughout the site are enchanting statements gloating over the programs they fund)
I wish I could find it, it's in bookmarks somewhere, the link to the page where they advise towns to ban ecigs.
Here's a summary of Johnson's banning agenda http://cleanairquality.blogspot.com/2005/07/why-is-pharmaceutical-company-funding.html
Last edited:
I'd go with the insurance company. With the ability to add a sizable premium for tobacco use in the future, they're licking their chops.
Lets put this into perspective folks.
There are in fact chemicals used in unlabeled ejuices that are known to not be 100% safe. Prime example is the butter/custard flavors which contain traces of diacetyl. Yet many juice makers are using this stuff and nobody seems to ask or demand a list of ingredients nor do many even care. So you can't blame anyone for not wanting to give those who vape a free pass across the board. This is not just about Nicotine it's about what types of other harmful chemicals are potentially being inhaled without long term testing.
There are in fact chemicals used in unlabeled ejuices that are known to not be 100% safe. Prime example is the butter/custard flavors which contain traces of diacetyl. Yet many juice makers are using this stuff and nobody seems to ask or demand a list of ingredients nor do many even care. So you can't blame anyone for not wanting to give those who vape a free pass across the board. This is not just about Nicotine it's about what types of other harmful chemicals are potentially being inhaled without long term testing.
This is my perspective, I don't believe it's right to charge anyone more(or not provide the same discounts to) for lifestyle choices that may or may not lead to more expensive care in the long run. What if they start charging higher premiums for those who are more than 10% overweight? Or those who are in higher risk groups for heart disease, cancer, alzheimer's?
And to those who blame the ACA for this, this was happening long before that law was even a gleam in Romney's eye.
The Fed Gubmint. Insurance companies' hands are now tied by Obamacare.
Don't complain, it's "for the children", and the good of the collective.
Welcome to Amerika, serf.
If you have heart disease or cancer good luck even getting insurance without the option of Obamacare.
I don't believe it's a right for doctors to charge nearly a thousand dollars just to prescribe Tylenol. But they do it every day of the week all across America. The system is broken and nobody is going to fix it without tearing it down and starting over from scratch. However it's not a grand conspiracy to stop us from seeking a more healthy alternative though. Insurance companies simply don't want to cover those who pose a risk of having to pay out and that's nothing new.
Let's really put this in perspective. This thread is about a tobacco affidavit. That could be signed that you don't use tobacco when you do inhale diacetyl (is that the right spelling). You'll still have the an elevated health but you won't pay the extra premium a vapor will pay even if he isn't using a "dangerous" flavor. Singling out one health risk is not appropriate and is definitely discriminatory, particularly when it takes an entire plant and says any use of it or it's processed alkaloids is equivalent risk to it's most dangerous use. Smoking is what causes tobaccos massive dangers.
In case you missed it, Air pollution causes lung cancer, WHO agency announces - Video on NBCNews.com. WHO has now announced that air pollution causes lung cancer, surprise. Smoking is heavily a blue collar habit. A lot of blue collar workers work in an environment where the air is pretty polluted. Is Obamacare going to question your work environment or home environment and enable the insurance companies to attach a 50% higher premium for working in that environment.
Any way you look at this focus on tobacco and its derivatives is and has always been discriminatory. Unless you are going to assess the relative risks of every aspect of every person's way of life, you are just taking a minority and placing an extra burden on them.
We agree in principle. Where we differ is in the understanding that Obamacare has specifically taken one product, tobacco and it's derivatives (unless given to you by Big Pharma), and placed a major premium charge to its use.
The fatty tax is on it's way. You can already see it with the control for the amount of soda you can purchase at a given time. The banning of trans fat in some cities. It's just a matter of time before the start taxing the fatties. I'm relatively skinny so not worried about that personally but still see it as a slow encroachment into our freedoms just like a tax on nicotine is. They are just selectively picking one group at a time to work on. Smokers are evil so they are easiest to pick on first. Once they've clenched that market count my words the fatties will be next.
They'll probably start in very similar ways. Anything that contains x percent of sugar will have an extra tax. Anything that contains x percent of fat will be taxed. Pop, candy bars, cheeseburgers, french fries, pizza, etc. Anything that is deemed as unhealthy they will slowly start slapping a tax on.
I think it's the whole divide and conquer approach. If you do it slowly and incrementally only a small percent of population throws up a stink...but eventually they get everything they wanted by just doing it slowly over time.
It's the worldwide goal to put the tobacco companies out of business. RWF is one of the main goal pushers, who also happens to produce the smoking cessation products the world health clubs force upon us, via RWF recommendation...
Good News to this issue. I also have had to pay higher smoker rates even though I have not been since 2009. My company does not recognize ecigs as tobacco free due to what they call not enough research. It also states e cigarettes not just NRTs. HOWEVER my daughter who has worked for a few months now with a company called Western & Southern. You may have heard of them, since they have been around for 100 plus years. She has been writing insurance for some of the brick and mortar vape stores here in central Ohio for medical insurance thru an affiliate of Western & Southern. They informed her yesterday they do not consider e cigs a tobacco product. She is also a PV girl and so is her boss. I'm not just soliciting business for my daughter here as this has been an issue that impacts my life and I have been in strong protest of the insurance industry deciding what is "allowed and deemed" in their giant hands of power and control of the medical field. I also spent many years working in the insurance industry as a claims processor for medical insurance companies or third party administrators. It will take more than my daughters company to change the status quo but it is a start.
Just got notice today from insurance company. Ecigs users now pay the same surcharge as cigarette user does. However if your nic intake comes from patches gum and other fda approved products you do not pay the surcharge. From my research and what I read here where nic comes from can not be determined.... hmm seems simple enough for me I will not pay the surcharge.
And yes I can sleep at night with my decision....
And yes I can sleep at night with my decision....
I don't know about doing that and believe me it's sooo tempting to just check the box that says nope I do not smoke and with a clean conscious because I really don't. I just applied for life insurance thru my daughter and tried it as a non smoker. I had the para med exam just urine collection and questions answered that I do not smoke and have not for two years. That is true although for a little while I still cheated on the occasional stinky. Never was asked if I vaped or usage of an ecig but asked about the snus or other NRTs and the reply was a truthful no. It came back I was a smoker. I asked my daughter to dig into it as I see a pulmonary doctor so did they reject me due to the damage I have done to my lungs or was it dirty urine. I was told it was the urine. I vape 18mg so I would really like to try it again to see how sensitive these test for cotinine are after I use a lower nic level. Although I have seen since then drug kits you can use at home to test yourself and kits to somehow make it come back clean but haven't looked into this as yet. My daughter and her boss also vape and they believed the levels we get form vaping are so insignificant it wouldn't show up.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
