I don't see how they can enforce it. I mean let's say they want you to take a test, what are they going to do, call you, send a letter? I mean unless you have to sign for it there is no way for them to say you got it. Also say they mail it, there would have to be a time frame for you to do it, can't be like immediately.
If it is like my job, they just pull you in the office, and say... go to the clinic, piss in a cup, we already made you an appointment.
yeah but that's your employer who you see physically. The insurance company just sends letters, sort of hard to do that.
I don't see how they can enforce it. I mean let's say they want you to take a test, what are they going to do, call you, send a letter? I mean unless you have to sign for it there is no way for them to say you got it. Also say they mail it, there would have to be a time frame for you to do it, can't be like immediately.
If it is like my job, they just pull you in the office, and say... go to the clinic, piss in a cup, we already made you an appointment.
That's the drill, and you better not hesitate, or say what if.....
I don't see how they can enforce it. I mean let's say they want you to take a test, what are they going to do, call you, send a letter? I mean unless you have to sign for it there is no way for them to say you got it. Also say they mail it, there would have to be a time frame for you to do it, can't be like immediately.
If it is like my job, they just pull you in the office, and say... go to the clinic, piss in a cup, we already made you an appointment.
That's the drill, and you better not hesitate, or say what if.....
Definitly do talk to your doctor and provider though, there may be some wiggle room... and it never hurts to ask for better rates. :P
I don't see how they can enforce it. I mean let's say they want you to take a test, what are they going to do, call you, send a letter? I mean unless you have to sign for it there is no way for them to say you got it. Also say they mail it, there would have to be a time frame for you to do it, can't be like immediately.
If it is like my job, they just pull you in the office, and say... go to the clinic, piss in a cup, we already made you an appointment.
That's the drill, and you better not hesitate, or say what if.....
Definitly do talk to your doctor and provider though, there may be some wiggle room... and it never hurts to ask for better rates. :P
The organizatation I work for is so inflexible that the only wiggle room I have is wiggle my ass out the back door.
I guess you've got a few decisions to make. What's the cost difference if you state that you're a "tobacco user"?
The difference is the possibility of being charged with the crime of insurance fraud if they decide to conduct blood or piss tests for tobacco use, which is a very real possibility. So, I have no decision to make. I will not provide false information, and I will therefore have a higher deductible and more out of pocket cost than non-tobacco (as they define tobacco use). Period.
That wasn't what I was suggesting. How much more are your premiums going to be? Are we talking a dollar? or ten thousand dollars? I understand getting mad at just the premise of this. It's offensive to me, hell, all of us. But if it's in the ballpark of a buck, I think I'd be less offended than if it was more exorbitant ballpark. I guess what I'm saying is, if I can take what I want and pay for it, that's one thing. I'm not happy about it, and it's certainly a slippery slope, but if they make it so expensive that I either have to commit fraud, or quit cigars then that's even more serious. I don't know if any of that makes sense. Hopefully it did, it's been a long day.
I guess you've got a few decisions to make. What's the cost difference if you state that you're a "tobacco user"?
The difference is the possibility of being charged with the crime of insurance fraud if they decide to conduct blood or piss tests for tobacco use, which is a very real possibility. So, I have no decision to make. I will not provide false information, and I will therefore have a higher deductible and more out of pocket cost than non-tobacco (as they define tobacco use). Period.
That wasn't what I was suggesting. How much more are your premiums going to be? Are we talking a dollar? or ten thousand dollars? I understand getting mad at just the premise of this. It's offensive to me, hell, all of us. But if it's in the ballpark of a buck, I think I'd be less offended than if it was more exorbitant ballpark. I guess what I'm saying is, if I can take what I want and pay for it, that's one thing. I'm not happy about it, and it's certainly a slippery slope, but if they make it so expensive that I either have to commit fraud, or quit cigars then that's even more serious. I don't know if any of that makes sense. Hopefully it did, it's been a long day.
Makes sense to me. Have to pick your fights, for sure.
I guess you've got a few decisions to make. What's the cost difference if you state that you're a "tobacco user"?
The difference is the possibility of being charged with the crime of insurance fraud if they decide to conduct blood or piss tests for tobacco use, which is a very real possibility. So, I have no decision to make. I will not provide false information, and I will therefore have a higher deductible and more out of pocket cost than non-tobacco (as they define tobacco use). Period.
That wasn't what I was suggesting. How much more are your premiums going to be? Are we talking a dollar? or ten thousand dollars? I understand getting mad at just the premise of this. It's offensive to me, hell, all of us. But if it's in the ballpark of a buck, I think I'd be less offended than if it was more exorbitant ballpark. I guess what I'm saying is, if I can take what I want and pay for it, that's one thing. I'm not happy about it, and it's certainly a slippery slope, but if they make it so expensive that I either have to commit fraud, or quit cigars then that's even more serious. I don't know if any of that makes sense. Hopefully it did, it's been a long day.
The premium increase is not significant - $20 to $30 per month depending on the level of coverage you choose. However, I am convinced that those numbers will gradually increase over the next few years to "motivate" people to become "non-tobacco users", using their definition of "tobaco user".
You know my fiance and I had a meeting with a Northeastern life insurance agent a few months ago. Based on a $1,000,000 life insurance policy as an example, my fiance's monthly premium was about $21. Mine: $121, because I smoke a few cigars a week. The agent told me any more than 12 cigars a year puts you in that smokers liability bracket. That's 1 cigar a month for the insurance company to consider you a health liability. Chew on that for a bit.
They do it because they can, and because they are in the business of making money. If they see a way to charge you more, then they will, as long as they are allowed to. The AMA will not rest until only the very wealthy are allowed to enjoy any tobacco products whatsoever. The AMA has taken a zero tolerance view, and I see no force in the US (other than CRA) that will impede their agenda. The AMA is very well funded, and very powerful, and CRA is completely outgunned.
Well, I have to agree that there is no equivalent to the health risks of cigars vs cigarettes, and that it is not "fair" to lump them together in order to charge higher premiums. BUT, we all have to admit that we understand that there are some health risks to smoking anything. Kinda goes back to what was talked about in another thread. Shouldn't someone that exercises daily, maintains a healthy diet, does not expose themselves to health risks, have a lower rate than someone that smokes 2 packs a day, is an alcoholic, couch potato? Just a devil's advocate question. I think that rewards should be offered for that kind of behavior personally, but just wanted to see what you guys thought!
Well, I have to agree that there is no equivalent to the health risks of cigars vs cigarettes, and that it is not "fair" to lump them together in order to charge higher premiums. BUT, we all have to admit that we understand that there are some health risks to smoking anything. Kinda goes back to what was talked about in another thread. Shouldn't someone that exercises daily, maintains a healthy diet, does not expose themselves to health risks, have a lower rate than someone that smokes 2 packs a day, is an alcoholic, couch potato? Just a devil's advocate question. I think that rewards should be offered for that kind of behavior personally, but just wanted to see what you guys thought!
I think the individuals you describe are a much higher risk than someone who maintains a healthy diet and a healthy body weight, excercises moderately, uses alcohol moderately (takes a glass of wine or whiskey two or three times per week), uses cigars moderately (2 - 3 per week), does not engage in any risky hobies or sexual practices, and therefore should not be considered the same type of health risk as the person you describe.
A zero tolerance approach (to cigar use) smacks of an agenda unrelated to risk aversion.
Right, the marathoner and author of fitness and running books who was in what most people would consider to be excellent health, who dropped dead of a heart attack without warning.
Well, I have to agree that there is no equivalent to the health risks of cigars vs cigarettes, and that it is not "fair" to lump them together in order to charge higher premiums. BUT, we all have to admit that we understand that there are some health risks to smoking anything. Kinda goes back to what was talked about in another thread. Shouldn't someone that exercises daily, maintains a healthy diet, does not expose themselves to health risks, have a lower rate than someone that smokes 2 packs a day, is an alcoholic, couch potato? Just a devil's advocate question. I think that rewards should be offered for that kind of behavior personally, but just wanted to see what you guys thought!
I think the individuals you describe are a much higher risk than someone who maintains a healthy diet and a healthy body weight, excercises moderately, uses alcohol moderately (takes a glass of wine or whiskey two or three times per week), uses cigars moderately (2 - 3 per week), does not engage in any risky hobies or sexual practices, and therefore should not be considered the same type of health risk as the person you describe.
A zero tolerance approach (to cigar use) smacks of an agenda unrelated to risk aversion.
I understand that and think that we agree on most points. Those conditions don't guarantee anything, however I think most ppl would agree that those qualities, even in moderation as you pointed out, tend to make someone "healthier". And definitely not to be rude, but what qualifies you as someone to make health related decisions, especially for a large corporation?
Just found out that at my work they are making us do an opt out thing, meaning that if we sign a paper saying we don't smoke we don't get charged 50 bucks extra. BS for sure. and it goes for all tobacco. So it is lumping everything under one roof. I asked if they were going to have a alcohol thing to sign, they said no. I asked them then why are tobacco users getting singled out and of course no real answer, but the cool thing was it got the crowd riled up. Which was my whole point.
Just found out that at my work they are making us do an opt out thing, meaning that if we sign a paper saying we don't smoke we don't get charged 50 bucks extra. BS for sure. and it goes for all tobacco. So it is lumping everything under one roof. I asked if they were going to have a alcohol thing to sign, they said no. I asked them then why are tobacco users getting singled out and of course no real answer, but the cool thing was it got the crowd riled up. Which was my whole point.
Well, I have to agree that there is no equivalent to the health risks of cigars vs cigarettes, and that it is not "fair" to lump them together in order to charge higher premiums. BUT, we all have to admit that we understand that there are some health risks to smoking anything. Kinda goes back to what was talked about in another thread. Shouldn't someone that exercises daily, maintains a healthy diet, does not expose themselves to health risks, have a lower rate than someone that smokes 2 packs a day, is an alcoholic, couch potato? Just a devil's advocate question. I think that rewards should be offered for that kind of behavior personally, but just wanted to see what you guys thought!
I think the individuals you describe are a much higher risk than someone who maintains a healthy diet and a healthy body weight, excercises moderately, uses alcohol moderately (takes a glass of wine or whiskey two or three times per week), uses cigars moderately (2 - 3 per week), does not engage in any risky hobies or sexual practices, and therefore should not be considered the same type of health risk as the person you describe.
A zero tolerance approach (to cigar use) smacks of an agenda unrelated to risk aversion.
I understand that and think that we agree on most points. Those conditions don't guarantee anything, however I think most ppl would agree that those qualities, even in moderation as you pointed out, tend to make someone "healthier". And definitely not to be rude, but what qualifies you as someone to make health related decisions, especially for a large corporation?
"...but what qualifies you as someone to make health related decisions, especially for a large corporation? ..."
When did I say that I should make any health related decisions for my employer? If you go back and read what I've said, you will not find that in my statements.
Comments
A zero tolerance approach (to cigar use) smacks of an agenda unrelated to risk aversion.