Gut Punch - Insurance - "Use of any tobacco product."

[bphilli75]

Hey Friends - Today I learned that the insurance company my employer uses will add a $50 per month surcharge for use of any tobacco product, beginning Jan 1. They were very careful to include pipes and cigars in the verbiage. This may be the end of the road for me. My family can't afford that for my very moderate hobby, and I can't afford to let my family down if for any reason any illness could be tied back to occasional pipe smoking. I trust the insurance company would do whatever they could to uncover evidence of such activity. I don't mind taking such risks for myself, but I can't risk how it would affect my wife and boys.
I need to ponder a bit, but you may see my collection for sale soon.
Sad day.

Bill

 

[sajgre]

I'm VERY sorry to hear that. Whenever I read about people making cellars to avoid future tobacco taxes I think about insurance companies and how they could be the biggest risk to our hobby. On this side of the pond we are safe for now but don't know for how long.

I wish you all the best!

 

[cobguy]

I'm really sorry to hear this Bill ... we seem to be losing our rights around every corner. :|
As with other things that are outlawed, nicotine is only detected 1 to 3 days after the last use of a nicotine containing product. This assumes a very light usage so as to not allow build up. Just saying ...
Best of luck and I hope not to see any auctions here soon. ::

 

[beezer]

Wow, ain't that something! Is your insurance company going to also require annual "tobacco screenings" (i.e. blood work) to ensure the insured "non-smokers" aren't being deceitful with them? I'm just curious how they would screen for this. There has to be some kind of minimum usage guideline for the surcharge I would think.

 

[warren]

Bill: Looks as though you have weighed the facts of the situation very well. Family first is always a good decision, a hard one to be sure. If it's any consolation, it's also the healthiest choice. If pipes are a "hobby," find another. If it's an addiction, suck it up, look to the family for support and gain a bit more control over your life. And, if you quit there wlll be no "if only I had" regrets in the years ahead if you should require the insurance.
No matter the choice you make, you'll still be welcome here. Mind you, it'll be harder to quit the pipe if you do.
Life will go on and I hope you and your family thrive as you go!

 

[ericthered]

That sucks.
I feel sick even mentioning it, but there is possibly a teeny tiny little bright less dark side...
Some healthcare providers offer incentives for "improving" your health, so based on your plan's details, you may be able to claim that you're a smoker and then quit, earning whatever pittance your provider considers your happiness/freedom is worth. Of course, since your provider is going the "negative reinforcement" rout, the positive reinforcement wellness incentive philosophy is probably lost on them.
Any possibility of a career-change or going into business for yourself? Inordinately huge changes just to support a hobby, but those would be the crazy thoughts that would flash through my mind if I were in a similar situation. Ultimately, you've got to do what's right for your family. I hope you find peace with whatever decision you come to.

 

[doctorthoss]

Junkyarddog,

Some insurance companies actually do have surcharges for being overweight and such. Illegal drug use tends to be dealt with through termination, not insurance hikes!

It's all very legal, and I'm not sure how it infringes upon our "rights." If it were a government health plan, then sure -- it could arguably be an infringement of our rights. But insurance companies are private, and they are allowed to hire or fire based on anything other than ethnicity, gender, etc. An employer can also ban you from drinking alcohol in your spare time, working as a political activist, etc. Corporate and right-wing lobbyist have for years argued vehemently that an employer can't be forced to retain someone if they feel it in any way harms the company's bottom line (or public image). Personally, I'd be glad they are only hiking your insurance instead of outright having a "no smokers allowed to work here" policy.

 

[wyfbane]

Man, I am sorry for your loss.
I agree that private businesses should be able to exercise the freedom to have rules like this. When they don't you see people get sued $18,000 over a cake, etc.
That said, the logical response to this (That I KNOW we don't have time nor the resources for) is to develop a health plan for cigar and pipe smokers and pitch it as a reasonable plan and have another company pick it up...
Or make our own health insurance company.
In any event, good luck to you and your family.
Mike

 

[agnosticpipe]

My grandniece's fiancee works at a place that places stiff insurance penalties on tobacco users too. He joins us on numerous occasions around the bonfire or on the porch, and I told him I'd give him a pipe and some tobacco if he'd like. He said he'd love to, but can't take the risk of his insurance rates going up, how much, I forgot the amount, but enough to make it worth his not using tobacco. He said the insurance company gives random tests for tobacco and other drugs about 6 times a year, but you never know when. Could even be one month apart. I thought this was rather extreme, as the last company I worked for only tested for drugs when you were hired, and anytime you had an accident at work.
Here's the thing, and I don't know the facts and figures here, but it seems with the rise in diabetes, heart conditions, and such, that if the insurance companies are testing for tobacco usage, they should be testing for obesity too. I would think there are more health risks from obesity than lets say pipe smoking. Hey maybe I'm wrong, but if you're going to try control what people do on their own time, with their personal lives, you should cover all the bases and not just the one you feel like. Do people who like higher risk sports and other activities pay more for health insurance? Personally I think any personal interference is wrong. We're already penalizing older people with higher health insurance, now they want to add more costs to the individual. Yeah, I know that publicly held insurance companies want to make the most profit, with the least risk, but what that says is "We're playing God and deciding who's worth the most, and who's worth the least", by deciding the value of money over the value of people.
I'm sure I don't have a good grasp on the true situation, but it's my opinion, and like everyone in this country, I'm entitled to it! ::

 

[edgreen]

With advances in knowledge and it's going to get much worse. DNA tests for everyone and any gene that may cause trouble. Autism genes, diabetic genes, cancer likelihood genes, depression genes, every little tiny piece of you will be open to non-hire, different insurance costs and maybe inability to insure, likelihood of sexual deviance, all there for your employer and anyone else who gets clearance. Anyone read Heinlein or see Gattaca. It's not far off. Thankfully I've lived a nice full life and probably won't have to go through this, but I feel for our younger, non-retired members.

 

[tuold]

Welcome to my world. I'm lucky to be retiring in 10 months and will be able to get away from my ever so helpful insurance "health counselor" who knows nothing other what the script in front of her tells her to say. Never in my 35 years of work history have so many people been involved in my personal health. And by "involved" I mean telling what I can and can't do.
At my age I hate being treated like a child. Even in my military years I had more freedom. I stopped getting my prescriptions filled at "member pharmacies" because, 1. Their cash prices are usually cheaper than my insurance co-pays, and 2. I don't want any calls from their counselors or health partners or whatever the hell they call themselves!
All I want is a medical plan that would cover hospitalization but apparently those are illegal now.
Bah!

 

[johnnyreb]

Employers are being offered discounts from health insurance providers on specifics such as non tobacco use, and for the employer to encourage a healthy life style to their employees who fall into high risk categories. The discounts for a non tobacco policy are usually full compliance with no other options. The employees at health risks are usually offered help to meet health standards first thru support programs, to be followed up by the employee paying higher premiums if their health and conditioning hasn't improved and moved them out of the high risk category after a certain length of time. Either way if offers employers lower premiums so they can continue to offer their employees healthcare coverage. People getting coverage thru the ACA or Medicare, and not their employer will likely see compliance become mandatory with few options.

 

[warren]

I got the impression in the OP that the insurance policy was offered to smokers. It was just more expensive for the smoker. I didn't say he couldn't have insurance coverage. Just that, for him, the cost was going to be prohibitive. So the incentive to quit smoking is there. Keep smoking and spend $50.00 a month more fore coverage. Or, quit smoking and save $50.00 a month.
There is also an implied third choice: Keep smoking and seek employment else where, thus saving the fifty bucks a month and continuing to smoke.
No ultimatums, just three choices. Unfair? No. Harsh? Maybe.

 

[bphilli75]

Good discussion guys. Thanks. It is what it is. They can do what they want, and I have to make my choices. I accept that. Does it piss me off?
Yep.

 

[metalheadycigarguy]

Not sure if this is a possibility, but if your wife works maybe she has a different health benefit plan that doesn't have any anti-tobacco language written in it. If so have you considered looking into her plan? Maybe look into private health insurance provided by your state or other companies such as AFLAC etc.

Does your health plan have a base line or does it just read any amount of tobacco? I can't see smoking a pipe once or twice a week being a health risk, compared to other things like fast food, alcohol, wreckless driving, sky diving, mountain climbing or any other thing that would put you at risk for injury or death.
I hate insurance companies. They want want want, but never want to give. Then when they do give they put all these stipulations on what they will give. Its stupid!

 

[huntertrw]

Billp:
Welcome to the nanny (or is that ninny?) state! My condolences concerning the effect that this may have on your hobby; however, I'm proud of you for putting your family first.
"Not sure if this is a possibility, but if your wife works maybe she has a different health benefit plan that doesn't have any anti-tobacco language written in it."
Metalheadcigarguy, yours is an excellent suggestion!

 

[mrenglish]

I think its the socially accepted thing to go after smokers and this is why you don't see the same policies directed at the obese, alcohol, etc. It was tried in Louisiana once and was shot down pretty quickly, that if you were obese restaurants were to not serve you or some nonsense.
My employers' insurance rates are higher if you are a smoker but is that any different than slapping an additional fee? Its on the order of 25-50% more expensive yet oddly they do not consider dip as tobacco use but do cigars and pipes. Fortunately, I do not have to have insurance through my job, my wife has a great policy that I am covered under.
Odd note though, when we bought our house we obtained extra life insurance so that if one of us bit it, the other could pay the house off. We had to have a nicotine blood test and it came back negative so we were given non smoker rates. At the time, I was working full time as a tobacconist so was around pipe and cigar smoke all day. It was my insurance agent who recommended I stop smoking for a few weeks but like the OP, I did not want to have it come back and bite us in the end.

 

[crazypipe]

I am very sorry to hear this, all the very best to you and your family ::

 

[warren]

Gigger: Also with due respect. It's not about what's fair, it's about smoking and insurance. Not obesity or cholesterol levels, though you will find that these factors will have an effect on your life insurance premium. Insuring smokers reduces the profits for the insurance company by increasing costs. This is bad for the shareholders. An insurance company is not in the business of being fair to you or me, it is in the business of providing a service for money. I want the companies I invest in to make money, to be fair to the shareholder and the customer. People invest in insurance companies, oil producers, high tech, and etc. expecting a return on their investment. They do not invest to provide any payments that are not explicitly laid out in the contract.
If an insurance company can minimize risk it could realize higher profits and possibly then consider lowering rates due to the increase in profit or, happily for me as a shareholder, increase the dividend. Increased dividend would of course be my choice if it came to a vote of the owners.
I was never advised that life was supposed to be fair. In fact I can remember my father advising me that there were people who would attempt to take advantage of me as I went through life. He told me in no uncertain terms (I was no doubt whining about something at the time.) that, "I should prepare myself as well as possible because nothing about life was fair. Life's a crap shoot and that I should learn to deal with it."
Insurance companies sign contracts to provide certain coverages for various risks. Some companies have decided that smokers are too big a risk to their bottom line. No action your insurance company takes should be a surprise if you appraised yourself of the contents of the contract. If they attempt to weasel out of a stated obligation you have recourse in the court.
If you want to blame someone, blame your neighbors and friends. It's the juries that run up costs and make insurance companies all the more conservative when it comes to what they will offer and at what cost. Still, even if you are budding Evel Kneviel you can obtain insurance. It'll cost you though!

 

[doctorthoss]

Actually, Trailboss, Obamacare is the biggest boon in the history of private healthcare. Obamacare was initially supposed to be a government-run health plan like those in Europe (with an American twist or two), but the Republicans, corporate-leanings Dems and insurance companies threw literally everything they had into keeping that from coming into existence. The horrible abortion called Obamacare is the result, in which we are all forced to buy private insurance and pay whatever they want (and there are few restrictions on what they can charge, eventually).
A health plan like Europe would have actually solved this problem for us. We would have health insurance as smokers, period. Notice how very anti-tobacco the EU and Britain are? Yet they don't discriminate against smokers, drinkers, the obese, etc. Why? Because health care is considered a right and the government cannot legally take that right away from you. If we followed their model, we'd actually have guaranteed coverage just like everyone in every other developed country has. But we didn't want that, I guess, so now we face health care rationing based on our income and whether or not we are wiling to conform to whatever the insurance companies determine will make them the highest profits.
I don't believe, however, that we will ever have a sane, European system in our country. The bottom line is our government is too corrupt and is now effectively owned outright by Big Business. There are too many billionaires who make their money by rationing health care benefits to those who are wealthiest and/or those they can control (employees). I find it terribly ironic that all those folks who were screaming about how they would lose their freedom or face "rationing" or something ludicrous like that by having a government health care program have effectively removed any chance they will ever have for freedom, medical care, or any number of other important things. It just sucks they've taken them away from the rest of us, too.