Discovery non smoker declaration 2017
- Thread starter Raslin
- Start date
They can easily prove that someone smokes but have zero chance of knowing if someone vapes. Just say you don't. They are a bunch of idiots. Vaping is saving them a fortune.
A nicotine blood test would surely reveal if someone vapes?
Nicotine stays in your blood or urine for 3 to 4 days so just use zero nic for 5 days and they won't pick up anything
Won't gum and other nicotine replacement therapy also sit in your blood?
I would imagine so. But these products are used temporarily while quitting smoking. So if I was a smoker and was using patches to quit when I did my insurance blood test, I'd state that I was a smoker. Three months later when I'd quit both smoking and the patches, I'd inform the insurance company that I had now quit everything and would do another blood test to confirm it. Vaping tends to become an ongoing lifestyle rather than a temporary means to quitting all forms of nicotine so I guess the blood test is a bigger obstacle for vapers than NRT users.
@Raslin can you clarify your statment please bud,
So if you vape its classified as not smoking? Is this correct?
Interesting that you say that you would state that you are still smoking, surely the onus is on them to prove your nicotine blood content is from smoking and not NRT? Possible health issues from vaping etc aside, NRT is not smoking and they are trying to determine if you are smoker, I'm sure basing your smoking status on a nic blood test alone opens them up to some legal trouble? Do they not all test carbon monoxide levels? Sorry if this is redundant questioning, I'm just in the position that no one has asked me for any blood test, and I would like to know for future possible scenarios.
In an ideal world, yes. Unfortunately the world is not ideal and is ruled according to legal principles. The legal principle is that when taking out insurance you have an obligation to divulge. Failure to divulge could result in the insurer refusing to pay out in the event of a claim. Even if vaping or NRT isn't technically smoking, the legal means used to test it (the blood test) won't draw any distinction between nicotine due to tobacco smoking or from vaping/NRT. One could choose to fight it in court and attempt to win a landmark and precedent-setting judgment. My inclination is to go with the flow.
You make a reasonable point about carbon monoxide testing. I think this is a question of technological lag. For the longest time, the only way to get nicotine into your blood was by smoking. So the law accepted the nic blood test as reasonable proof of smoking. As the technology advances, insurance companies may well resort to carbon monoxide testing if it is deemed that vaping/NRT hold no serious health consequences. But, again, the person who attempts to win the precedent-setting court case is going to have a major and expensive legal battle. It's an area where I'm quite happy to let others be the pioneers.
Last edited:
Insurers will do anything at all to find a reason not to pay out or to increase the premium, so now they've got vaping to add to their growing wealth of questions - and bank account! I'm lucky that I joined before I started vaping, but I wonder if I'm now supposed to inform them of my new interest? No ways am I going to that!
Is the blood test only for nicotine, or do they test for VG and PG as well?
If the latter is true then even 0mg won't benifit..
If the latter is true then even 0mg won't benifit..
The test is only for nicotine (called a cotinine test). Vaping 0mg will not test positive and you will be classified a non smoker. Takes a couple of weeks for all nicotine/cotinine to completely leave your system though (blood/urine/saliva/etc.)
Waaaay back, and I mean way way... in the days of sailing ships and world discovery, a small group of people in London, Britain, decided to offer cover ships and cargos against potential losses at sea.
The basic idea was that you paid this company a small amount, usually a percentage of the expected profits of such a voyage to let’s say China and back.
If the ship and it’s cargo and crew never returned from the voyage, the owners of said ship, were paid a agreed value for the loss.
If the ship did return then the monies paid were not returned.
This was the birth of insurance.
Insurance companies today, and back then, calculate your premium you pay for your insurance based on the likelihood that you will claim against them.
With science, and data available on things as diverse as employment, age, race, sporting activities, ancestral health, public health and other information, and questions you complete, they are able to calculate the odds of you claiming with a great percentage of accuracy these days.
As more and more data becomes available, these are also entered into the datasets and models used by such companies to more accurately predict the chances and accordingly adjust your premium.
Why vaping is seen as smoking, is due to the fact that their is no widely accepted statement by public health that vaping is safe.
And even if there were such a statement, recall that in the 50/60’s health professionals also used to state smoking was not harmful.
In the end, however, insurance is a business and the company is and will do what it needs to, to protect its revenue.
There have been documented cases where social media has been used by such companies to prevent a insurance payout, and something as simple as a picture can be used as evidence of non compliance with the policy you took out.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
The basic idea was that you paid this company a small amount, usually a percentage of the expected profits of such a voyage to let’s say China and back.
If the ship and it’s cargo and crew never returned from the voyage, the owners of said ship, were paid a agreed value for the loss.
If the ship did return then the monies paid were not returned.
This was the birth of insurance.
Insurance companies today, and back then, calculate your premium you pay for your insurance based on the likelihood that you will claim against them.
With science, and data available on things as diverse as employment, age, race, sporting activities, ancestral health, public health and other information, and questions you complete, they are able to calculate the odds of you claiming with a great percentage of accuracy these days.
As more and more data becomes available, these are also entered into the datasets and models used by such companies to more accurately predict the chances and accordingly adjust your premium.
Why vaping is seen as smoking, is due to the fact that their is no widely accepted statement by public health that vaping is safe.
And even if there were such a statement, recall that in the 50/60’s health professionals also used to state smoking was not harmful.
In the end, however, insurance is a business and the company is and will do what it needs to, to protect its revenue.
There have been documented cases where social media has been used by such companies to prevent a insurance payout, and something as simple as a picture can be used as evidence of non compliance with the policy you took out.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Perhaps Discovery should be formally requested, by ecigssa, to explain how their medical experts have determined that vaping equates to smoking.
Are their medical experts more qualified than the Royal Collage of Physicians, which is widely seen to be the most respected medical institution in the United Kingdom ? There is a fairly impressive body of evidence that vaping is far safer than smoking. They should be requested to inform their customers of the precise medical dangers of vaping.
Discovery has over half of the medical aid market share in SA. ecigssa has over 8000 members. It is therefore likely that more than 4000 are Discovery customers.
Smoking customers pay more for their medical aid. We used to accept this, due to the strong evidence of the dangers of smoking. If they want us to pay the same penalties as smokers, surely the onus is on them to prove that vaping is as dangerous as smoking.
We always talk about promoting vaping on the forum. What could be better for vaping than getting Discovery to prove their claim that vaping equates to smoking. We all know that they cannot do this. Some risk...perhaps. Equally risky...impossible. They should be required to show how much vaping has cost them in financial terms. Has any hospital stated that any of their patients has become ill because of vaping and submitted the bill to Discovery ? (ohms law hard of thinkers excluded)
Are their medical experts more qualified than the Royal Collage of Physicians, which is widely seen to be the most respected medical institution in the United Kingdom ? There is a fairly impressive body of evidence that vaping is far safer than smoking. They should be requested to inform their customers of the precise medical dangers of vaping.
Discovery has over half of the medical aid market share in SA. ecigssa has over 8000 members. It is therefore likely that more than 4000 are Discovery customers.
Smoking customers pay more for their medical aid. We used to accept this, due to the strong evidence of the dangers of smoking. If they want us to pay the same penalties as smokers, surely the onus is on them to prove that vaping is as dangerous as smoking.
We always talk about promoting vaping on the forum. What could be better for vaping than getting Discovery to prove their claim that vaping equates to smoking. We all know that they cannot do this. Some risk...perhaps. Equally risky...impossible. They should be required to show how much vaping has cost them in financial terms. Has any hospital stated that any of their patients has become ill because of vaping and submitted the bill to Discovery ? (ohms law hard of thinkers excluded)
Discovery won't even publish their PMBS (https://www.moneyweb.co.za/news/industry/the-list-medical-schemes-wont-give-its-members/) and you think they'll engage with a forum to explain their business decision. Lol. Good luck with that.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
@mad_hatter . In my opinion its not all about "winning" , its not even about winning. Its about raising awareness, and speaking out about unfair practices. If one doesn't raise such issues smokers will, (and many do) say that even medical aids equate vaping with smoking. Many smokers say that they won't vape because its is as bad for you as smoking. If the medical aids remain unchallenged it is tantamount to vapers saying we agree with their position.
Smoking is detrimental to your health, Vaping so far hasn't been.
Nicotine is an addictive stimulant at worst, Vaping is saving Discovery quite a bit of claims, no cancer, no copd etc
Vaping can not be categorized with Smoking.
I agree with @Puff the Magic Dragon
If we don't raise the issues, how will awareness be created?
Nicotine is an addictive stimulant at worst, Vaping is saving Discovery quite a bit of claims, no cancer, no copd etc
Vaping can not be categorized with Smoking.
I agree with @Puff the Magic Dragon
If we don't raise the issues, how will awareness be created?
Medical aids don't and aren't allowed to charge a premium for smokers. Smokers and non-smokers on the same plan pay the same premium. As far as Vitality goes, I don't believe smokers get charged any more than non-smokers either.
Can we please stop saying vaping is harmless or insinuating such? It is nowhere are harmful as smoking but it is not harmless. Yes insurance is a money making racket, but they are a business and will always seek to generate profit based on your risk profile.
I see too many posts here implying that vaping is some wunderkind with no bad effects. The truth is that we simply do not know the long term effects, and there are many small indicators that it's not harmless. So of course an insurance company and any health professional is going to weigh that up against you.
Yes, it's not smoking and should not be classified as such, but it's still a relatively unknown factor at this point as well, so no insurance company is going to give you a gold star for doing it, you may be reducing your overall harm based on smoking but you are not engaging in a harmless act.
I see too many posts here implying that vaping is some wunderkind with no bad effects. The truth is that we simply do not know the long term effects, and there are many small indicators that it's not harmless. So of course an insurance company and any health professional is going to weigh that up against you.
Yes, it's not smoking and should not be classified as such, but it's still a relatively unknown factor at this point as well, so no insurance company is going to give you a gold star for doing it, you may be reducing your overall harm based on smoking but you are not engaging in a harmless act.
Similar threads
