Do you mark smoking on your Insurance?

[BeerAdvocate-cl]

I was recently listening to a podcast and they were talking about some cigar smokers dont mark smoking on their insurance forms so they pay for cheaper health insurance from their employer. I would think that this is considered fraud and eventually your Dr will find out you are a smoker and document that. Just curious if others here tell or dont tell their health insurance they are smokers?

[Black Dog]

I don't mark smoking since I think the question is too broad. I believe that cigarette smoking is far more risky for your health than cigar smoking but that is the category that your insurer will put you in if you check 'smoker'. I've never smoked a cigarette in my life and don't feel like I should be penalized just because I have a cigar now and then.

[zion698]

Nope ... For the same reasons already stated.

[Slow Triathlete]

Nope.

[Jonjonmacky]

Originally Posted by Black Dog

I don't mark smoking since I think the question is too broad. I believe that cigarette smoking is far more risky for your health than cigar smoking but that is the category that your insurer will put you in if you check 'smoker'. I've never smoked a cigarette in my life and don't feel like I should be penalized just because I have a cigar now and then.

EXactly!

[terrasco-cl]

I usually try to find out what the underwriters consider to be smoker. Different insurance companies have different standards. Some consider any tobacco use to be bad. Some allow you one or two cigars per month. Some only consider cigarettes... Our new underwriter at work asks about "any tobacco use in the last 12 months" so I had to check yes and pay the higher rate.

[BeerAdvocate-cl]

Bumping this to get more replies. Thanks

[tobacmon]

I do!!!-- The main reason if you do come down with a smoking related problem your insurance has to pay for it and it can be very costly--So if you mark "NO", and it comes back it might ruin your savings--if you know what I mean--They take out like $6.00 a month at work and believe me that's chump change when it comes to any smoking decease --If that does happen--my .02C

[BeerAdvocate-cl]

good point

[tekeeladude-cl]

Fortunately my company does not ask. On a side note, the owner of my B&M told me that Prudential Insurance does not count cigar smoking against you for their life insurance policies. He uses them and gets non-smoking rates.

[slkr4life]

From Ameriquote for what it is worth:

There are a couple of companies who still offer Preferred non-smoker rates to those "alternate" users. "Alternate" user are those that use tobacco, but don't smoke cigarettes. Pipe and cigar smokers fit into this category, as well as those that chew tobacco. Prudential is especially strong in this area. When you get a quote, be sure to use the Health Analyzer and put in your tobacco preference. Prudential is usually comes out significantly less than everyone else.

A note of caution:

Many companies are becoming particularly aggressive in their mortality assumptions for their non-tobacco non-nicotine rate classes.

Any misrepresentation of the tobacco/nicotine use question on the application can trigger a strong response from any of the companies. This can include an attempt to rescind the policy or, if a claim is made within the contestable period, declination of benefits. Occasional cigar smokers need to be aware of this.

[tobacmon]

Originally Posted by slkr4life

From Ameriquote for what it is worth:

There are a couple of companies who still offer Preferred non-smoker rates to those "alternate" users. "Alternate" user are those that use tobacco, but don't smoke cigarettes. Pipe and cigar smokers fit into this category, as well as those that chew tobacco. Prudential is especially strong in this area. When you get a quote, be sure to use the Health Analyzer and put in your tobacco preference. Prudential is usually comes out significantly less than everyone else.

A note of caution:

Many companies are becoming particularly aggressive in their mortality assumptions for their non-tobacco non-nicotine rate classes.

Any misrepresentation of the tobacco/nicotine use question on the application can trigger a strong response from any of the companies. This can include an attempt to rescind the policy or, if a claim is made within the contestable period, declination of benefits. Occasional cigar smokers need to be aware of this.

My point exactly!! Well Put-----

[Sam Leccia]

I obviously had to claim YES, as I work in the industry...however, I think the whole thing is rediculus, it is just another way for the big insurance raise coverage costs.

How can cigar smoking even be proven for a casual user?

Just because you get a lung/throat related illness/cancer that does not mean it came from tobacco...hundreds of thousands of people have these ilnesses/cancers and have never once used a tobacco related product.

Furthermore, There have YET to be ANY tests or experiments with cigar smoking. Most of all studies are cigarettes which use tons of added chemicals and nontobacco ingredients and additives, and even most of these test results have been inconclusive.

I think the whole thing is a HUGE crock, and just a way to drive up health care costs even higher...It's always easy to pick on the little guy, and smokers in the US are by and large the little guy. Same thing going on with all of the trumped up tobacco taxes...

I believe that your chances of getting a cancer or terminal illness have more to do with genitics and less to do with tobacco.

Anyone ever heard or George Burns? Winston Churchill? Fidel Castro? They ALL lived longer than the average life expentancy and Castro is supposedly STILL kicking. (doubtful though)

There needs to be more controlled experiments with more CONCLUSIVE results before it makes sense to raise taxes or healthcare costs.


My name is Sam Leccia, And I APPROVE this message!

[Deuce Da Masta]

Originally Posted by Sam Leccia

I obviously had to claim YES, as I work in the industry...however, I think the whole thing is rediculus, it is just another way for the big insurance raise coverage costs.

How can cigar smoking even be proven for a casual user?

Just because you get a lung/throat related illness/cancer that does not mean it came from tobacco...hundreds of thousands of people have these ilnesses/cancers and have never once used a tobacco related product.

Furthermore, There have YET to be ANY tests or experiments with cigar smoking. Most of all studies are cigarettes which use tons of added chemicals and nontobacco ingredients and additives, and even most of these test results have been inconclusive.

I think the whole thing is a HUGE crock, and just a way to drive up health care costs even higher...It's always easy to pick on the little guy, and smokers in the US are by and large the little guy. Same thing going on with all of the trumped up tobacco taxes...

I believe that your chances of getting a cancer or terminal illness have more to do with genitics and less to do with tobacco.

Anyone ever heard or George Burns? Winston Churchill? Fidel Castro? They ALL lived longer than the average life expentancy and Castro is supposedly STILL kicking. (doubtful though)

There needs to be more controlled experiments with more CONCLUSIVE results before it makes sense to raise taxes or healthcare costs.


My name is Sam Leccia, And I APPROVE this message!

Sam Leccia for president??? LOL

[BigBuddha76]

Originally Posted by Sam Leccia

Anyone ever heard or George Burns? Winston Churchill? Fidel Castro? They ALL lived longer than the average life expentancy and Castro is supposedly STILL kicking. (doubtful though)

Add Charles "Bud" Croney Sr. (my grandfather) to that list. He was 94 when he died las year and smoked cigars like they were going out of style.

I dont mark smoking on mine