|
|
|
|
Share/Bookmark this Topic:
|
| Message |
Author |
by 63westonmo
on Wed Jun 10, 2009 10:57 am |
|
| Why do insurers and doctors ask people if the smoke before doing the physical? Is it because in many cases they can't tell the smokers from the non-smokers without asking? It might be interesting to do some research where the doctors and insurance companies do a physical on say 100 people, and then they tell us which ones are smokers. What do you think their score is going to be on that 100 point exam? Should we give partial credit for the "scapegoat effect" of non-smokers seeking out smokers to sit next to so that they can enjoy the smoke without having to pay the high taxes on it? |
|
|
63westonmo

Newbie
Joined: Jun 01, 2009
Posts: 20
|
| |
Back to top |
|
|
| |
by libertarian99
on Wed Jun 10, 2009 11:17 am |
|
63westonmo wrote: Why do insurers and doctors ask people if the smoke before doing the physical? Is it because in many cases they can't tell the smokers from the non-smokers without asking? It might be interesting to do some research where the doctors and insurance companies do a physical on say 100 people, and then they tell us which ones are smokers. What do you think their score is going to be on that 100 point exam? One reason they ask is because smokers metabolize some drugs differently than non-smokers. So the doctor needs that information to prescribe drugs effectively.
Doctors expect people to lie about personal behaviors, though. For example, if you admit to being a problem drinker and then tell the doctor you drink one bottle of wine a day, they will probably assume you're drinking two or three times that amount. There's an interesting article about how people lie to their doctors about personal behavior at this link:
http://spoonfeedin.blogspot.com/2009/01/health-what-we-lie-to-doctors-about-and.html |
|
|
libertarian99

Enthusiastic Smoker
Joined: May 01, 2009
Posts: 453
|
| |
Back to top |
| |
by JohnC
on Wed Jun 10, 2009 11:47 am |
|
This has been the case for me on numerous occasions.
The first was when I worked on a construction repair job and the crap that we worked in was so bad that the company was doing lung capacity tests to protect themselves on future law suits (galv.welding -pcbs -asbestos insulation ect. before osha outlawed most of them )
Mine came out 105% and the Doc says I see that your a non smoker ---- he almost fell over when I told him that I only smoked three packs a day for thirty years.(that's been 25years or so ago)
Since then it seems that "ARE YOU A SMOKER" is about the first thing they ask.( My license requires a physical every two years and I don't go to the same Doc every time)
That first Doc didn't want to be embarrassed again
-J.C.- |
|
|
JohnC

Enthusiastic Smoker
Joined: Dec 23, 2004
Posts: 334
|
| |
Back to top |
| |
by runamok
on Wed Jun 10, 2009 12:17 pm |
|
63westonmo wrote: Is it because in many cases they can't tell the smokers from the non-smokers without asking? Unless you walk in smelling of tobacco, there is no way a Doctor can ascertain whether or not you smoke. Not from looking at you or examining you. Even if he could look at your lungs he wouldn't be able to tell. The old "smokers black lung" thing is a total myth. A smokers lung is as pink and pretty as a non-smokers. The pictures of black lungs you see are diseased lungs and diseased lungs will look that way whether they come from a smoker or not. |
|
|
runamok

Smoking Lobby Sponsor
Joined: Dec 20, 2004
Posts: 1288
|
| |
Back to top |
| |
by 63westonmo
on Wed Jun 10, 2009 2:38 pm |
|
| I think in many instances, lack of exercise, bad eating habits, lousy schedules, and bad working conditions are overlooked when smoking is such an EASY answer even though it often isn't the RIGHT answer. For instance, the beautician that has to smell hairspray day after day-- if a health problem develops we know the cigarettes are going to get blamed every time. |
|
|
63westonmo

Newbie
Joined: Jun 01, 2009
Posts: 20
|
| |
Back to top |
| |
by Asmoker2
on Wed Jun 10, 2009 4:27 pm |
|
runamok wrote: Unless you walk in smelling of tobacco, there is no way a Doctor can ascertain whether or not you smoke. Not from looking at you or examining you. Even if he could look at your lungs he wouldn't be able to tell. The old "smokers black lung" thing is a total myth. A smokers lung is as pink and pretty as a non-smokers. The pictures of black lungs you see are diseased lungs and diseased lungs will look that way whether they come from a smoker or not.
runamok, where did you get this information?
I'm curious, too, if they can't tell the levels of nicotine, etc from urinalysis or blood tests, just like they do with drugs. |
Last edited by Asmoker2 on Wed Jun 10, 2009 4:48 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
Asmoker2

Smoker
Joined: Mar 24, 2009
Posts: 143
|
| |
Back to top |
| |
by garhkal
on Wed Jun 10, 2009 4:42 pm |
|
JohnC wrote: This has been the case for me on numerous occasions.
The first was when I worked on a construction repair job and the crap that we worked in was so bad that the company was doing lung capacity tests to protect themselves on future law suits (galv.welding -pcbs -asbestos insulation ect. before osha outlawed most of them  )
Mine came out 105% and the Doc says I see that your a non smoker ---- he almost fell over when I told him that I only smoked three packs a day for thirty years.(that's been 25years or so ago)
Since then it seems that "ARE YOU A SMOKER" is about the first thing they ask.( My license requires a physical every two years and I don't go to the same Doc every time)
That first Doc didn't want to be embarrassed again
-J.C.-
With military docs it seems common practice now days, once you admit to smoking they almost badger you about quitting, before they actually get to see you for what you came in for.
Quote: For instance, the beautician that has to smell hairspray day after day-- if a health problem develops we know the cigarettes are going to get blamed every time.
Yuip. Heard of a case the other week of a lass working the sears perfume counter for 20+ years. Never smoked, never lived with anyone who smoked. So when she developed something to do with the lungs , they instantly said "must be due to smoking"...
And what irks me off, is in the military with our 'culture' of fitness/health that keeps getting pushed more and more, the number of people i know who smoke but still manage to beat out those hwo DON't smoke on the tests and regular runs is quite a lot. BUT you won't see one of them being showcased as an example of fitness, cause they smoke. |
|
|
garhkal

Enthusiastic Smoker
Joined: Apr 24, 2009
Posts: 278
|
| |
Back to top |
| |
by activist0000
on Wed Jun 10, 2009 5:21 pm |
|
Asmoker2 wrote: I'm curious, too, if they can't tell the levels of nicotine, etc from urinalysis or blood tests, just like they do with other drugs. There are tests available that can measure the levels of cotinine in your blood, urine and saliva. Cotinine is a metabolite of nicotine. That's one of the things that's been used to imply non-smokers are harmed by SHS, because they can have measurable cotinine levels in their blood.
It horrifies people to think they have any chemical circulating in their blood, even though everyone has numerous environmental toxins circulating around in their bodies. For example, up until about the 1970s, lead paint was routinely used in new home construction. Most people don't even realize they have lead paint in their homes. Lead deposits in your bones and it can hang around for years. As you age and start to lose bone mass, the lead can seep into your bloodstream. Most people are completely unaware of their exposure to various carcinogens in the environment, including toxins found in personal care products like shampoo, conditioners and lotions.
One good reason for all the hysteria about smoking is just the fact that it makes non-smokers feel safer to believe that all cancer is caused by tobacco, which is something they can avoid. In my family, we've had five cases of cancer in non-smokers, and none of those people were exposed to any significant level of SHS. It just keeps the panic level down if people cling to belief that non-smokers do not get cancer. |
|
|
activist0000

Toker
Joined: May 26, 2009
Posts: 86
|
| |
Back to top |
| |
by activist0000
on Wed Jun 10, 2009 5:51 pm |
|
63westonmo wrote: I think in many instances, lack of exercise, bad eating habits, lousy schedules, and bad working conditions are overlooked when smoking is such an EASY answer even though it often isn't the RIGHT answer. Smokers can increase their fitness levels and get a lot of benefits from exercising, but it's hard to convince people of that. Here's an interesting article I read about it.
http://www.athleticscholarships.net/cardio-training-smokers-exercise.htm
I knew one guy who smoked and was also a long distance runner for a local college. I would see this guy out training every day before dawn, running right down the middle of the street. He used to joke that he ran the whole race thinking about the cigarette he was going to enjoy after the race. He would cross over the finish line and just keep right on running out to his car for his post-race smoke. That dude was a blast. |
|
|
activist0000

Toker
Joined: May 26, 2009
Posts: 86
|
| |
Back to top |
| |
by runamok
on Wed Jun 10, 2009 9:49 pm |
|
Asmoker2 wrote: I'm curious, too, if they can't tell the levels of nicotine, etc from urinalysis or blood tests, just like they do with drugs. A blood or urine test that is checking specifically for nicotine (or cotinine actually...that is what the body metabolizes nicotine into) will find it but they don't run those tests for a basic check-up/examination unless you specifically ask for it which will cost extra. They're not going to spring for it. No money in it for the clinic......yet. Of course, there may be a bounty on us soon  |
|
|
runamok

Smoking Lobby Sponsor
Joined: Dec 20, 2004
Posts: 1288
|
| |
Back to top |
| |
|
|