|
|
|
|
Share/Bookmark this Topic:
|
| Message |
Author |
by runamok
on Thu Oct 29, 2009 8:52 pm |
|
libertarian99 wrote: I would rather tell the truth and pay the extra money than lie and have to live in fear that the insurance company will find out I lied and deny all future claims.
When the difference in premiums is, say, $4000.00 per year, many are going to try and get away with it.
libertarian99 wrote: Can you think of any other cases where an over-the-counter pharmaceutical product has been returned to prescription status after they've gone through all the rigamarole of approving it for over-the-counter sales?
It hasn't quite gone back to prescription status but Sudafed and anything else containing Pseudoephedrine (Meth ingredient) has been heavily regulated and there is talk of returning it to prescription status. Collateral damage attributable to the drug war. |
|
|
runamok
Smoking Lobby Sponsor
Joined: Dec 20, 2004
Posts: 1288
|
| |
Back to top |
|
|
| |
|
by libertarian99
on Fri Oct 30, 2009 4:20 am |
|
runamok wrote: libertarian99 wrote: I would rather tell the truth and pay the extra money than lie and have to live in fear that the insurance company will find out I lied and deny all future claims.
When the difference in premiums is, say, $4000.00 per year, many are going to try and get away with it.
Insurance companies are experts at tracking down information that can give them the grounds to deny an insurance claim. Even if people have lied to their doctors about smoking, there's no guarantee that doctors haven't secretly tested them and made a note in their file.
And it's all going to get worse with the use of electronic medical records. People will not be able to change doctors to escape past medical diagnoses, even if those diagnoses are wrong. We will all be forced to drag our medical baggage with us throughout our entire lives. People should be screaming about this issue, but I'm sure it will breeze through without opposition.
runamok wrote: It hasn't quite gone back to prescription status but Sudafed and anything else containing Pseudoephedrine (Meth ingredient) has been heavily regulated and there is talk of returning it to prescription status. Collateral damage attributable to the drug war. |
|
|
libertarian99
Enthusiastic Smoker
Joined: May 01, 2009
Posts: 453
|
| |
Back to top |
| |
|
by wizard
on Mon Nov 30, 2009 1:35 pm |
|
| Did you ever notice they never pick on alcahol for heavy taxes that is a health risk also,the reason they dont tax it heavily like tobacco is ALL THE LAWMAKERS ARE LUSHES and that would not set well with them. |
|
|
wizard
Newbie
Joined: Nov 12, 2009
Posts: 2
|
| |
Back to top |
| |
|
by garhkal
on Mon Nov 30, 2009 6:01 pm |
|
| And what gets me is the amt of lawyers and politicans who smoke stogies.. |
|
|
garhkal
Enthusiastic Smoker
Joined: Apr 24, 2009
Posts: 278
|
| |
Back to top |
| |
|
by jeffhendricks
on Wed Jan 06, 2010 10:07 pm |
|
| They need to just legalize marijuana and get it over with already! |
|
|
jeffhendricks
Guest
|
| |
Back to top |
| |
|
by smallbird
on Sat Jan 09, 2010 11:52 pm |
|
| We allow "guests" to post here now? Hmmm! |
|
|
smallbird
Enthusiastic Smoker
Joined: Jan 03, 2007
Posts: 362
|
| |
Back to top |
| |
|
by runamok
on Mon Feb 01, 2010 6:39 pm |
|
Here it comes.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2010-02-01-decongestant_N.htm
Key snip:
New ordinances in some Missouri communities and legislation pending in several states would require consumers to get a prescription to buy cold and allergy pills containing pseudoephedrine, such as Sudafed and Claritin-D.
Don't think for a minute that they wouldn't do the same for nicotine replacement products if and when the insurance companies begin testing for it so they can shake down the smokers. |
|
|
runamok
Smoking Lobby Sponsor
Joined: Dec 20, 2004
Posts: 1288
|
| |
Back to top |
| |
|
by libertarian99
on Mon Feb 01, 2010 10:17 pm |
|
runamok wrote: Here it comes.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2010-02-01-decongestant_N.htm
Key snip:
New ordinances in some Missouri communities and legislation pending in several states would require consumers to get a prescription to buy cold and allergy pills containing pseudoephedrine, such as Sudafed and Claritin-D.
Don't think for a minute that they wouldn't do the same for nicotine replacement products if and when the insurance companies begin testing for it so they can shake down the smokers. |
|
|
libertarian99
Enthusiastic Smoker
Joined: May 01, 2009
Posts: 453
|
| |
Back to top |
| |
|
by gilster
on Tue Feb 02, 2010 7:15 am |
|
libertarian99 wrote:
Legislators have been trying to restrict access to cold remedies for a long time because people use them to make methamphetamines. Nicotine isn't used to manufacture meth, is it? I don't think it's used to manufacture any type of illegal drug.
That's not the point, the point is incremental regulation/restriction.
(Isn't that why we are all here?)
You can't separate regulation anymore and say one is good and one is bad - all regulation is restrictive. Some people won't care and others will be affected - in the long run - people pay for regulation - all people.
It would be great to be able to tag a regulation as needed or not but the problem is...who decides what's good or bad. The 'keepers' of regulation make the decisions - for the most part there are no checks and balances in the decision except for their own.
Regular Cold medicine was just that---regular stupid cold medicine
Now it's not
Regular Nicotine replacement was just that----regular stupid nic replacement
In the future? who knows
If it happens to cold medicine - it can happen to anything.
It doesn't take potential Meth abuse to get a regulation/restriction passed |
|
|
gilster
Smoking Lobby Sponsor
Joined: Apr 19, 2006
Posts: 1213
|
| |
Back to top |
| |
|
by runamok
on Tue Feb 02, 2010 12:44 pm |
|
Just for argument's sake, let's say Obamacare goes through and it stipulates that smokers will be charged an extra 50% on their premiums (which it does). Do you think they are going to trust that all the smokers will fess up? I doubt it. The only alternative is to test.
As I understand it, users of non-prescription NRT products would test positive as a smoker, even though they don't smoke. I, and millions of others, would simply plead 'non-prescription NRT user' and get the lower rate.
When stats based on all this start accumulating and it shows that only, say, 4% of the population smokes but 25% are using non-prescription NRT products, the red flags are going to fly and action will have to be taken.
What do you think their solution would be? |
|
|
runamok
Smoking Lobby Sponsor
Joined: Dec 20, 2004
Posts: 1288
|
| |
Back to top |
| |
|
|
