Should people who willfully refuse the vaccine pay higher health insurance premiums?

[trunks2k]

staff edit

"Empty Hospitals" because hospitals drastically cut outpatient in-person visits and non-critical care while forbidding visitors to patients that were in the hospital and reducing ancillary services (i.e. cafes and such). My wife works for a major hospital. For months and months the hospital was pretty dead if you walked around it, but the ICU was nearly full with covid patients. Life isn't a movie.

And here's the other thing - do you realize how much money they lost? They, and other hospitals in the area had to to hiring freezes, furlough workers, etc. Wife's practice had to move to nearly 100% telemedicine. Telemedicine does not make nearly as much per patient as in person visits. They lost a LOT of money in their practice alone. The hospital also poured a ton of additional money to finish up the construction of a new huge building faster so they would have more ICU beds.

So you're telling me that hospitals, public and private, throughout the country did the same thing and willfully lost all that money to propagate some lie? That's ludicrous. If it wasn't actually a problem, the hospitals would have been screaming it from the rooftops.

 

[KCfromNC]

And yet, I never said anything about the "costs to treat [the] disease."

My employ of the stats was merely to point out the incredibly rare probability of dying from the disease and then drawing what I believe is a very logical conclusion, that the stats do not justify penalizing people who, for whatever their reasons may be, choose not to get vaccinated.

Those costs have nothing to do with treating the disease and everything to do with penalizing the non-compliant. They would be purely punitive, nothing more.

This would be more convincing if you presented data showing somehow that non-vaccinated people would cost less in covid-related health care costs. Instead, you chose to pick unrelated data about death rates. That's why I pointed out the mistake in bringing up such an off topic discussion in this thread.

 

[GreekOrthodox]

"Empty Hospitals" because hospitals drastically cut outpatient in-person visits and non-critical care while forbidding visitors to patients that were in the hospital and reducing ancillary services (i.e. cafes and such). My wife works for a major hospital. For months and months the hospital was pretty dead if you walked around it, but the ICU was nearly full with covid patients. Life isn't a movie.

I'll say walking the hospital halls during the early months of the lockdown was out of a horror movie. Some areas had their lights off except for the nurses station. Fire doors were closed. I was half expecting to turn a corner to see this:

 

[GreekOrthodox]

FYI, when Covid hit, we opened up a new Covid only ward. We hired addition ICU staff to cover that ward and moved the med/surg staff to the existing ICU. Primary care staff were not seeing patients so we moved them to cover the med/surg ward, but even with that, we still had a massive staffing issue of too many primary care staff and too few ICU staff.

2Behold, the issue is that you cannot throw a primary care (outpatient) nurse into an ICU role. Yes they both have nursing licenses BUT, someone that specializes in the ICU has additional training to do acute care. They are dedicated to watching 2-4 patients at most by legal reasons. They watch EVERYTHING and are meticulous about monitoring each patient. A primary care nurse, on the other hand, deals with 8-10 patients per day, who are there to find out about their glucose, or annual check up. VERY different perspective.

As for the videos, the medical community, especially among nurses, is a fairly close knit group and they will do whatever they can to boost morale for each other. They were making them for each other, not for world at large.

 

[hislegacy]

I think at a certain point, it would make sense to consider treating vaccine refusal similarly to how we treat smoking.

In most states, health insurance companies can charge up to 50% more for smokers vs. non-smokers.

And I think it's a win-win...

For months, we've heard the talking point (from those opposed to it) of "don't make me get the vaccine, go ahead and get it if you want, but let me make my own choice about risks and consequences"

I think it's time (now that vaccine supply outpaces the demand, so there's nothing keeping someone from making the choice to protect themselves) we agree to their request, but to require that their proposal has some substance, much like we do for those who want to accept the risks of smoking despite knowing the potential negative outcomes.

It's one thing to say "Let me make my own choices, and I'll deal with the consequences" (and then let everyone else in their insurance pool cover the healthcare costs after getting infected after attending a "Freedom over Fear" party), and it's another thing to for one to "put their money where their mouth is"


Thoughts?

Same with drug users
Same with those who drink alcohol
Same with those who practice sex with multiple partners

How far can we go to regulate peoples actions?

How about those who have been convicted of multiple speeding offenses?

How far should we take the thought?

 

[TLK Valentine]

Same with drug users
Same with those who drink alcohol
Same with those who practice sex with multiple partners

How far can we go to regulate peoples actions?

How about those who have been convicted of multiple speeding offenses?

How far should we take the thought?

You think insurance companies wouldn't do this if it was cost effective to do so? Bless your heart.

 

[hislegacy]

You think insurance companies wouldn't do this if it was cost effective to do so? Bless your heart.

Well bless your heart also - May the God of our Lord Jesus Christ live in you and move through you daily! I love being blessed - thank you. Will be praying for you and your family today.

The issue raised is NOT are insurance companies charging more for unvaccinated people (putting them in a higher risk), but should they?

Well, the logical question is if they should charge more for one high risk category, should they charge for other high risk categories.

 

[Oneiric1975]

Same with drug users
Same with those who drink alcohol
Same with those who practice sex with multiple partners

How far can we go to regulate peoples actions?

How about those who have been convicted of multiple speeding offenses?

How far should we take the thought?

The Right has ZERO credibility with this argument.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Same with drug users
Same with those who drink alcohol
Same with those who practice sex with multiple partners

How far can we go to regulate peoples actions?

How about those who have been convicted of multiple speeding offenses?

How far should we take the thought?

Actually, with regards to speeding, a lot of insurance companies already go with the approach speeding...my brother pays an elevated rate for car insurance specifically because of the number of points on his license as a result of multiple infractions.

Driving impaired already comes with stiff penalties.


The risk ratios (with regards to insurance) are, in part, determined by whether or not the activity
A) involves disproportionate risk of externalities vs. just risk to one's self.
B) if that said risky behavior comes with a statistically large risk of one having to utilize more funds from that insurance pool (with impacts other people)

In the insurance world, "Risk Groups" and/or "Risk Classes" are standard practice
Insurance Risk Class

So this is really nothing out of the ordinary...

Certain risk levels are negligible enough that people don't dinged for it.

Other ones are steep enough that it becomes good underwriting procedure to adjust for it.

 

[hislegacy]

The Right has ZERO credibility with this argument.

And you think the left does?

 

[TLK Valentine]

How would you by given the smith mundt act, was that for independent rerporters or those who are bought and paid for?

You tell us, friend... or you can just answer my question first.

 

[TLK Valentine]

The issue raised is NOT are insurance companies charging more for unvaccinated people (putting them in a higher risk), but should they?

It's a free market. They "should" charge whatever they think they can get away with to make a profit.

Now, "should" health care be a free market in the first place? That's another question...

Well, the logical question is if they should charge more for one high risk category, should they charge for other high risk categories.

Given that they already do for certain high risk categories, they certainly have the right to determine what is one.

Again, in a nation where Healthcare is considered a commodity instead of a right, it boils down to more of a business decision than a moral one.

 

[Fantine]

COVID is not our country's most dangerous epidemic.

We have an epidemic of ignorance. While good education can be a vaccine for the young, I wish we could find some in-service or professional development for those who are already infected.

(This is a general comment not directed at any person or group here. I get overwhelmed with the fallacies and conspiracy theories so prevalent in our country. My incredulity is with the theories and fallacies.)

 

[hislegacy]

I wish we could find some in-service or professional development for those who are already infected.

What is the current recovery rate please.

I am aware of the number of deaths. What is the current recovery rate?

 

[ArmenianJohn]

FWIW,

The total population of the US is 332,690,850
The total number of COVID cases is 33,695,916 - that's 10.13% of the total population
The total number of COVID deaths in the US is 599,863 - that's 0.18% of the total population, and just 1.78% of those who test positive.
Vaccine effectiveness: 95% for the top two, 66% for the third

Source

Frankly, the fact that one's likelihood of dying if they contract COVID, not having been vaccinated, are just 1.78% of all people who contract the virus, and less that 0.2% of the total population as a whole, doesn't exactly strike me as justification for penalizing people for not getting a vaccine that is... at best 95% effective...

Point being... your chances of the vaccine NOT working (5%) are about 25 times greater (5%/0.2%)than if you did... oh, I don't know... nothing.

Way to go, you simply spouted your opinions on covid death rates and didn't address the actual topic presented in the OP.

The OP is asking about healthcare premiums, not death rates. While the vaccines are not 100% effective against getting Covid they are almost 100% (some considered 100%) effective against a bad illness and hospitalization. Those who don't get the vaccine may get Covid and not die but only after costing the rest of us tons through health insurance because they are using medical and healthcare resources to an extreme, simply because they made the choice to refuse the vaccine.

We already charge smokers a premium for their insurance because they make the choice to smoke. We should be doing the same with drinkers. We definitely should be doing this with those who refuse to get the vaccine as they are costing us much more money. It costs way more to keep a non-vaccinated person with Covid on a ventilator for weeks or months in a hospital bed than it does for someone who is vaccinated and gets Covid and recovers at home within a week or so with no special medical attention needed.

And all this doesn't even get into the long-term effects of covid.

 

[durangodawood]

Well the other side wants my money in order to kill Christians, children, widows, the elderly, and the sick. They also want people to get Covid and die so they can go drinking in bars sooner. I'll go with the side that at least wants to fight the disease, they seem to be much more pro-life than the side that wants to see so many die just to serve mammon.

Priorities:
-convenience
-money
-fun

 

[FreeinChrist]

ADVISOR HAT


This thread had a a clean up. Please stick to the topic.​

 

[Oneiric1975]

It's a free market. They "should" charge whatever they think they can get away with to make a profit.

This is why America is the greatest country on earth! We pay, on average, 2X more for healthcare per capita than any other developed nation on earth.

Now, "should" health care be a free market in the first place? That's another question...

Healthcare is currently NOT a free market. For instance, recently I had to get some care but the insurance company claimed they could not tell me how much they would cover for it until after I got the care.

Free markets ONLY exist if everyone knows how much they will pay for a good.

The American system is a giant scam. Not a free market.

Again, in a nation where Healthcare is considered a commodity instead of a right, it boils down to more of a business decision than a moral one.

Yes, We as Americans MUST accept that "life" has a given value (unless it is the life of an unborn fetus at which point that value is INFINITE). Once born we are worth only a small amount of money. Beyond that limit we must accept that death is what we will get if we can't afford the limit.

America: beloved of God (because we care about people) and beloved of Mammon (because we care about $$$$$ more)

 

[loveofourlord]

My only question is *why* would someone want higher insurance premium rates for those who refuse the vaccine? I'm genuinely curious on the thinking behind this.

...I'm just not sure how it effects anyone else's life.

Umm...you do know how insurance works right? Everyone pays into it so that those that get sick will have money. If your unvaccinated, you have a higher chance of having to pay for covid related sicknesses and long term effects. If YOU don't have to pay more, then everyone else does. And we all know that we can't have that because it's socialism.

 

[Landon Caeli]

Umm...you do know how insurance works right? Everyone pays into it so that those that get sick will have money. If your unvaccinated, you have a higher chance of having to pay for covid related sicknesses and long term effects. If YOU don't have to pay more, then everyone else does. And we all know that we can't have that because it's socialism.

We can't have that because it's socialism?
So should everyone with chronic health problems pay more to prevent socialism, or just those "rascals"..?

But honestly, I guess I don't know how health insurance works... I didn't know I had to pay anything, except a small copay, I thought my employer does... I don't think I've ever payed a "premium" on health insurance, I don't even know what that is.