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

High risk premiums for those who willfully refuse? Yes or No?

  • Yes

    Votes: 21 56.8%
  • No

    Votes: 16 43.2%

  • Total voters
    37
  • Poll closed .

trunks2k

Contributor
Jan 26, 2004
11,369
3,520
41
✟270,241.00
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
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.

It totally depends on your employer and health insurance. With some insurers you pay x% of the bill up to Y dollars, after which type insurance pays 100%. That Y dollars is on an annual basis, so every year, it resets.

For our insurance, which is excellent, my wife pays a couple hundred dollars a month out of her paycheck for coverage. Her employer pays an additional several hundred dollars. While some employers may pay 100% of that monthly premium, they are few and far between (usually union jobs).

We pay nothing at all out of pocket minus negligible copays provided we use a certain health system. That health system is very large and excellent so it's great. If using other health systems, the coverage is still well above average.

We paid maybe $100 total out of pocket for the birth of our two kids, which included fertility treatment to have the first one. Most people get bills at least ten times higher per kid for that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Landon Caeli
Upvote 0

Landon Caeli

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jan 8, 2016
15,455
5,824
46
CA
✟561,158.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
It totally depends on your employer and health insurance. With some insurers you pay x% of the bill up to Y dollars, after which type insurance pays 100%. That Y dollars is on an annual basis, so every year, it resets.

For our insurance, which is excellent, my wife pays a couple hundred dollars a month out of her paycheck for coverage. Her employer pays an additional several hundred dollars. While some employers may pay 100% of that monthly premium, they are few and far between (usually union jobs).

We pay nothing at all out of pocket minus negligible copays provided we use a certain health system. That health system is very large and excellent so it's great. If using other health systems, the coverage is still well above average.

We paid maybe $100 total out of pocket for the birth of our two kids, which included fertility treatment to have the first one. Most people get bills at least ten times higher per kid for that.

I think mine's pretty good too. I get a credit card that I can use to buy over the counter or prescription drugs.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

ThatRobGuy

Part of the IT crowd
Supporter
Sep 4, 2005
24,642
14,525
Here
✟1,196,039.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
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.)

I don't think it's ignorance, I think it's full-blown stupidity.

Ignorance is simply the lack of knowledge or information.

Stupidity is when one either A) has the information readily available and makes the choice to not factor it in to their decision making process, or B) does everything in their power to guard their ignorance. (either through confirmation bias, or entertaining some sort of conspiracy about why the facts aren't the "real facts")


For instance, a person in the 1800s who decided to start smoking was simply ignorant. A person who decided to start smoking in 2005 would be stupid.


In that particular realm, that's where I see the internet being a blessing and a curse.

On one hand, we all have access to information easier than ever before. If one wants to look up data on any given topic, it's at their finger tips.

On the other hand, it's also a treasure trove of confirmation bias no matter how wacky the theory is. You could think of the craziest theory you can imagine, search for it, and you're bound to find at least a couple hundred links supporting that theory.

That's how you end up with people saying "i dID tHe ReSEarCh!...and <insert nonsense here>".

With so much true and false information out there on the internet, you can have people conflating quantity and quality. A person could literally spend months and months on end reading links that came back in a search for "moon landing was faked", and then boast to everyone else "I've done hundreds of hours of research on this topic..."
 
  • Informative
Reactions: gaara4158
Upvote 0

TLK Valentine

I've already read the books you want burned.
Apr 15, 2012
64,493
30,319
Behind the 8-ball, but ahead of the curve.
✟541,512.00
Country
United States
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
I don't think it's ignorance, I think it's full-blown stupidity.

...with an occasional dash of hypocrisy.

I had to take a moment to reflect when someone I was speaking to -- who in the past had railed incessantly against illegal immigration -- said she was considering buying a forged vaccination card so she could go traveling abroad this summer.
 
Upvote 0

Trogdor the Burninator

Senior Veteran
Oct 19, 2004
6,023
2,546
✟228,059.00
Faith
Christian
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?

Well, if you had a government medicare system (a.k.a socialised medicine) there wouldn't be any difference in what people pay. There certainly isn't here.
 
Upvote 0

atpollard

Well-Known Member
Jun 18, 2017
1,792
857
62
Florida
✟116,285.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Well, if you had a government medicare system (a.k.a socialised medicine) there wouldn't be any difference in what people pay. There certainly isn't here.
All care is rationed in some manner. So changing the current system would come with some benefits and some costs.
The problem is a general unwillingness to even have an honest discussion on what the real benefits and what the real costs would be. So Obamacare promised the moon ... and went bankrupt. The “Defund Obamacare” alternative promised savings and ignored the human costs. Anyone that offers a plan to change the status quo is a monster attempting to either kill people or destroy hospitals.

Meanwhile the BUSINESS of Healthcare posts record profits quarter after quarter and my premiums rise faster than inflation EVERY YEAR.
 
Upvote 0

Pommer

CoPacEtiC SkEpTic
Sep 13, 2008
16,347
10,241
Earth
✟137,487.00
Country
United States
Faith
Deist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Democrat
All care is rationed in some manner. So changing the current system would come with some benefits and some costs.
The problem is a general unwillingness to even have an honest discussion on what the real benefits and what the real costs would be.

Good post so far!

Oops, hello USS Partisanship!
So Obamacare promised the moon ... and went bankrupt. The “Defund Obamacare” alternative promised savings and ignored the human costs. Anyone that offers a plan to change the status quo is a monster attempting to either kill people or destroy hospitals.

Meanwhile the BUSINESS of Healthcare posts record profits quarter after quarter and my premiums rise faster than inflation EVERY YEAR.

Okay, what is your solution?
Or are you content with cursing the darkness?
 
Upvote 0

atpollard

Well-Known Member
Jun 18, 2017
1,792
857
62
Florida
✟116,285.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Oops, hello USS Partisanship!
There is no partisanship in my post.
President Obama DID create an attempted solution that insurance companies withdrew from because costs far exceeded revenue and the system went broke. The funding model failed because the healthy opted out and the sick opted in creating a high need group with government regulated premiums and not enough tax dollars to fund the difference.

When the Republicans took over, they only dismantled Obamacare without offering anything to take its place. So one side failed and the other side quit without trying.

Okay, what is your solution?
Or are you content with cursing the darkness?
As long as there was gridlock, nothing was going to happen because neither side could allow the other side to claim victory and both sides benefited from the crisis as a political football.

THERE IS NO GRIDLOCK!
Whatever I personally think of the Democrat agenda or Nancy Pelozi or President Biden, they have all of the cards in the deck for the next two years. The Republicans had a similar chance and wasted it making sure billionaires got big tax breaks while ignoring Health Care. Now it is the Democrats chance to figure out what failed in Obamacare and fix it.

They should start by examining which State systems work best (Hawaii has universal coverage, I believe) and build a National model from the best of the state models.

If the party in power does nothing, then all of the incumbents need to be replaced with people who will get something done. The solution is for the voters to reject decades of status quo.

And if the Government CANNOT do it, then the Libertarians are correct and we just need to stop funding failure. Go back to it being a local issue.
 
Upvote 0

Pommer

CoPacEtiC SkEpTic
Sep 13, 2008
16,347
10,241
Earth
✟137,487.00
Country
United States
Faith
Deist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Democrat
When the Republicans took over, they only dismantled Obamacare without offering anything to take its place. So one side failed and the other side quit without trying.
No.
Oh, they tried, but John McCain wasn’t going down the Trump train tracks that day.
 
Upvote 0

Pommer

CoPacEtiC SkEpTic
Sep 13, 2008
16,347
10,241
Earth
✟137,487.00
Country
United States
Faith
Deist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Democrat
They should start by examining which State systems work best (Hawaii has universal coverage, I believe) and build a National model from the best of the state models.

If the party in power does nothing, then all of the incumbents need to be replaced with people who will get something done. The solution is for the voters to reject decades of status quo.
The crux of the problem is that money, (not constituents) is the motivating factor for all politicians.
They need money to run their election bids. Then the money calls the shots and Congress is disconnected from what “the people” want and do the bidding of the donor class instead. This only works for about thirty years.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

ThatRobGuy

Part of the IT crowd
Supporter
Sep 4, 2005
24,642
14,525
Here
✟1,196,039.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
...with an occasional dash of hypocrisy.

I had to take a moment to reflect when someone I was speaking to -- who in the past had railed incessantly against illegal immigration -- said she was considering buying a forged vaccination card so she could go traveling abroad this summer.

Yes, the hypocrisy certainly is a factor as well.

...there were many (who were against any and all covid restrictions) who seemingly took a sharp 180 with their reaction to the pandemic compared to their reactions to previous circumstances.

"I'm not going to live in fear by wearing a face covering or distancing during the pandemic, you guys are just paranoid... now if you'll excuse me, I have to go to the gun store and buy 2,000 rounds of ammo, a Democrat just got elected"
 
Upvote 0

atpollard

Well-Known Member
Jun 18, 2017
1,792
857
62
Florida
✟116,285.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
The crux of the problem is that money, (not constituents) is the motivating factor for all politicians.
They need money to run their election bids.
That is OUR fault.
Everyone that ever said we should "throw the bums out" and then voted to re-elect THEIR incumbent.
 
Upvote 0

ThatRobGuy

Part of the IT crowd
Supporter
Sep 4, 2005
24,642
14,525
Here
✟1,196,039.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
The crux of the problem is that money, (not constituents) is the motivating factor for all politicians.
They need money to run their election bids. Then the money calls the shots and Congress is disconnected from what “the people” want and do the bidding of the donor class instead. This only works for about thirty years.

That scenario falls into the classic category of

"Everyone understands the pitfalls surrounding that system, but nobody knows how to fix it"

Obviously, with money injected into the equation, it muddies the waters...but on the flip side, if money were completely removed, then it introduces a whole new set of challenges.


In order for people to learn about candidates, they need to get exposure to them. That type of exposure costs money to facilitate on a national and state level (which makes fundraising somewhat of a 'necessary evil'), however, with that fundraising comes potential conflicts of interest.

So the choices are
A) Be able to learn a lot about candidates (but there's a chance they may opt to please their financial backers instead of you)

B) Minimal issues involving money-corrupting, but having to pick between people you know very little about (if you're not one of the fortunate few who lived in the same area as them or knew them personally)

The latter also all but guarantees that only wealthy people could make a strong bid for office. The Bezos' and Musk's of the world could afford to run their own ad campaigns without taking a dime from everyone else. Most typical people with political aspirations wouldn't have that luxury.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pommer
Upvote 0

rjs330

Well-Known Member
CF Ambassadors
May 22, 2015
22,257
5,975
64
✟333,152.00
Faith
Pentecostal
We are starting to go down the road of, if anyone does somethi g that is more risky in any way then they should pay higher premiums? You eat too many potato chips, or drink too much soda, eat too much red meat or ski, skateboard, ride a bike, or any number of other things that could put you at higher risk or illness or injury should pay higher premiums? Aren't premiums high enough already? What are the odds of a significant medical need?
 
Upvote 0

ArmenianJohn

Politically Liberal Christian Fundamentalist
Jan 30, 2013
8,962
5,550
New Jersey (NYC Metro)
✟205,242.00
Country
United States
Faith
Oriental Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
We are starting to go down the road of, if anyone does somethi g that is more risky in any way then they should pay higher premiums? You eat too many potato chips, or drink too much soda, eat too much red meat or ski, skateboard, ride a bike, or any number of other things that could put you at higher risk or illness or injury should pay higher premiums? Aren't premiums high enough already? What are the odds of a significant medical need?
So you believe we should do away with tobacco surcharges (i.e. the extra insurance costs charged to smokers)?

We have already started down that road and we're on that road right now. If you want to not go down that road you should be against tobacco surcharges - are you?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

ThatRobGuy

Part of the IT crowd
Supporter
Sep 4, 2005
24,642
14,525
Here
✟1,196,039.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
We are starting to go down the road of, if anyone does somethi g that is more risky in any way then they should pay higher premiums? You eat too many potato chips, or drink too much soda, eat too much red meat or ski, skateboard, ride a bike, or any number of other things that could put you at higher risk or illness or injury should pay higher premiums? Aren't premiums high enough already? What are the odds of a significant medical need?

Risk is something that's calculated...everything you do/eat/consume/etc comes with some risk, underwriters and actuaries determine if those risks are significant enough to warrant higher premiums based on how likely, overall, a certain behavior is going to result in more expense, and how quickly those expenses will be incurred.

That's why there are elevated premiums for people who smoke, but not for people who eat some potato chips or cookies every once in a while.

As far as the odds of a significant medical need for Covid in particular...

For last year
Smoking related deaths: 480,000 (out of 34 million smokers)
Covid-related deaths: 585,000 (out of a 33 million people who caught covid)

In terms of hospitalizations between the two...I have to correct my earlier statement where I said they were on-par with each other, because they're not, Covid actually resulted in more hospitalizations over the last 12 months than smoking did.

"there were an estimated 461,295 annual tobacco-related hospitalizations at a cost of $8.2 billion in the U.S."

upload_2021-5-24_19-15-46.png


Granted, the hospitalizations for smoking related ailments are largely in the form of cancer hospitalizations, which likely are more expensive than an average covid-related hospitalization (chemo and radiation treatments aren't cheap)...but none the less, 2.2 million hospitalizations is nothing to sneeze at.

It's moving in the right direction, precisely because more people are getting vaccinated, which is why everyone else shouldn't have to end up paying elevated premiums for something we now know is easily preventable (or effects largely mitigated) with vaccination.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: ArmenianJohn
Upvote 0

loveofourlord

Newbie
Feb 15, 2014
8,118
4,528
✟269,140.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Anyone love the irony of those that hate the idea of universal health care because they will have to pay for all the fat slobs heart attacks, now whine about having to pay higher bills for not taking the vaccine.

BTW that's what I meant before about socialism, the thing people here are wanting is basically universal health care where instead of each person paying for their bills, everyone puts money together so that it's spread out.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: ArmenianJohn
Upvote 0

Pommer

CoPacEtiC SkEpTic
Sep 13, 2008
16,347
10,241
Earth
✟137,487.00
Country
United States
Faith
Deist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Democrat
Anyone love the irony of those that hate the idea of universal health care because they will have to pay for all the fat slobs heart attacks, now whine about having to pay higher bills for not taking the vaccine.
Such are the dangers benefits of Objectivism.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ArmenianJohn
Upvote 0

CRAZY_CAT_WOMAN

My dad died 1/12/2023. I'm still devastated.
Jul 1, 2007
17,258
5,042
Native Land
✟321,432.00
Country
United States
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
That's a decision actuaries would need to make. With all of the conditions that smoking is known to cause or exacerbate, it doesn't seem to me like catching COVID would cost the insurer nearly as much.
COVID-19 leaves lasting damage to lungs. And causes other life long issues. So it will cost more down the road to a lot of people , that had Covid-19. Democrats tries to help lower insurance with people, that have a pre-existing condition. Which COVID-19 is.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: ArmenianJohn
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums