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

[Mayzoo]

I can easily see higher premiums happening for those who do not vaccinate. Almost all if not all choices have financial consequences.

 

[renniks]

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?

Smoking isn't comparable. You are talking a tiny percentage of danger if that, compared to almost guaranteed health problems from tobacco.

 

[2BeholdHisGlory]

Increased risk = increased cost.

Yes is a no brainer IMO.

Medical malpractice has a substance cause of death in upwards of 250,000 -400,000 a year we should see substantial rebates.

 

[jayem]

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?

Even with Covid related furloughs, about half of the working-age population still gets health coverage through employer group insurance plans. ACA allows a tobacco surcharge to be added to an employee's portion of the premium. But only if the employer provides a tobacco cessation program, and the employee refuses to join. The link is to a 2016 European study which found a program combining group counseling, education, and varenicline (Chantix) had a success rate of 45% at one year. Which isn't bad. (The anti-depressant bupropion (Wellbutrin) is also approved for smoking cessation, But in studies, it's less effective.) But the most important factor was if the smoker completed the entire program. And obviously, programs like this are expensive, and prohibitively so for small employers. All of which means that most tobacco users who have employer-provided health insurance are not subject to higher premium contribution.

Success rates are correlated mainly to completion of a smoking cessation program

I was the occupational health provider for the local facility of a large Fortune 500 manufacturing company. We had about 11,000 employees. When Chantix was released, the company was offering it free to employees, along with smoking cessation counseling. In my 8 years there, maybe 5 employees took advantage of it. And I never got any followup of how they did. There's anecdotal evidence that e-cigs delivering nicotine may also be helpful. Long term, controlled studies would be informative.

Edited to add: Not to get off-topic, but this is an example of where single-payer health coverage would have a theoretical advantage. Let's say everyone in a state pays into a health insurance fund. Each person's premium is not based on health status. But the state could levy an excise tax on tobacco products (and maybe alcohol, too.) The proceeds of which go to supplement the insurance fund. It would be a sort of user fee. And a fee could be charged on persons refusing to get Covid immunization. Yeah, I know this immediately raises issues of government overreach, and questions of doing the same for foods high in sodium, trans-saturated fats, and refined sugars like HFCS. And participation in higher-risk sports. All I can say is we should all use common-sense.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

I disagree, because I think herd immunity is an unnecessary goal in this case. My thinking is that we can all choose for ourselves and call that good.

...If it's a money issue, regarding insurance rates, then that's over my head...

Correct, I'm referring to the economic impact, not the herd immunity impact.

At this point, the consensus seems to be that being vaccinated offers pretty robust protection (even if you're among some people who aren't).

However, if I'm in a group health plan at work, with 100 people, and 50 of them decide to refuse the vaccine, and as a result a subset of them contract covid, and some require hospitalization, and some develop the chronic symptoms of "long-covid", the group plan would need to funded at higher levels in order to maintain the reserve ratios required by law...which means that premium increases would need to occur.

Obviously, a group (that's collectively) racking up an amount that would equate to ~$300/month per person, would become financially non-viable if each group member was only paying in $200/month.

In most cases, that risk associated to the higher-risk people is distributed among the pool to keep a "healthy pool", meaning "we know we have this 65 year old with a heart condition that will be incurring elevated medical costs, but we also have these ten people in their 20's that are healthy and rarely use the services"

However, for particularly high-risk decisions, like smoking, that cost directly gets passed onto the person who's engaging in the activity, and not everyone else in the pool.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Smoking isn't comparable. You are talking a tiny percentage of danger if that, compared to almost guaranteed health problems from tobacco.

In terms of the numbers, the two aren't that far apart.

For the past 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)

And the level of burden via hospitalizations is pretty close as well...it's just that health issues from smoking are more spread-out over a lifetime vs. covid where the costs are incurred pretty quickly.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Medical malpractice has a substance cause of death in upwards of 250,000 -400,000 a year we should see substantial rebates.

That's already covered, physicians and hospitals carry malpractice insurance specifically for that purpose.

If you want to treat vaccine refusal the same way we treat malpractice (make vaccine refusers carry a special insurance to cover costs), then I'm open to that.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Wow, you sure took that and ran with it, didn't you?

Let's try this again - If the goal of "controlling everyone" is ultimately to "kill everyone", then "killing everyone" and "controlling everyone" are not, as you asserted, "mutually exclusive."

Not sure how that translates to to a rich guy killing off the non-rich who cleaned his bathroom, grew his crops, and "etc."

My point was that if the goal is controlling people, killing everyone seems counterproductive as there would be nobody left to control.

...and like I asked, what's to gain from some group of "illuminati elites" trying to kill everyone?

So, if by the conspiracy theory, the goal is to control them, then kill them...then what?

It's just a big planet with only Bill Gates and Jeff Bezos left playing ping pong with each other?

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Your critical thinking skills are on display

Let's look at the order of the conversation here...

You: "They want your money to kill their own children"
Me: "Who's 'they'?"
You: "Which party does not support abortion then you should have your answer."
Me: "Republicans don't support abortion, so they're the ones who are trying to kill everyone's children?"

You said "which party does not support abortion then you should have your answer"...the answer to that question would be republicans, yes? they don't support abortion rights, democrats do.

Do you know how to use Google?

Of course...

But what you were saying made no sense.

I asked
"...and what evidence is there that "they" are trying to make deadly diseases spread more easily?"

...and you responded by simply listing a type of research that aimed at doing the opposite.


That'd be like if you were espousing a theory that there was some covert group trying to intentionally give everyone food poisoning on purpose, and when prompted for why you believe that, giving the answer of "to research how to make burgers safer"...

That's not an answer to the question, that's just a conspiracy assertion suggesting that they're artificially disseminating a virus just for the purposes of trying to figure out how to cure it.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

"Gain of function virus research" doesn't mean anything.

Eh...

It may be a valid response if one was asking a different question...

I asked them the question
"...and what evidence is there that "they" are trying to make deadly diseases spread more easily?"

They responded to that with
"Gain of function virus research"

That's a meaningless answer...

The fact that a type of research exists isn't providing any evidence for anything nor is it establishing any sort of nefarious motive.

By that standard, the fact that food safety research exists would support a conspiracy theory that "the powers that be" are trying to intentionally give everyone food poisoning, just so they could research food poisoning cures.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

It'll never cease to amaze me how 4 American deaths in Benghazi caused the right to gnash their teeth and beat their chests for literally years, yet to the exact same group of people nearly 600,000 dead Americans just gets brushed off as 'It's just a tiny percentage, who cares' .

Yep, many of the arguments the far-right make with regards to covid (and their staunch opposition to preventative and mitigation measures) fly in the face of their normal stances - with regards to risks and externalities - on a myriad of other issues.

They'll say "mask mandates are a violation of my rights, the government has no right to tell me I have to cover a particular part of my body with a piece of cloth"...ask them about their position on "womens' topless rights advocates", and it's almost certain they'll have a polar opposite stance.

They'll say "I shouldn't be restricted from where I can go, even if it puts other at risk, because we all have to take risks and if someone else doesn't like it, they can just stay home"... if we were to flip that and say "okay, then a trans person can use the bathroom of their choice, if someone else is uncomfortable with that or afraid, then they can just stay out of the bathroom", they'd be livid.

They'll praise Ron DeSantis for banning vaccine passports on the grounds that "a person's medical history is private, and under no circumstances should any institution make them have to divulge that"... use that logic with regards to saying that nobody should be able to force anyone else to take, or divulge the results of a drug test, or say that no person should have to divulge what their gender was at birth (that is medical history after all) in order to play sports...and watch the 180.

 

[Fantine]

Are there any videos on overwhelmed hospitals?

Not on Fox News, I guess

In April, refrigerator trucks were lined up in Elmhurst, NY to hold the bodies of the deceased because funeral homes couldn't handle them. Some of those bodies haven't been buried as the city has looked for family members. At some point they will be buried in a potters' field, but not until attempts to find family have been exhausted.

In Texas as well hospitals were overwhelmed, according to reports from legitimate media sources. Sometimes COVID patients had to be place in hospitals hours away, away from family and emotional support.

But the OP was about higher premiums for anti-vaxxers. I'm kind of undecided, because there are lots of lifestyle factors that don't affect premiums.

The last few years my husband worked his company's insurance required annual exams and lifestyle goals...if your A1C was too high (diabetes) they would require "some" improvement or you'd pay higher premiums. It might not get under 7, but if it were 10, it would have to move in the right direction. Same for weight. Maybe you couldn't lose 30 pounds, but they'd expect at least 5 or 10...

In an established system like that, the insurance should absolutely have a penalty for refusing vaccines--because they have a long list of expectations.

And let's face it--it's an awful lot easier to get a little shot or two than to be required to lose 30 pounds...or stop smoking...

The shot takes 10 seconds, the other two require a long-term concerted effort.

 

[Ana the Ist]

It may be a valid response if one was asking a different question...

I asked them the question
"...and what evidence is there that "they" are trying to make deadly diseases spread more easily?"

They responded to that with
"Gain of function virus research"

That's a meaningless answer...

The fact that a type of research exists isn't providing any evidence for anything nor is it establishing any sort of nefarious motive.

By that standard, the fact that food safety research exists would support a conspiracy theory that "the powers that be" are trying to intentionally give everyone food poisoning, just so they could research food poisoning cures.

I read an article about a Rutgers professor who is supposedly an expert on this stuff claiming Fauci lied in his Senate testimony regarding gain of function research in Wuhan.

I can probably find the article if you want. You're right that the existence of such research doesn't mean any nefarious activity is happening.

I also respect your reasonable nature in regards to posting....so if you're interested, I could probably steelman his argument just for fun.

 

[KCfromNC]

We're all going to have our final hospitalization episode at some point, so I don't see how there's any added monetary burden involved...

Because people who avoid getting the covid vaccine are statistically more likely to be hospitalized for non-terminal cases of covid than vaccinated people.

 

[KCfromNC]

How is that misusing the stats?

For one, it is conflating the chance of dying with how much it costs to treat a disease.

 

[whatbogsends]

They should collect data between populations of vaccinated and unvaccinated people, and if the data supports a high cost of health care for unvaccinated people, then they can raise premiums accordingly.

You're making the assumption that this will be the case, and, if we're only talking about Covid-specific costs, you're almost certainly correct. Let's see how side effects play out over time (you know, with actual data), and what other potential costs come on the other side of the equation before raising premiums based on a theory.

 

[Rachel20]

The government set up a special compensation program in order to not de-incentivize vaccine makers.

They had to because if every drug company was trying to fight an expensive legal battle every time a parent insisted "the vaccine caused XYZ", nobody would make them anymore.

It appears OSHA has issued some clarifications stating if an employer mandates the vaccine, and the employee suffers injury or death as a result, it'll be deemed "work-related", which means the employer may be liable.

 

[Mayzoo]

Imagine the resistance that would be occurring if this were not the Trump "facilitated" vaccine.

 

[DerSchweik]

For one, it is conflating the chance of dying with how much it costs to treat a disease.

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.

 

[GreekOrthodox]

They had a HUGE amount of videos of dancing nurses online and I did see one truck video on the outside but I couldnt tell if it was propaganda or not. I mean they had nurses dancing with fake bodies in one video, you had choregraphed videos being pumped out all over the internet from inside hospitals during a supposed deadly pandemic and they just seemed to have time to put so many together. I couldnt tell much by a truck outside, Chinas state media did the same, and people die every day and are reloated so hard to say. Could have been propanganda. I dont know what you would call all those dancing nurses videos, they seemed to show nothing more then some dance shows being put on.

I've been in IT healthcare in acute care for 10 years. I assure you that you have no idea what clinicians are able to do and that they need to find ways to blow off steam. We have a pharmacist who is a concert pianist and puts on concerts in our lobby once a month. Do you think we simply live in the hospital 24/7?