HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » It's time for insurance c...

Sun Jul 19, 2020, 12:43 PM

It's time for insurance companies- BC/ BS etc to charge higher rates

for folks that refuse to wear a mask.

We are super careful- we wear masks, stay home, use hand sanitizer--- why should smokers pay higher rates, but not anti-maskers?

15 replies, 1250 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 15 replies Author Time Post
Reply It's time for insurance companies- BC/ BS etc to charge higher rates (Original post)
essme Jul 2020 OP
customerserviceguy Jul 2020 #1
essme Jul 2020 #2
customerserviceguy Jul 2020 #4
Voltaire2 Jul 2020 #3
customerserviceguy Jul 2020 #5
ProfessorGAC Jul 2020 #13
essme Jul 2020 #6
Voltaire2 Jul 2020 #8
demmiblue Jul 2020 #7
fescuerescue Jul 2020 #9
durablend Jul 2020 #12
MichMan Jul 2020 #10
essme Jul 2020 #11
MichMan Jul 2020 #14
essme Jul 2020 #15

Response to essme (Original post)

Sun Jul 19, 2020, 12:48 PM

1. In theory

that makes sense, but how would it be enforced? How would they spy on people to figure out compliance?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to customerserviceguy (Reply #1)

Sun Jul 19, 2020, 12:52 PM

2. Well, the anti maskers seem pretty proud of themselves

I think it's time to explore this.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to essme (Reply #2)

Sun Jul 19, 2020, 12:54 PM

4. So

Identifications will be made from photographs taken during protests? You ready for that tactic to be used against us, too?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to essme (Original post)

Sun Jul 19, 2020, 12:53 PM

3. its a terrible idea.

Insurance companies of course would love to hike rates based on a huge variety of risk factors, and ideally they would prefer to not cover anyone who might get sick anytime soon and remove coverage for anyone who does get sick.

So no thanks. I understand the motivation, but it's the wrong approach.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Voltaire2 (Reply #3)

Sun Jul 19, 2020, 12:58 PM

5. Agreed

Insurance companies are already doing pretty well during the pandemic, the so-called "elective" procedures that hospitals thrive on are not taking place, so the health insurers are not paying for them. We're not talking about nose jobs or tummy tucks here, we're talking about things like surgical procedures to remove cancer, etc.

Let the consequences of going maskless be their own punishment for pigheadedness.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to customerserviceguy (Reply #5)

Sun Jul 19, 2020, 03:41 PM

13. UHC Posted A $7 Billion Profit...

...in the 2nd quarter.
You said the cessation of elective procedures was good for them
You weren't kidding!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Voltaire2 (Reply #3)

Sun Jul 19, 2020, 01:03 PM

6. oh, don't get me wrong--- I am all for single payer

That said, we don't have it yet. So why should I pay for people that deliberately put themselves at risk?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to essme (Reply #6)

Sun Jul 19, 2020, 01:07 PM

8. because we are the compassionate people

and we try not to punish idiots for being idiots.

But more to the point any legislation that opened up risk rating would instantly become a cash cow manure heap for the Health Industry Complex.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Voltaire2 (Reply #3)

Sun Jul 19, 2020, 01:04 PM

7. +1

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to essme (Original post)

Sun Jul 19, 2020, 01:54 PM

9. They would probably just go ahead and raise rates on wearers and non-wearers

Giving the non-wearers and extra bump, and wearers like you a smaller increase.

Why? #1 it's an excuse to raise rates. and #2, they would have to to fund all the expenses of hiring an army of people to track this.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fescuerescue (Reply #9)

Sun Jul 19, 2020, 03:40 PM

12. You forgot #3

"You're out there...in public...risk of being infected, mask or no mask. You think we're paying for that?"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to essme (Original post)

Sun Jul 19, 2020, 02:27 PM

10. Do people that have more hazardous occupations pay more?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MichMan (Reply #10)

Sun Jul 19, 2020, 03:38 PM

11. they already do. Next.

nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to essme (Reply #11)

Sun Jul 19, 2020, 03:50 PM

14. Didnt know that health care & grocery store employees were charged extra ,

since they have higher risks of catching the virus than other occupations.

I didnt realize that was already being done. I would have thought they would have been pooled with a number of people across all occupations.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MichMan (Reply #14)

Sun Jul 19, 2020, 04:27 PM

15. Sorry, I thought you were discussing insurance policies that are in place

Dr's, nurses, paramedics, etc. already have to carry umbrella policies.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread