HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Why shouldn't health insu...

Wed Aug 18, 2021, 08:30 PM

Why shouldn't health insurers demand a higher premium

for adults that refuse to be vaccinated. Maybe they are just waiting for full FDA before pulling that trigger... but make no mistake, there will be immediate bills filed by repug neanderthals to prohibit that.

But here's the thing. The whole insurance industry is based on mitigating risk, so those who willfully put themselves at greater risk should face a higher premium IMO. Of course there are certain mitigating conditions that would need to be factored in if those conditions make some unable to have the shot. JMHO

12 replies, 885 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 12 replies Author Time Post
Reply Why shouldn't health insurers demand a higher premium (Original post)
Still Sensible Aug 2021 OP
Pobeka Aug 2021 #1
VarryOn Aug 2021 #2
Ms. Toad Aug 2021 #8
VarryOn Aug 2021 #11
luv2fly Aug 2021 #3
leftstreet Aug 2021 #4
Still Sensible Aug 2021 #6
roamer65 Aug 2021 #5
Thunderbeast Aug 2021 #10
Ms. Toad Aug 2021 #7
Still Sensible Aug 2021 #9
LetMyPeopleVote Aug 2021 #12

Response to Still Sensible (Original post)

Wed Aug 18, 2021, 08:35 PM

1. "The whole insurance industry is based on mitigating risk" -- I disagree.

The industry is based on making a profit.

They can do that with or without separate groups for vaxed/unvaxed.

Ultimately, I wish they would just offer a discount for being vaxed, rather than a premium increase for being unvaxed. This may be a legitimate loophole through the ACA? I am not sure about that at all...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Still Sensible (Original post)

Wed Aug 18, 2021, 08:35 PM

2. My employer requires me to affirm I don't smoke else...

 

I'm subject to a higher premium. Charging unvaccinated seems fair. I'd ding overweight people, too.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to VarryOn (Reply #2)

Wed Aug 18, 2021, 10:39 PM

8. Neither of those are permitted reasons for a surcharge.

Smoking is the only health/behavior-based reason for a surcharge, and the surcharge is capped at 1.5 x the premium for non-smokers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ms. Toad (Reply #8)

Wed Aug 18, 2021, 11:12 PM

11. OK. Thanks. That makes sense....

 

StilI, I would be OK with those who are not taking health seriously being penalized .

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Still Sensible (Original post)

Wed Aug 18, 2021, 08:44 PM

3. Yeah but where does it stop?

I get what you're saying but people engage in all sorts of unsafe behaviors. How does someone decide which ones cost more to be insured and which ones don't?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Still Sensible (Original post)

Wed Aug 18, 2021, 09:01 PM

4. Not everyone has insurance

There are uninsured, Medicare and Medicaid recipients, etc

Singling out premium-payers won't solve the vax problem

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leftstreet (Reply #4)

Wed Aug 18, 2021, 10:28 PM

6. No, it won't solve the problem, but

I would argue that, until recently, the overwhelming financial burden has largely been on Medicare and Medicaid. That is because, early on, COVID was much more deadly to the older population and it seemed disproportionately in non-elderly populations of people that were low income.

Now that the Delta variant is seemingly more contagious and apparently more deadly, I expect the health insurance industry will be asking for relief soon.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Still Sensible (Original post)

Wed Aug 18, 2021, 09:24 PM

5. The cheapest option is to triage them out.

Food, water, cot over in that tent in the parking lot or parking structure.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to roamer65 (Reply #5)

Wed Aug 18, 2021, 11:01 PM

10. If Jeebus (or his spokesman) told them to not vaccinate...

Send them to church. Lay them out on a pew.

Call them the control group.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Still Sensible (Original post)

Wed Aug 18, 2021, 10:38 PM

7. Because the ACA prohibits it.

Does no one remember one of the main premises of the ACA? Insurance companies which were free to set premiums as they deemed fit made anyone with a chronic health condition uninsurable. My daughter, with a condition that has a minimum of $200,000/year in billed expenses, was uninsurable, unable to stay in school full time after she reached the age 18 (a condition to remain on our insurance) and unable to work at a job that provided health insurance, was uninsurable. The ACA is the only way she has access to a means to pay for her health care.

Under the ACA, to avoid making people uninsurable, there are only 5 reasons to vary premiums: smoking, age, geography, single v family, and plan type.

Specific health conditions, or behavior (other than smoking) are not valid bases for charging one person higher premiums than another.

To change that, you would need to amend the ACA - which has been in litigation since it was enacted more than a decade ago. Anyone attempting to amend it to punish people based on health condition will earn my undying wrath.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ms. Toad (Reply #7)

Wed Aug 18, 2021, 10:42 PM

9. Thanks for that. It would seem to me that insurance companies

either need to find a way to incentivize or get some bill moving. Based on the current data, they are about to be overwhelmed by the volume of hospitalizations not otherwise covered by the government.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Still Sensible (Original post)

Thu Aug 19, 2021, 12:54 AM

12. I support this 100%

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread