• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Is it time to weaponize insurance companies against anti-vaxxers?

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
pete6032 said:
I don't think insurance companies should be able to pick and choose which conditions they are willing to treat, although that is how our health care system is set up today to some extent already. Allowing them to discriminate on vaccination status is basically allowing the insurance companies to make normative health decisions for customers. My concern is if we allow them to deny coverage because you haven't had the COVID vaccine, what would stop them from denying coverage to someone who is gay, someone who has genetic risk factors for chronic disease, etc.

To be frank, the guy in the video is a complete dolt and I wish he had to pay out of picket for his stupidity. But allowing insurance companies to deny coverage because you didn't get the vaccine isn't the right way to get more people vaccinated.
Click to expand...
There is no discrimination!! You like to throw around words that you don`t understand! How is that discrimination?? If you don`t have your vaccine we will not treat you....plain and simple! Why make others pay for somebodyd own stupidity in not getting vaccinated?
 
pete6032 said:
Yes, and that's where the slippery slope comes in. Allowing them to discriminate based on vaccination status seems reasonable but the concern is that by allowing insurers to discriminate based on vaccination status you are giving them license to discriminate based on any behavior the insurer deems harmful to its bottom line.

There are no simple answers to this question of course.
Click to expand...
Insurers already deny coverage for a myriad of reasons...
 
Allowing insurance companies to deny payments for covid related expense to the unvaccinated won't encourage them to get vaccinated. If the unvaccinated thought they had a real chance of hospitalization or death, then they would be vaccinated. The unvaccinated think covid is a hoax, or they won't catch covid and if they do catch covid, it will be just like the flu. The unvaccinated think the vaccine is a greater risk to their health than covid. Hospitalization and death from covid doesn't factor in for the unvaccinated, so paying for these costs don't factor in either. Additionally I don't want the insurance companies to have any more excuses to deny payment than they already have.

If you want to "weaponize" the insurance companies, you do it on premium side. Allow the insurance companies to ask for vaccination status and price discriminate based on vaccination status, just like smoking. Just 1% of the unvaccinated ending up with a $100K ICU visit this year would translate into roughly a $100/month extra in premiums for unvaccinated. Staring at $100+/month in cost would make the unvaccinated think twice about their stupid choice.
 
dank69 said:
Should insurance companies start denying coverage for COVID-related health issues in unvaccinated people above age 12? I mean, look at this piece of work:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1418210466656972808

Think he'd sing a bit of a different tune if he had to pay out of pocket? Well okay, maybe it wouldn't help this particular imbecile, but I bet it would work for many.
Click to expand...
People will just bankrupt out of it.

Insurance companies should require premium adders for these morons.

Or we should just send the unvaxxed to a warehouse, if they make it they make it, if not well Darwin got his.
 
I like this idea, but I wondered in an earlier thread whether this would be possible under Obamacare coverage rules for private insurers.

Imagine if the government could deny Medicare/Medicaid coverage for COVID-related costs for the unvaxxed. Never gonna happen though.
 
simpletron said:
Allowing insurance companies to deny payments for covid related expense to the unvaccinated won't encourage them to get vaccinated. If the unvaccinated thought they had a real chance of hospitalization or death, then they would be vaccinated. The unvaccinated think covid is a hoax, or they won't catch covid and if they do catch covid, it will be just like the flu. The unvaccinated think the vaccine is a greater risk to their health than covid. Hospitalization and death from covid doesn't factor in for the unvaccinated, so paying for these costs don't factor in either. Additionally I don't want the insurance companies to have any more excuses to deny payment than they already have.

If you want to "weaponize" the insurance companies, you do it on premium side. Allow the insurance companies to ask for vaccination status and price discriminate based on vaccination status, just like smoking. Just 1% of the unvaccinated ending up with a $100K ICU visit this year would translate into roughly a $100/month extra in premiums for unvaccinated. Staring at $100+/month in cost would make the unvaccinated think twice about their stupid choice.
Click to expand...
Basically my exact thoughts.
 
UNCjigga said:
I like this idea, but I wondered in an earlier thread whether this would be possible under Obamacare coverage rules for private insurers.

Imagine if the government could deny Medicare/Medicaid coverage for COVID-related costs for the unvaxxed. Never gonna happen though.
Click to expand...
Biden should immediately announce that no facility can qualify for Medicare or Medicaid payment unless they have a vaccine rate over 95% of their staff.
 
JEDIYoda said:
There is no discrimination!! You like to throw around words that you don`t understand! How is that discrimination?? If you don`t have your vaccine we will not treat you....plain and simple! Why make others pay for somebodyd own stupidity in not getting vaccinated?
Click to expand...
Do you think before you post or do you just gaslight anyone you disagree with?
 
Should tobacco users be treated the same way? Why not? The health risks have been established since at least the early 60s.
 
Thump553 said:
Should tobacco users be treated the same way? Why not? The health risks have been established since at least the early 60s.
Click to expand...
dank69 said:
Yeah most if not all insurance providers charge a lot extra for tobacco users.
Click to expand...
Besides health and life insurance rates, it can also affect car insurance, homeowner/renter's insurance, etc. It's extra risk created just by the physical act, such as starting fires, etc.

So, yes.
 
pmv said:
I don't know about slippery slope arguments. You accept one slippery slope argument and then you have to accept more-and-more of them, and eventually you are accepting arguments like 'legalizing sex outside marriage leads to legalising bestiality'.
Click to expand...
They are almost always strawmen.
 
I am all in favor of the unvaccinated having to pay for their own treatment with no public or insurance help. I'm also all in favor of insurance companies not paying for illnesses, cancers, obesity etc. from alcohol or tobacco use et. al.. If these same people were not being covered by Medicare, Medicaid, and private insurers we could all have affordable health care. But where do you draw the line. Lots of health problems are directly related to lifestyle and you can't force everyone to live a healthy life. The line here is that the unvaccinated are endangering others' lives and these other lifestyle choices are only affecting themselves. So I have no sympathy for the unvaccinated who get sick and could even care less if they are made comfortable while they pass away. And if they kill someone by passing along Covid they should just go to hell.
 
pete6032 said:
I don't think insurance companies should be able to pick and choose which conditions they are willing to treat, although that is how our health care system is set up today to some extent already. Allowing them to discriminate on vaccination status is basically allowing the insurance companies to make normative health decisions for customers. My concern is if we allow them to deny coverage because you haven't had the COVID vaccine, what would stop them from denying coverage to someone who is gay, someone who has genetic risk factors for chronic disease, etc.

To be frank, the guy in the video is a complete dolt and I wish he had to pay out of picket for his stupidity. But allowing insurance companies to deny coverage because you didn't get the vaccine isn't the right way to get more people vaccinated.
Click to expand...

You make it sound like health ins. always pays for any treatment, etc.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but ins cos have been denying care for as long as there’s been health ins.

Denial of coverage for pre-existing conditions, pre-authorization prior to admission in hospital…just a couple of ways care is denied. “Experimental” care, like bone marrow transplants.

Of course, it’s all in the name of profit, not appropriate health care for the consumer.
 
Ajay said:
On topic, I think there are many restrictions that can reasonably be put in place as an incentive/protection. Allowing insurance companies to restrict care to the unvaccinated would be inhumane in the extreme.
Click to expand...
They will get care, with a huge bill.
 
JEDIYoda said:
NO! It is not a slippery slope argument! That is something Tucker Carlson would claim.....
Click to expand...
I think it is a slippery slope. Just remember, the insurance companies will us any excuse they can come up with to deny coverage. What if they denied coverage for lung cancer for smokers. What about making coverage for diabetes dependent on documenting that you are following a proper diet and exercise plan? As strongly as I believe people should be vaccinated for Covid, (and employers and schools should require it after the vaccine is formally approved), it is a very dangerous precedent to base health care availability on pre requisites.
 
ondma said:
I think it is a slippery slope. Just remember, the insurance companies will us any excuse they can come up with to deny coverage. What if they denied coverage for lung cancer for smokers. What about making coverage for diabetes dependent on documenting that you are following a proper diet and exercise plan? As strongly as I believe people should be vaccinated for Covid, (and employers and schools should require it after the vaccine is formally approved), it is a very dangerous precedent to base health care availability on pre requisites.
Click to expand...
As already mentioned, they already do deny coverage for a multitude of reasons. The idea that this one more reason will suddenly mean they add a bunch more is not logical.
 
ondma said:
I think it is a slippery slope. Just remember, the insurance companies will us any excuse they can come up with to deny coverage. What if they denied coverage for lung cancer for smokers. What about making coverage for diabetes dependent on documenting that you are following a proper diet and exercise plan? As strongly as I believe people should be vaccinated for Covid, (and employers and schools should require it after the vaccine is formally approved), it is a very dangerous precedent to base health care availability on pre requisites.
Click to expand...
You must not have read my post, or you would realize that some of this is already EXACTLY what happens. 🙄
 
And this so-called "slippery slope" was one thing Obamacare/ACA addressed. Too bad conservatives know better.......LOL!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top