Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
Absent a mandate to have insurance it would be counter productive leaving too many of these free riders (redefined to mean to enjoy the day to day freedoms that the vaccinated have provided) to be actual free riders (those that shift the burden of their health care onto everyone else).
I’ve read this a few times over and still unsure what you’re trying to say.
Would you agree the same could be said of eating right, exercising, and otherwise taking care of yourself (when discussing health insurance premiums)? Would you be ok taking away those pre existing condition protections that the ACA provided?
These are generally $ put into your HSA. Is that what you’re referring to? That’s what my employer does - so much for this or for that, with a cap per year (I can still hit cap without going to doctor or dentist). What I’m asking is strait extra premium, like the 40% tobacco surcharge carriers are currently allowed.
Yes. I think insurance companies should be free to implement whatever pricing scheme they want.
Which is the exact same thing. Really this is just asking if you’re ok with sin taxes in general, or more specifically this one in particular.I am not in favor of charging unvaccinated people higher premiums, but I am in favor of discounts for getting vaccinated.
We get a 15% discount on our premiums if you don’t use tobacco.
You work for a very large company? Generally they get to make up their own rules, and don’t have to comply with ACA. You ok with a 15% discount (or 15% surcharge) depending on vax status. What you’re talking about (as I assume you work for a company that is “self insured”) is a private company setting these pricing rules, not the insurance carrier
If we raise the cost of premiums for those without vaccines there will be more uninsured unvaccinated. Generalizing a bit, but these are the people that think they are young and healthy to not need to worry about Covid or other health issues to begin with. Most will be more or less correct. Those that aren't will be shifting a burden on to the rest of us both for the results of Covid and whatever else they might find wrong health wise. Basically more of them become free riders in a classic sense.
My company is about 1k people. I am pretty dumb about the insurance but we have a good HR dept. We just re-upper our benefits for the year.
We also get a discount if you don't use tobacco. But, just sign up and complete an online smoking cessation class, and you also get the discount.
Ok, makes plenty of sense and I agree. Also, generalizing a bit myself, the unvaxxed tend to be right wing folks who are already against the ACA (Obamacare), so I agree that doing so would lead to more uninsured in the individual market for sure.
Which is exactly what charging an obese person more than a non obese person does. No matter if the base rate is $200 a month and they give you 25% off for getting vaxxed (or having a good BMI) - or if the base rate is $150 and you’re charged 33% more if you aren’t vaxxed (or have a bad BMI). That’s exactly how it worked pre-ACA (in theory of course).
No, being vaxxed or not for whatever you listed (or covid) is a pre-existing condition. Carriers can no longer charge different rates based on a pre-ex, other than tobacco use.
Generally, insurance premiums is based on risk. Get into accidents or get tickets and your auto insurance rate goes up. It also costs more to insure a Porsche than a civic, as the amount at risk is higher. That used to be the way health insurance worked as well, if you have higher risk factors (obesity, high blood pressure, cholesterol, or in my personal case - a plate and screws in my wrist from a sports injury) you were charged more than someone without those conditions (just as I was). The ACA did away with that.
Depends on the sin. Something that can be controlled like vaccination or tobacco status, definitely. I would say yes to weight as well. Incentivize maintaining healthy weight as well as weight loss progress. My company does much of this already and it does reduce the premium rather than an HSA allotment. I have no problem adding COVID vaccination to that.
Got it. But companies can charge whatever they want to, to encourage "healthy" life style? Does it matter if they are self-funded or not?
You have heard this before but just to make a point here that only a subset of health insurance is analogous to auto insurance. That is only a subset is similar to coverage to your car for an accident. Keeping with the auto analogy a compliant health insurance plan would also provide an extended warranty for when parts fail and a service plan for those preventive maintenance things, etc. There also isn't theft components in your health plan and they are all "no fault" plans. (ETA: Maybe going to far with "no fault" where auto or home owners or workers comp enters the picture, but I wasn't meaning to go to that level of complications with this analogy.)
No, they can’t do that - due to the ACA. Self funded (or self insured) groups don’t have to be ACA compliant, though, and can set their own rules. That’s what Delta is doing - that’s a decision of a private company, not of the insurance carrier.
I do it all the time, with life insurance. If you total a civic you might get $20k from insurance. If you total a Porsche you might get $200k. If you’re totaled (you die), how much would you like your beneficiaries to get? It’s the same idea - you get to determine how much is at risk.
I was going to ask if there is any difference between the two ways, or if just optics of punishment vs rewarding.
This post reflects my thoughts reading his post as well. What communities are "shut down"?
I used "community" very genetically (local businesses, cities, schools, school districts, countries, etc. A few links:
Life insurance you buy for yourself is more about how much the beneficiary is worth to you then how much you are worth. Now if life insurance brought you back from the grave then we would have all kinds of philosophical questions on how much it should cost. Things like if its $200K isn't just a perk for the wealthy? If it is $20K can the planet sustain all of the extra people? Luckily for us we don't need to worry about those ethical considerations just yet.
Insurance would have to start charging more for everyone, though, as they can’t pick and choose who to charge more to.
example 1 is another country, and example 2 is for a week to clean.
You are correct about #1 in that I said I included countries as a broad definition of "community". It's affecting all types of communities globally and the stress on the medical facilities is a key reason. For #2, the story focuses on four school districts , closed indefinitely and reevaluating whether to stay closed or reopen next week. I don't think the story indicated specifically the reason was to clean/disinfect. Maybe we would assume they would clean, but the reason cited for closing was for people to quarantine to minimize the stress on local medical facilities. One person was quoted saying they hoped a week was enough time to clean the school, but I don't believe it said in the article any of the schools said they were going to close so they could clean. As far as the Governor's rules, most schools are ignoring him and requiring masks, so the school districts are deciding what to do on there own.
They can choose how much they will pay for COVID treatment within a plan right? In our crappy system, maybe that's about the best we'd be able to do?
Yep.
huh? We have caps on a ton of stuff in our plan
