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
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...
I'm subject to a higher premium. Charging unvaccinated seems fair. I'd ding overweight people, too.
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.
StilI, I would be OK with those who are not taking health seriously being penalized .
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?
There are uninsured, Medicare and Medicaid recipients, etc
Singling out premium-payers won't solve the vax problem
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.
Food, water, cot over in that tent in the parking lot or parking structure.
Send them to church. Lay them out on a pew.
Call them the control group.
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.
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.