Asking a question here for the smart ones we have onboard!

It's kind of like them not paying for treatment for lung cancer patients who smoke, or not paying for liver disease treatment for people who drink excessively.

They want to make money so they would simply put them in their own category and charge them as much as they could.

Fully agree with it!

and since most of the patients are now unvaccinated, it sort of accomplishes your goal

IDIOTS gonna pay! (i hope)

So, under this plan a young teen whose low income parent will not Vax them would not be able to get a broken bone set at a hospital. We need more compassion on this site

so your hypothetical teen with a broken bone would not be at risk.

What IS happening--and apparently this is legal--is private insurers are no longer waiving the co-pays that accrue relating to Covid 19 hospitalizations. Since the vast majority of those hospitalized are people who have chosen to be un-vaccinated, the impact is about the same--no vaccine = no waiving of the costs of hospital treatment.

I would hope however that costs would continue to be waived for people with legitimate medical reasons for remaining un vaccinated, and for children not yet eligible for the vaccines.

Did you READ what i wrote? NO coverage for COVID TREATMENT only! CAN you READ? Give me a break!!

To the IDIOTS that refuse the shot for no valid reasons!

Why that is not a Democratic Party talking point is beyond me.

If we don't use it against them they will use it against us, just like rising gas prices.

Your health insurance is a contract between you and the company. COVID vaccine is not yet an approved (non-emergency) solution. Would you want the insurance to have the ability to cancel your policy for some other treatment you didn’t take?

These are big plans and it is something the company's benefits committee will work out with the carriers. It may be that increasing premiums and deductibles is the only option. However if it can be done the way the OP suggested, some carrier/employer team will try it. State insurance law has to be taken into consideration.

At benefit selection time, most of these large employers offer more than one plan, and most folks choose based on deductible and premium costs and not the approved services, or network availablilty. A good friend switched plans based on price and a necessary service was denied -her former plan had covered it. She blamed "ObamaCare" so I had to explain it was her employer's fault.

As contracts expire and get renewed, I did venture that this will be a major carrot/stick for employer plans.

1. If you do not require vaccinations, then all premiums go up ...both the employee and employer portions... And they will go up a lot.
2. If you do require vaccinations, then lower cost increases.

3. Only higher premiums for non vaccinations... employer pass on all costs to those employees.

As a former union rep, I wod totally endorse 2 or 3 options

ACA policies cannot discriminate based on disease - to prevent insurance companies from selecting expensive conditions from coverage (as many did, or tried to do, with HIV/AIDs).

ACA plans must cover all essential services: https://www.healthcare.gov/coverage/what-marketplace-plans-cover/

Have people forgotten how hard it was to fight to get the ACA? We wanted companies to cover "avoidable" health issues like HIV... and childbirth.

Why do we want to give the power back to insurance companies to pick and choose what will be covered? Is it because we think only "those people " will not get the vaccine? There are people, I work with one, who cannot get the vaccine even though there desperately want it.

the policies which cost an arm and a leg (or more), and excluded any pre-existing condition permanently (if they would even issue a policy), and excluded coverge for many expensive conditions and drugs.

I've lost track of how many threads I've jumped into to remind people about the basic premises of the ACA.