This is interesting. Typically your "bad habits" will impact something like a life insurance premium, but for employer provided health insurance, the overall group bears the brunt of the "unhealthy".
If targeting what they consider "unhealthy" is the new norm, be careful what you wish for. You probably won't love the outcome.
(08-26-2021, 10:15 AM)americus 2.0 Wrote: [ -> ] (08-26-2021, 09:57 AM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ]Variantion in premiums is normal. I have to get a physical every year and my cost varies based on 7 different metrics.
This is targeting one specific group of people for one specific thing.
We have to get a physical every year as well and our cost does not vary, but if you have specific issues to be addressed (blood pressure, cholesterol, etc.) they hook you up with a health coach you speak to once every quarter (or more if you want) to help identify and plan what needs to be done to alleviate the problem. There are several programs within the system to help in this process.
Helping people get the healthcare they need and forcing people to get a vaccine are not the same thing.
We get a money back if we attest that we aren't smokers in my family. That's targeting a specific group of people though, right?
It's been happening forever.
(08-26-2021, 10:41 AM)Cleatwood Wrote: [ -> ] (08-26-2021, 10:15 AM)americus 2.0 Wrote: [ -> ]This is targeting one specific group of people for one specific thing.
We have to get a physical every year as well and our cost does not vary, but if you have specific issues to be addressed (blood pressure, cholesterol, etc.) they hook you up with a health coach you speak to once every quarter (or more if you want) to help identify and plan what needs to be done to alleviate the problem. There are several programs within the system to help in this process.
Helping people get the healthcare they need and forcing people to get a vaccine are not the same thing.
We get a money back if we attest that we aren't smokers in my family. That's targeting a specific group of people though, right?
It's been happening forever.
In what form do you "get money back" for not being a smoker being part of an employer group plan?
(08-26-2021, 10:44 AM)StroudCrowd1 Wrote: [ -> ] (08-26-2021, 10:41 AM)Cleatwood Wrote: [ -> ]We get a money back if we attest that we aren't smokers in my family. That's targeting a specific group of people though, right?
It's been happening forever.
In what form do you "get money back" for not being a smoker being part of an employer group plan?
They take off 2.5% of our health insurance costs.
Maybe "Get money back" wasn't the right term but here we are.... Living that smoke free life babay!
(08-26-2021, 10:48 AM)Cleatwood Wrote: [ -> ] (08-26-2021, 10:44 AM)StroudCrowd1 Wrote: [ -> ]In what form do you "get money back" for not being a smoker being part of an employer group plan?
They take off 2.5% of our health insurance costs.
Maybe "Get money back" wasn't the right term but here we are.... Living that smoke free life babay!
I work for a large 400k+ employee global company and we don't have that, but there are "low advertised" things you can do directly with the insurance company to get back a few bucks here and there.
(08-26-2021, 10:15 AM)americus 2.0 Wrote: [ -> ] (08-26-2021, 09:57 AM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ]Variation in premiums is normal. I have to get a physical every year and my cost varies based on 7 different metrics.
This is targeting one specific group of people for one specific thing.
We have to get a physical every year as well and our cost does not vary, but if you have specific issues to be addressed (blood pressure, cholesterol, etc.) they hook you up with a health coach you speak to once every quarter (or more if you want) to help identify and plan what needs to be done to alleviate the problem. There are several programs within the system to help in this process.
Helping people get the healthcare they need and forcing people to get a vaccine are not the same thing.
Ours includes smoking (Y/N), BP < 135/90, Type 2 (Y/N) and A1C <9, Glucose <100, etc., all of which are targeting specific people for increased cost associated with their current health and medical history. And the vaccine is exactly the healthcare the population needs.
(08-26-2021, 10:25 AM)StroudCrowd1 Wrote: [ -> ]This is interesting. Typically your "bad habits" will impact something like a life insurance premium, but for employer provided health insurance, the overall group bears the brunt of the "unhealthy".
If targeting what they consider "unhealthy" is the new norm, be careful what you wish for. You probably won't love the outcome.
My friend, this is the goal of single payer health care, to control the purse strings by controlling the behaviors and vice versa. That's why vaccine passports are just a milestone on the road to health passports and social credit.
We don't get perks for good health other than we don't have to talk to a health coach or be in any programs. We've had three different insurance companies in ten years and none have ever penalized us monetarily for anything. My husband always has to coordinate with the health coach because of his borderline blood pressure and cholesterol issues (thanks to bad genetics). I had to coordinate with them in 2018 & 2019 thanks to the 30lbs I gained after colon surgery but not anymore since I lost the weight.
I guess every employer and insurance company has their own guidelines and they're obviously not the same across the board.
I think that, since 97% of the people who are hospitalized with Covid are unvaccinated, then Delta Airlines is doing the right thing. There's no good reason why a vaccinated person should pay the same for health insurance as an unvaccinated person. That would mean that people who make good choices in life have to subsidize people who make bad choices in life.
(08-26-2021, 12:32 PM)The Real Marty Wrote: [ -> ]I think that, since 97% of the people who are hospitalized with Covid are unvaccinated, then Delta Airlines is doing the right thing. There's no good reason why a vaccinated person should pay the same for health insurance as an unvaccinated person. That would mean that people who make good choices in life have to subsidize people who make bad choices in life.
We already do this for smokers and people who eat McDonald's every day. Vaccinations is where you draw the line.
(08-26-2021, 11:15 AM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ] (08-26-2021, 10:15 AM)americus 2.0 Wrote: [ -> ]This is targeting one specific group of people for one specific thing.
We have to get a physical every year as well and our cost does not vary, but if you have specific issues to be addressed (blood pressure, cholesterol, etc.) they hook you up with a health coach you speak to once every quarter (or more if you want) to help identify and plan what needs to be done to alleviate the problem. There are several programs within the system to help in this process.
Helping people get the healthcare they need and forcing people to get a vaccine are not the same thing.
Ours includes smoking (Y/N), BP < 135/90, Type 2 (Y/N) and A1C <9, Glucose <100, etc., all of which are targeting specific people for increased cost associated with their current health and medical history. And the vaccine is exactly the healthcare the population needs.
Targeting people for known and tested diseases is not the same as targeting people for something they don't currently have and may never get. That's like charging someone for a crime they're likely to commit due to a "profile" he or she fits.
You don't treat someone for cancer just because it runs in the family. You take preventive measures like mammograms or prostate exams and if anything shows up then you treat it. Not everyone who gets Covid ends up in the hospital. Not by a long shot. I can tell you about 30 people right off the top of my head I personally know who have had it and never had to go to the hospital not to mention anyone here. So punishing people monetarily for something that
might happen is BS.
(08-26-2021, 12:35 PM)StroudCrowd1 Wrote: [ -> ] (08-26-2021, 12:32 PM)The Real Marty Wrote: [ -> ]I think that, since 97% of the people who are hospitalized with Covid are unvaccinated, then Delta Airlines is doing the right thing. There's no good reason why a vaccinated person should pay the same for health insurance as an unvaccinated person. That would mean that people who make good choices in life have to subsidize people who make bad choices in life.
We already do this for smokers and people who eat McDonald's every day. Vaccinations is where you draw the line.
Why? Because it's politically expedient to do so?
(08-26-2021, 12:35 PM)StroudCrowd1 Wrote: [ -> ] (08-26-2021, 12:32 PM)The Real Marty Wrote: [ -> ]I think that, since 97% of the people who are hospitalized with Covid are unvaccinated, then Delta Airlines is doing the right thing. There's no good reason why a vaccinated person should pay the same for health insurance as an unvaccinated person. That would mean that people who make good choices in life have to subsidize people who make bad choices in life.
We already do this for smokers and people who eat McDonald's every day. Vaccinations is where you draw the line.
It is already clear that somewhere around 97% of the people who go to the hospital and run up huge hospital bills with Covid are unvaccinated. They choose to be unvaccinated. Why should I have to subsidize that choice?
(08-26-2021, 12:38 PM)americus 2.0 Wrote: [ -> ] (08-26-2021, 11:15 AM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ]Ours includes smoking (Y/N), BP < 135/90, Type 2 (Y/N) and A1C <9, Glucose <100, etc., all of which are targeting specific people for increased cost associated with their current health and medical history. And the vaccine is exactly the healthcare the population needs.
Targeting people for known and tested diseases is not the same as targeting people for something they don't currently have and may never get. That's like charging someone for a crime they're likely to commit due to a "profile" he or she fits.
You don't treat someone for cancer just because it runs in the family. You take preventive measures like mammograms or prostate exams and if anything shows up then you treat it. Not everyone who gets Covid ends up in the hospital. Not by a long shot. I can tell you about 30 people right off the top of my head I personally know who have had it and never had to go to the hospital not to mention anyone here. So punishing people monetarily for something that might happen is BS.
If you engage in risky behavior (not getting vaccinated), there's no reason we should
socialize that risk by making vaccinated people pay the same insurance premium as unvaccinated people.
(08-26-2021, 12:38 PM)americus 2.0 Wrote: [ -> ] (08-26-2021, 11:15 AM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ]Ours includes smoking (Y/N), BP < 135/90, Type 2 (Y/N) and A1C <9, Glucose <100, etc., all of which are targeting specific people for increased cost associated with their current health and medical history. And the vaccine is exactly the healthcare the population needs.
Targeting people for known and tested diseases is not the same as targeting people for something they don't currently have and may never get. That's like charging someone for a crime they're likely to commit due to a "profile" he or she fits.
You don't treat someone for cancer just because it runs in the family. You take preventive measures like mammograms or prostate exams and if anything shows up then you treat it. Not everyone who gets Covid ends up in the hospital. Not by a long shot. I can tell you about 30 people right off the top of my head I personally know who have had it and never had to go to the hospital not to mention anyone here. So punishing people monetarily for something that might happen is BS.
I really think you understand the concepts of actuarial science better than this, insurance costs are based on a risk calculation and the premium reflects your risk. If you choose not to get a vaccine to protect you from a serious health event then you choose to accept a larger health insurance premium. It's a preventative measure not different from that mammogram you mentioned. But you are missing the biggest issue here though, since you don't pay for it you don't get a say. The simple fact is that as long as the employer has a financial interest in your health they they are within their rights to act in that interest and you have the option to get the shot, pay the higher premium, or just get your own policy.
(08-26-2021, 12:41 PM)The Real Marty Wrote: [ -> ] (08-26-2021, 12:35 PM)StroudCrowd1 Wrote: [ -> ]We already do this for smokers and people who eat McDonald's every day. Vaccinations is where you draw the line.
It is already clear that somewhere around 97% of the people who go to the hospital and run up huge hospital bills with Covid are unvaccinated. They choose to be unvaccinated. Why should I have to subsidize that choice?
(08-26-2021, 12:38 PM)americus 2.0 Wrote: [ -> ]Targeting people for known and tested diseases is not the same as targeting people for something they don't currently have and may never get. That's like charging someone for a crime they're likely to commit due to a "profile" he or she fits.
You don't treat someone for cancer just because it runs in the family. You take preventive measures like mammograms or prostate exams and if anything shows up then you treat it. Not everyone who gets Covid ends up in the hospital. Not by a long shot. I can tell you about 30 people right off the top of my head I personally know who have had it and never had to go to the hospital not to mention anyone here. So punishing people monetarily for something that might happen is BS.
If you engage in risky behavior (not getting vaccinated), there's no reason we should socialize that risk by making vaccinated people pay the same insurance premium as unvaccinated people.
The same reason people with zero children or children in private school subsidize the public school system through property taxes.
It's the way society works.
(08-26-2021, 12:47 PM)StroudCrowd1 Wrote: [ -> ] (08-26-2021, 12:41 PM)The Real Marty Wrote: [ -> ]It is already clear that somewhere around 97% of the people who go to the hospital and run up huge hospital bills with Covid are unvaccinated. They choose to be unvaccinated. Why should I have to subsidize that choice?
If you engage in risky behavior (not getting vaccinated), there's no reason we should socialize that risk by making vaccinated people pay the same insurance premium as unvaccinated people.
The same reason people with zero children or children in private school subsidize the public school system through property taxes.
It's the way society works.
That is an absurd comparison. Children getting an education benefits society. It's good for everybody. People choosing not to get vaccinated is not a benefit to society; it's a serious detriment. It puts an enormous strain on our health care system. A persion who chooses not to get vaccinated is 30 times more likely, than a vaccinated person, to wind up in the hospital running up a huge hospital bill.
It is completely unfair to ask vaccinated people to pay for the unvaccinated people's hospital bills, especially now that everyone knows that if you get vaccinated, even if you get Covid, it is extremely unlikely that you will wind up in the hospital.
I'll pay for public schools. But I don't want to subsidize anyone's hospital bill who could have avoided going to the hospital by getting vaccinated. You chose your path. Don't ask me to pay for it. At this point, it's on you.
(08-26-2021, 09:22 AM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ] (08-26-2021, 08:06 AM)Lucky2Last Wrote: [ -> ]More data to ignore: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34384810/
No one is ignoring it, it was specifically addressed during development and researchers are continually monitoring for it. How many cases of Delta-driven ADE can you point to in order to validate your concern? Because if it were happening we'd have thousands of dead vaccinated people to show for it.
Again, that's not the point. I am not and have not said that we are currently experiencing ADE as a result of a coronavirus or it's vaccine. You have stated that multiple times in response to me, and it's moot. I am saying and have been saying that there is a potential FUTURE risk from this vaccine and possibly the virus itself, and society as a whole is not being informed about it. To make it worse, if they do know about it, are otherwise healthy and in a low risk demographic, they are being maligned for not taking the vaccine.
IF ADE occurs, it will probably manifest in the form of attacking those with healthy immune systems. So, we are taking a low risk group, giving them a vaccine they most likely don't need, then hoping a mutation doesn't occurs that triggers ADE, which will make people with healthy immune systems the high risk group. Does that sound smart to you? You have zero evidence to say that ADE won't occur, only that it hasn't happened yet. Great. We're just over a year into a novel (probably man-made) virus, that has already mutated into 8 different recognized variants. The people who are at low risk from dying should not be taking this vaccine if they don't want to.
Neither the companies nor the government should be mandating it. It doesn't limit the spread of corona or it's variants. It doesn't give lifetime immunity. It doesn't keep them from getting sick. All it does is keep people from getting as sick, which is great in the short term, but maybe not as great in the future. EVERY single study is showing natural immunity to be superior to vaccinated immunity. So, even if people get less sick, they are going to need another dose shortly. What happens when they don't get their booster? Are they going to get more sick from the virus? We don't know, because we haven't done any long-term research.
So why are we doing a global rollout of this thing again? Why aren't you being more critical of the future cost? Why aren't people being informed of this? Why are they trying to give this things to kids and young adults when it increases their chance of myocarditis? The only answer that jives with all of this is it makes people money. I may be wrong here, but I doubt it.
I can appreciate you guys who are confident nothing will come of this vaccine, but it's not based on reasoning. It's based on faith. Nothing happening in this moment is an adequate defense of FUTURE complications from this thing. Every scientist in the know will tell you there is a risk of ADE an none of them know if it will occur or not. Some of this doubt can be reduced through long-term monitoring, but we aren't there yet. We should get at least a couple seasons of this to get models for how Covid is mutating before giving this thing to every Tom, Dick, and Harry in this country.
(08-26-2021, 02:48 PM)Lucky2Last Wrote: [ -> ] (08-26-2021, 09:22 AM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ]No one is ignoring it, it was specifically addressed during development and researchers are continually monitoring for it. How many cases of Delta-driven ADE can you point to in order to validate your concern? Because if it were happening we'd have thousands of dead vaccinated people to show for it.
Again, that's not the point. I am not and have not said that we are currently experiencing ADE as a result of a coronavirus or it's vaccine. You have stated that multiple times in response to me, and it's moot. I am saying and have been saying that there is a potential FUTURE risk from this vaccine and possibly the virus itself, and society as a whole is not being informed about it. To make it worse, if they do know about it, are otherwise healthy and in a low risk demographic, they are being maligned for not taking the vaccine.
IF ADE occurs, it will probably manifest in the form of attacking those with healthy immune systems. So, we are taking a low risk group, giving them a vaccine they most likely don't need, then hoping a mutation doesn't occurs that triggers ADE, which will make people with healthy immune systems the high risk group. Does that sound smart to you? You have zero evidence to say that ADE won't occur, only that it hasn't happened yet. Great. We're just over a year into a novel (probably man-made) virus, that has already mutated into 8 different recognized variants. The people who are at low risk from dying should not be taking this vaccine if they don't want to.
Neither the companies nor the government should be mandating it. It doesn't limit the spread of corona or it's variants. It doesn't give lifetime immunity. It doesn't keep them from getting sick. All it does is keep people from getting as sick, which is great in the short term, but maybe not as great in the future. EVERY single study is showing natural immunity to be superior to vaccinated immunity. So, even if people get less sick, they are going to need another dose shortly. What happens when they don't get their booster? Are they going to get more sick from the virus? We don't know, because we haven't done any long-term research.
So why are we doing a global rollout of this thing again? Why aren't you being more critical of the future cost? Why aren't people being informed of this? Why are they trying to give this things to kids and young adults when it increases their chance of myocarditis? The only answer that jives with all of this is it makes people money. I may be wrong here, but I doubt it.
I can appreciate you guys who are confident nothing will come of this vaccine, but it's not based on reasoning. It's based on faith. Nothing happening in this moment is an adequate defense of FUTURE complications from this thing. Every scientist in the know will tell you there is a risk of ADE an none of them know if it will occur or not. Some of this doubt can be reduced through long-term monitoring, but we aren't there yet. We should get at least a couple seasons of this to get models for how Covid is mutating before giving this thing to every Tom, Dick, and Harry in this country.
It's not moot, it's a fact. With the variants we've seen and the design of the vaccines intending to prevent it and the millions of doses already given over the last 8 months, any issues with ADE would've already emerged. Do you know how many deaths occurred in the previous large scale ADE events? How many died in the measles event? The RSV event? How many 50 YEARS later in the Dengue event? The most was Dengue with 14 out of the 800,000 doses given and that was enough to pull the vaccine from use. And you keep saying they don't need it and yet our hospitals are still full. Our CCUs are still venting people daily. We are still charging up a care debt of treatment that we will pay in the future as thousands upon thousands of procedures and treatments have been delayed. And these people are OVERWHELMINGLY the unvaccinated, more than 95% of whom would NOT be in that situation if they'd taken the vaccine. So yeah, they should be maligned for not taking the vaccine because their stubbornness is costing us lives and dollars to fix the mess.
(08-26-2021, 02:00 PM)The Real Marty Wrote: [ -> ] (08-26-2021, 12:47 PM)StroudCrowd1 Wrote: [ -> ]The same reason people with zero children or children in private school subsidize the public school system through property taxes.
It's the way society works.
That is an absurd comparison. Children getting an education benefits society. It's good for everybody. People choosing not to get vaccinated is not a benefit to society; it's a serious detriment. It puts an enormous strain on our health care system. A persion who chooses not to get vaccinated is 30 times more likely, than a vaccinated person, to wind up in the hospital running up a huge hospital bill.
It is completely unfair to ask vaccinated people to pay for the unvaccinated people's hospital bills, especially now that everyone knows that if you get vaccinated, even if you get Covid, it is extremely unlikely that you will wind up in the hospital.
I'll pay for public schools. But I don't want to subsidize anyone's hospital bill who could have avoided going to the hospital by getting vaccinated. You chose your path. Don't ask me to pay for it. At this point, it's on you.
Just to be clear based on your last paragraph, you are cool subsidizing treatment for smokers and self-indiced diabetics? I will assume you are not cool with it.
Where was this train of thought 6 months ago before FDA approval by the way?
.gif "Laughing")
So damn ironic.