Jump to content

CR: COVID-19 --Political Talk

Mrs Whiggins

By Mrs Whiggins
in Cloak Room

 Share

Recommended Posts

Aqua Buddha

Aqua Buddha 14597

Posted
Posted
25 minutes ago, PenelopeWitherspoon said:

Part of that unprotected IMO means that they have to pay for hospitalization and health care out of their own pocket (Medicare will not cover it, nor should insurance) should they get COVID and CHOSE to be unvaccinated.  Fuck them.  Stupidity should be a pre-existing condition.

We should let health care workers refuse care to unvaccinated covid patients based on moral grounds.  The mental gymnastics in response to that will be hilarious.

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Replies 52.6k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Anastasis

    2588

  • jimmyjazz

    1665

  • 4th&Five

    1305

  • Mrs Whiggins

    1226

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

safe sex
safe sex

I'd just like to point out that neither myself nor any of my fellow nurses, fellow advanced nurse practitioners, and other healthcare providers ever swore an oath that we would lay down our lives for

Bama Chick
Bama Chick

Welp, it finally happened. I snapped in public today. I went into work for a bit this morning because I’m trying to figure out the safest way to host physicians we are recruiting given our CV-19 sit

safe sex
safe sex

I don't really know what to say anymore tbh. What happened last night is hard to put into words for anyone who hasn't worked in a hospital healthcare setting. Just unreal. Everyone is getting fucked.

Posted Images

PenelopeWitherspoon

PenelopeWitherspoon 19101

Posted
Posted
14 minutes ago, Don Johnson said:

I’m fine with that. Of course that can open Pandora’s box as to not covering avoidable illnesses.  Probably more likely non vaccinated see an increase in rates. 

I am fine with insurance rates going sky high for the unvaccinated.  The problem is, I think a lot of these folks are probably on Medicaid, so there needs to be a consequence there.  Sorry, but I have zero tolerance for people that can get the vaccine and choose not to.  Fuck them.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GRHorn

GRHorn 105

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, PenelopeWitherspoon said:

I am fine with insurance rates going sky high for the unvaccinated.  The problem is, I think a lot of these folks are probably on Medicaid, so there needs to be a consequence there.  Sorry, but I have zero tolerance for people that can get the vaccine and choose not to.  Fuck them.

It seems you have a lot of unresolved anger issues. Your Twitter account you linked to before was the most basic bitch Mad Liberal account around.

  • Fuck You 9
Link to comment
Share on other sites
jimmyjazz

jimmyjazz 45957

Posted
Posted

Despite being a wholesale pro-vax kind of guy, I can't think of a bigger "slippery slope" argument than one which links insurability to vaccination.  It would open the floodgates.  The insured would have to prove they undertook no activity or behavior that might have negatively influence their health prospects, and that's not possible.

The math would need to be justified, as it is with the smoker/nonsmoker status, which still gets averaged over the pool.  "Sky high", while hyperbole, just doesn't cut it.  A 5% rate bump?  OK.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
InkaUtexas

InkaUtexas 25942

Posted
Posted
14 minutes ago, PenelopeWitherspoon said:

I am fine with insurance rates going sky high for the unvaccinated.  The problem is, I think a lot of these folks are probably on Medicaid, so there needs to be a consequence there.  Sorry, but I have zero tolerance for people that can get the vaccine and choose not to.  Fuck them.

You kick your brother out of the house yet? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Aqua Buddha

Aqua Buddha 14597

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, Okie State said:
1 hour ago, Anastasis said:
Pfizer announcing a vaccine update to target the delta lineage. 
 

Can I download over the air or will I need to plug in?

For those of us with the blue tooth enabled microchip, it should be just an overnight update.

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GhostOfTomJoad

GhostOfTomJoad 9324

Posted
Posted

Just got word that the 4 most vocal anti-vax Trumpkins (two married couples) in our social circle have all contracted covid-19 over the past month. The older couple are retired and driving their RV back & forth on I-10 from Florida to Texas. The younger couple (40s) have a preschool aged daughter with some developmental issues & is apparently having difficulties breathing. Hoping like hell that girl doesn't experience lifelong health issues due to her mother's idiocy.

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Rage+1 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Captainant

Captainant 27669

Posted
Posted
35 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Despite being a wholesale pro-vax kind of guy, I can't think of a bigger "slippery slope" argument than one which links insurability to vaccination.  It would open the floodgates.  The insured would have to prove they undertook no activity or behavior that might have negatively influence their health prospects, and that's not possible.

The math would need to be justified, as it is with the smoker/nonsmoker status, which still gets averaged over the pool.  "Sky high", while hyperbole, just doesn't cut it.  A 5% rate bump?  OK.

When pricing a security, should you not consider factors that could increase the risk to the underlying thing? Why shouldn't a for-profit healthcare industry raise prices for people engaging in riskier behavior? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Don Johnson

Don Johnson 4753

Posted
Posted
30 minutes ago, Captainant said:

When pricing a security, should you not consider factors that could increase the risk to the underlying thing? Why shouldn't a for-profit healthcare industry raise prices for people engaging in riskier behavior? 

I wonder what price increase the actual math would justify.  Especially when compared to other voluntary health decisions. There would probably be an age/BMI component. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
jimmyjazz

jimmyjazz 45957

Posted
Posted
35 minutes ago, Captainant said:

When pricing a security, should you not consider factors that could increase the risk to the underlying thing? Why shouldn't a for-profit healthcare industry raise prices for people engaging in riskier behavior? 

I didn't suggest otherwise.  I'm mostly reacting to the "sky high rate" comment.  In the years to come, covid will almost surely fall well below heart disease and cancer in terms of mortality, at least in the US, and will probably be edged out by accidental death, lung disease, stroke, dementia, and diabetes.  The whole point of health insurance is to spread the financial risk around a large pool.  The unvaccinated will be like the smokers, hopefully charged more, but not uninsured or priced out of the market entirely.  Should an unvaccinated person in perfect health be unable to afford health insurance at all?  That doesn't balance risk in an appropriate manner.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Anastasis

Anastasis 23469

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, Don Johnson said:

I wonder what price increase the actual math would justify.  Especially when compared to other voluntary health decisions. There would probably be an age/BMI component. 

 

I think that you can close a lot of the gap with the carrot over the stick.  Premium rebates for vaccination could go a long way.  Money talks. Maybe a little more stick for the publicly funded health plans (medicare and medicaid).  Auto disenrollment for failure to vaccinate. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Anastasis

Anastasis 23469

Posted
Posted
Just now, jimmyjazz said:

Sorry if already posted:  Pfizer indicates a booster might be necessary.

I think that it is very prudent to develop a test a delta booster, but we are a long ways from establishing that one is actually necessary. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
27-25

27-25 2047

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Okie State said:
3 hours ago, Anastasis said:
Pfizer announcing a vaccine update to target the delta lineage. 
 

Can I download over the air or will I need to plug in?

Only if you have 5G.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Anastasis

Anastasis 23469

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Sawbonz said:

You’ll save more money doing that with people who eat fast food

If only we could tie such things to a reliable medication intervention that could be implemented over the course of 21-28 days to basically totally obliterated the risk of serious outcomes.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sawbonz

Sawbonz 27562

Posted
Posted
13 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

If only we could tie such things to a reliable medication intervention that could be implemented over the course of 21-28 days to basically totally obliterated the risk of serious outcomes.  

Because tying healthcare access to behavior would stop with getting the Covid vaccine?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
jimmyjazz

jimmyjazz 45957

Posted
Posted
14 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

If only we could tie such things to a reliable medication intervention that could be implemented over the course of 21-28 days to basically totally obliterated the risk of serious outcomes.  

This brings up an important question:  why aren't the anti-vaxxers raging about autism and the covid vaccine?  Did I miss that particular angle?  I hear much more about "government control" and the random "5G", "Bill Gates chip", etc.

What happened to autism?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Anastasis

Anastasis 23469

Posted
Posted (edited)
7 minutes ago, Sawbonz said:

Because tying healthcare access to behavior would stop with getting the Covid vaccine?

It's already been tied together, mostly incentive based. But there is a pretty stark distinction between fast food and COVID vaccination in terms of the immediacy of the benefits.  If you want to get the actuaries involved, its a pretty clear cut picture in a world where outcomes are generally measured with 12 to 36 month run outs. 

Edited by Anastasis
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sawbonz

Sawbonz 27562

Posted
Posted
8 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

This brings up an important question:  why aren't the anti-vaxxers raging about autism and the covid vaccine?  Did I miss that particular angle?  I hear much more about "government control" and the random "5G", "Bill Gates chip", etc.

What happened to autism?

They aren’t vaccinating babies yet

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sawbonz

Sawbonz 27562

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

It's already been tied together, mostly incentive based. But there is a pretty stark distinction between fast food and COVID vaccination in terms of the immediacy of the negative outcomes.  If you want to get the actuaries involved, its a pretty clear cut picture in a world where outcomes are generally measured with 12 to 36 month run outs. 

Where is access to healthcare tied to behavior?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
tchookem

tchookem 3900

Posted
Posted
I don’t know why I thought [mention=550]PenelopeWitherspoon[/mention] was a male poster.
 
I think it wouldn’t hurt to broaden your horizons, but I apologize for the tone of my post. That’s not how to speak to a woman. 
I bet if you tried not being an asshat troll, you wouldn't have to worry about switching tone based on a poster's gender.
  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 2
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sawbonz

Sawbonz 27562

Posted
Posted (edited)
8 hours ago, Anastasis said:

Premium surcharges for health behaviors are fairly common place at this point.  

Can you point to a premium surcharge that comes close to paying for the total cost of the healthcare needed due to the behavior? I know we like to get pedantic around here but the point I was refuting was excluding coverage for anything covid related based on vax status. That would be a horrible precedent to set, and would require a repeal of a portion of ACA

 

edit I would be fine with a premium surcharge for obesity, high lipids/cholesterol and uncontrolled DM (and covid vax status) similar to what is allowed for smoking. 

Edited by Sawbonz
  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
DDD Dad

DDD Dad 14339

Posted
Posted
I don’t know why I thought [mention=550]PenelopeWitherspoon[/mention] was a male poster.
 
I think it wouldn’t hurt to broaden your horizons, but I apologize for the tone of my post. That’s not how to speak to a woman. 

Don’t be patronizing.
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nice Guy Eddie

Nice Guy Eddie 13512

Posted
Posted
15 hours ago, Anastasis said:

These slides from CDC ACIP get at the expected event rates and first dose/second dose effect. Expected and actual event rates (per VAERS) are exceedingly small compared to the number of doses administered, but there is a pretty clear association with second dose in particular. Real question in my mind is what are the predisposing factors beyond just sex and age.  

 

Screenshot-2021-07-08-134351.jpg

 

 

Screenshot-2021-07-08-134414.jpg


 

dumb question but how dangerous are the noted myocarditis or pericarditis cases?  how many of the 300+ males 12-24 years old died or suffered apparent long term complications? i realize the latter half may be unknown right now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
 Share
Go to topic listing


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business and Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Subscribe!... Donate!... Advertise... COOKIE MONSTER!

×
×
  • Create New...