Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
  On 7/8/2021 at 10:44 PM, 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.

Expand  

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
Posted
  On 7/8/2021 at 10:58 PM, 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. 

Expand  

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
Posted
  On 7/8/2021 at 11:14 PM, 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.

Expand  

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
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.

Posted
  On 7/8/2021 at 11:14 PM, 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.

Expand  

You kick your brother out of the house yet? 

Posted
  On 7/8/2021 at 11:22 PM, GRHorn said:

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.

Expand  

It seems like you are a fucking troll Wal Mart boy. 

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
Posted
  On 7/8/2021 at 11:27 PM, 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.

Expand  

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? 

Posted
  On 7/9/2021 at 12:05 AM, 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? 

Expand  

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. 

Posted
  On 7/9/2021 at 12:05 AM, 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? 

Expand  

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.

Posted
  On 7/9/2021 at 12:38 AM, 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. 

Expand  

 

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. 

 

 

Posted
  On 7/9/2021 at 12:49 AM, jimmyjazz said:

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

Expand  

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. 

Posted
  On 7/9/2021 at 1:32 AM, Sawbonz said:

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

Expand  

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.  

Posted
  On 7/9/2021 at 3:05 AM, 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.  

Expand  

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

Posted
  On 7/9/2021 at 3:05 AM, 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.  

Expand  

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?

Posted (edited)
  On 7/9/2021 at 3:20 AM, Sawbonz said:

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

Expand  

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
Posted
  On 7/9/2021 at 3:21 AM, 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?

Expand  

They aren’t vaccinating babies yet

Posted
  On 7/9/2021 at 3:27 AM, 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. 

Expand  

Where is access to healthcare tied to behavior?

Posted
  On 7/9/2021 at 1:36 AM, GRHorn said:
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
Posted (edited)
  On 7/9/2021 at 3:32 AM, Anastasis said:

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

Expand  

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
Posted
  On 7/9/2021 at 1:36 AM, GRHorn said:
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
Posted
  On 7/8/2021 at 10:08 PM, 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


 

Expand  

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.



×
×
  • Create New...