Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

As a doctor who has cared for sick kids, and as a father, if I had been the doc having this conversation with these parents, I am 85% sure I would have ended up in jail after beating the shit out of those parents.

  • Like 2
Posted

So when do insurance premiums start to skyrocket because of kids/people getting tons of medical treatment due to caching diseases they shouldn't?

 

OR, just have vaccination be a prerequisite for your insurance coverage OR you're hit with higher premiums.  You don't want to vaccinate? Fine.  You pay for it.

Posted
7 minutes ago, Fozzz said:

That sounds totalitarian.  

Seems like you have fast-forwarded your consciousness to where government runs health care and simultaneously removed your knowledge of actuarial science.

Posted
37 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

Certainly would make sense to me to have vaccine information in premium calculation.

I assume you have no problem then with insurance companies using genetic information to adjust premiums.  

Posted

That's silly. An easy line can be drawn between calculating based on actions and decisions one makes and conditions not based on actions taken. 

Posted
8 minutes ago, Fozzz said:

I assume you have no problem then with insurance companies using genetic information to adjust premiums.  

Do you have a problem with insurance companies adjusting rates for smokers?

Posted
8 minutes ago, Viper said:

That's silly. An easy line can be drawn between calculating based on actions and decisions one makes and conditions not based on actions taken. 

Slippery slope.  Road to serfdom and all of that.  

Posted

So I can have my kids taken away from me if I don’t make them go to school.  However, if I let them get easily preventable diseases and expose the entire community to health risks all while racking up a 800k bill for taxpayers to cover...nothing we can do?

Posted
28 minutes ago, Fozzz said:

I assume you have no problem then with insurance companies using genetic information to adjust premiums.  

I assume you're drunk if you think characteristics you're born with are the same as behavioral decisions.

Posted
9 minutes ago, Asithappens said:

Wait, are you saying those two things are equivalent?

No, they're not equivalent, but they're both related to decisions made by the customer.

Posted
1 minute ago, Huckleberry said:

I assume you're drunk if you think characteristics you're born with are the same as behavioral decisions.

Well, the characteristics you're born with certainly affect behavioral decisions.

Posted
3 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

No, they're not equivalent, but they're both related to decisions made by the customer.

I must have missed something then, sorry.

I just read "genetic information" and a lot of that is not related to decisions made by the individual. And by a lot, I mean practically all of it. 

But hell no, insurance cos should NOT be basing rates on genetic defects. Let's make the risk pool the entire us of a.

Posted
1 minute ago, Asithappens said:

I must have missed something then, sorry.

I just read "genetic information" and a lot of that is not related to decisions made by the individual. And by a lot, I mean practically all of it. 

But hell no, insurance cos should NOT be basing rates on genetic defects. Let's make the risk pool the entire us of a.

You think purposely introducing market inefficiencies will somehow benefit the average consumer of healthcare in this country?

Posted
5 minutes ago, Asithappens said:

I must have missed something then, sorry.

I see the confusion -- I was trying to draw a loose parallel between smoking and not vaccinating one's kids.  The use of genetic information was a different discussion, but it wasn't really clear the way I quoted it.

Posted
44 minutes ago, Fozzz said:

I assume you have no problem then with insurance companies using genetic information to adjust premiums.  

In what way are vaccines and genetics similar in any way?

Posted
14 minutes ago, hobbes2702 said:

In what way are vaccines and genetics similar in any way?

I would imagine that "behavioral decisions" are conditioned to some extent by environmental factors, and thus are not totally unencumbered by factors out of the individual's control.  Thus, there is really on a difference in degree in the amount of control an individual has over those behavioral factors and something like his or her genetics.  Given that we are discussing a difference in degree and not category, there is really no sound basis in asserting that insurance companies should be able to discriminate on the basis of one and not the other.  

Posted

Well, my stepdaughter's dumbass dad, who is the smartest dumbass I've ever met (holds a masters in EE from UT and is essentially ABD on his PhD), has partially poisoned her brain about vaccines.  Her son is almost 5 and is up to date until 6 on his vaccines but I fear she'll start skipping anything required after that, no doubt including HPV.  So, I guess she has been "conditioned".

It's still her fucking decision and I would have no problem with insurance companies charging her more.

Posted
On 3/9/2019 at 11:52 AM, Horn Dog said:

As a doctor who has cared for sick kids, and as a father, if I had been the doc having this conversation with these parents, I am 85% sure I would have ended up in jail after beating the shit out of those parents.

First, do no harm. Lulz.

 

Everytime these fucktards show their faces in public, they should be ridiculed and shamed and shunned.

Security guard at the local market should stop them and say "Wait, aren't you those fucktards who let their kid get lock jaw? Hey look everybody! Its the Stupid Family! HAHAHAHA!. Now get the fuck out."

  • Haha 1
Posted
1 minute ago, jimmyjazz said:

Well, my stepdaughter's dumbass dad, who is the smartest dumbass I've ever met (holds a masters in EE from UT and is essentially ABD on his PhD), has partially poisoned her brain about vaccines.  Her son is almost 5 and is up to date until 6 on his vaccines but I fear she'll start skipping anything required after that, no doubt including HPV.  So, I guess she has been "conditioned".

It's still her fucking decision and I would have no problem with insurance companies charging her more.

Does your wife have custody? If she doesn't, I'd bet a good lawyer could use the no vaccines against the dad in a custody battle.

Posted
14 minutes ago, Fozzz said:

I would imagine that "behavioral decisions" are conditioned to some extent by environmental factors, and thus are not totally unencumbered by factors out of the individual's control.  Thus, there is really on a difference in degree in the amount of control an individual has over those behavioral factors and something like his or her genetics.  Given that we are discussing a difference in degree and not category, there is really no sound basis in asserting that insurance companies should be able to discriminate on the basis of one and not the other.  

What a load of horseshit.

 

Posted (edited)
3 minutes ago, High Plains Drifter said:

Does your wife have custody? If she doesn't, I'd bet a good lawyer could use the no vaccines against the dad in a custody battle.

She's 27.  (My stepdaughter, not my wife.)  The kid in question is my (step) grandson.  It's my wife's dumbass ex who is poisoning my stepdaughter's view -- he's my stepdaughter's Dad.  I'm sure this isn't abundantly clear, so here's a flowchart:

My wife's ex --> my wife's daughter -> my wife's daughter's son = no more vaccines

There is no "custody", although they do live with us.

Edited by jimmyjazz
Posted
47 minutes ago, Fozzz said:

I would imagine that "behavioral decisions" are conditioned to some extent by environmental factors, and thus are not totally unencumbered by factors out of the individual's control.  Thus, there is really on a difference in degree in the amount of control an individual has over those behavioral factors and something like his or her genetics.  Given that we are discussing a difference in degree and not category, there is really no sound basis in asserting that insurance companies should be able to discriminate on the basis of one and not the other.  

KindlyBoldKomododragon-small.gif

  • Like 1
Posted
1 hour ago, Fozzz said:

You think purposely introducing market inefficiencies will somehow benefit the average consumer of healthcare in this country?

Yet another who doesn't understand the nature of health insurance or the concept of a risk pool?

Posted
I would imagine that "behavioral decisions" are conditioned to some extent by environmental factors, and thus are not totally unencumbered by factors out of the individual's control.  Thus, there is really on a difference in degree in the amount of control an individual has over those behavioral factors and something like his or her genetics.  Given that we are discussing a difference in degree and not category, there is really no sound basis in asserting that insurance companies should be able to discriminate on the basis of one and not the other.  
You are attempting to argue that insurance companies should not be allowed to charge a higher premium on life insurance for professional daredevils.

It's an absurd argument to make.

As for the specific example at hand, the unvaccinated generally aren't responsible for their health insurance premiums until they're old enough to have learned better and gotten themselves vaccinated.
Posted
2 hours ago, Fozzz said:

I assume you have no problem then with insurance companies using genetic information to adjust premiums.  

You just made an apples to hand grenades argument while simultaneously shoving an orange up your own ass.  

  • Like 1
  • Haha 3
Posted
7 hours ago, Huckleberry said:

I assume you're drunk if you think characteristics you're born with are the same as behavioral decisions.

Surely failure to get vaccinated indicates certain genetic traits.

Posted
6 hours ago, Chooky said:

You just made an apples to hand grenades argument while simultaneously shoving an orange up your own ass.  

I love how fozz positions himself as some sort of intellectual.  I’m not sure who’s dumber, that poor kids parents or fozz.  JFC

  • Like 1
Posted

And then ... in like 10 -15 years he get shingles. Like a ridiculous case that involves facial and eye sores.

in all seriousness. Shingles sucks the big one. I had a milder case when I was in my 30’s. Caught it early and with Valtrax it really helped keep it from getting out of control or facial. It was still was incredibly painful.

And yes, you take the same medicine for genital herpes as you do for shingles.... that’s a fun trip to the pharmacy. 

Posted
On 8/15/2018 at 11:05 PM, TexArcher said:

I'm all for civil liberties, too.  But yours end where mine begin, and herd immunity is a real thing.

Parents who refuse to vaccinate their kids shouldn't be allowed to put them in public schools, or take them anywhere, really.

This. Biological warfare shouldn’t fall under purview of civil liberties. They all should be charged with reckless endangerment for knowingly refusing to protect themselves and minors from a biological threat.



×
×
  • Create New...