Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It is a slippery slope, but there are certain indisputable facts, breastfeeding is healthier for the baby, too much fast food is bad for you, exercise is good, vaccines protect you, etc., and there are repurcussions for choosing unhealthy lifestyles. Bottle-feed your baby, and choose not to vaccinate, then that baby is more than likely going to end up with more doctor visits. There are decades worth or research on preventive health care, and healthy lifestyle choices. If the insurance companies choose to use those to adjust premiums, or use them as incentives for people to get healthier, I have no problem with that.
I agree with a lot of what you say but I don't think that higher premiums are the answer. There are many reasons why people choose not to breastfeed and there are many reasons why people choose to forgo vaccinations. Maybe incentives would work but even with those incentives in place I doubt it would change very many people's decisions regarding those two particular issues.
I also think that it would be prudent before implementing something like this to examine medical costs, side by side of unvaccinated children and vaccinated children to determine how much more money that unvaccinated children are supposedly costing the system. As of yet we don't even know if unvaccinated children are spending more on Dr. visits then those who vaccinate.
The article is only about childhood diseases. Not a yearly ever changing vaccine that may not even be the correct strain. Read the article and stay on topic. It is about parents ridiculous fear of autism affecting their decision to not get their kid the polio/mmr etc... Vaccines.
I did read the article. I just re-read it again after your post and I am on topic. The article is about raising premiums for parents who choose to forgo vaccinations for their children. It does not specify which vaccinations, it just says vaccinations. It is the authors opinion that parents who refuse vaccines do so out of fear of autism but that is far too simplistic.
I would think you can't charge Adults because If it wore off you would not know unless you had it checked. How do you know it was offered when you were a child? Too many variables.
Pertussis boosters are recommended for adults so if the adult doesn't get the booster it's pretty easy to prove that. Same for the flu vaccine. Titers could be checked as a routine part of health care at yearly check ups.
What's interesting is we penalize the smoker when he only hurts himself while those who refuse vaccionations hurt others too. Why wouldn't we penalize parents who refuse vaccinations when they put the entire community at risk? Unfortunately, vaccinations are only 95% effective and those are the children being placed at risk along with the children of those who choose not to vaccinate. You shouldn't have the right to risk the health of others and NOT pay a price.
Which is off topic since insurance premiums aren't the government, but I'll put it back on topic...
No one has the right to impose their disease-carrying child on the community. I don't agree that insurance premiums should go up, however I do feel that insurance companies should cover vaccinations 100%, no deductible, as preventative health care. I feel that they should -also- refuse to cover anyone whose parent -refused- to vaccinate them, if that child gets the sickness that the vaccine is supposed to cover. I also feel that insurance companies should go after the parent of the child whose unvaccinated illness causes other people to get sick.
In short: if Susie's pertussis makes me sick, then my insurance company would sue Susie's mom's insurance company to cover the cost of my treatment. Just like car insurance works now. If you cause my illness, then you're insurance company should pay for it, and then your insurance premiums would go up because of that payout. If your child doesn't get anyone sick, then you have nothing to worry about. If your child is vaccinated, you and your insurance company won't be held responsible. If your child *cannot* be vaccinated due to medical reasons, and your child is found to be a carrier, then your child should be quarrantined until he/she is cleared medically. It's sad for a kid to not be allowed out of the house, but it's even worse to grow up knowing that your mother's decision to let you run around infecting people, caused an epidemic.
You do know that kids vaccinated with mmr and now chicken pox are receiving live vaccines right? they are shedding virus for up to a month.Children who aren't vaccinated are NOT the ones you should be calling disease spreading. It's the vaccinated kids who are always getting colds, ear infections and other so called childhood ailments, whereas unvaccinated children seldom if ever get sick, as for charging extra premiums IF and WHEN your child should contract a supposedly vaccine preventable disease I'd go for that because I know those extra premiums would never have to be payed.
It's the vaccinated kids who are always getting colds, ear infections and other so called childhood ailments, whereas unvaccinated children seldom if ever get sick
What, exactly, are you basing these findings on? Is it anecdotal? Well, then, here's my anecdote. My girls are fully vaccinated, and they're never sick. Neither of them missed a single day of school last year or the year before, and they haven't missed any yet this year. Conversely, acquaintances of mine with unvaccinated kids...sick all the time: sore throats, polyps, ear infections, stomach flu, etc. Vaccinating is one of many healthy choices our family makes along with diet, exercise, proper rest.
But the question is whether unvaccinated people should pay higher premiums, and I agree with posters who have pointed out that insurance companies already financially acknowledge when their clients are making more healthful choices by not smoking, maintaining a healthy weight, so yes, I think that vaccinated children and adults who keep up with their boosters should receive some kind of insurance break. Don't penalize the unvaccinated but rather reward those who make the healthier and more socially responsible choice of vaccinating.
Last edited by lucygirl951; 01-24-2011 at 12:41 PM..
Health risks are already factored into premiums. That's why you need a physical to get insurance.
If you get an individual policy. You don't need a physical for a group policy.
Smoking, exercise, diet, and the like are hard to monitor and would probably lead to people lying if they were to get a reduction in rates for doing/not doing the activity. With immunizations, the ins. company knows if you got them b/c they pay for them.
If you get an individual policy. You don't need a physical for a group policy.
Smoking, exercise, diet, and the like are hard to monitor and would probably lead to people lying if they were to get a reduction in rates for doing/not doing the activity. With immunizations, the ins. company knows if you got them b/c they pay for them.
Our health insurance adjusts our rate regulary depending on a variety of blood tests. Smoking (cotinine), cholesterol, weight, diabetes screening (A1C). I don't know if that is a motivator coming from the employer perhaps.
Our health insurance adjusts our rate regulary depending on a variety of blood tests. Smoking (cotinine), cholesterol, weight, diabetes screening (A1C). I don't know if that is a motivator coming from the employer perhaps.
That's interesting. Ours doesn't do that. In any event, diet in particular would be extremely difficult to monitor (unlike cholesterol or AIC), and there's no solid evidence that occasional consumption of junk food is bad for you, and no consensus on how much is too much.
Back to immunizations, I'd still like to see incentives tried first, before penalties.
Pertussis boosters are recommended for adults so if the adult doesn't get the booster it's pretty easy to prove that. Same for the flu vaccine. Titers could be checked as a routine part of health care at yearly check ups.
Insurance would have to pay and as a routine they do not Unless you are pregnant. We are talking about parents not vaxxing children, nothing about adults but sure, charge them too. Must be consistent.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
