U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Parenting
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Closed Thread Start New Thread
 
Old 01-22-2011, 11:41 AM
 
Location: THE USA
3,254 posts, read 5,395,946 times
Reputation: 1984

Advertisements

Should parents who refuse to vaccinate their children be forced to pay higher health care costs because they are putting their children at unnecessary risk?

Make anti-vaccine parents pay higher premiums - CNN.com

Refusing to vaccinate a child is dangerous not just for that child but for entire communities. It's precisely this point a colleague of mine was considering when he had the idea that parents who refuse to vaccinate their kids should pay substantially higher health insurance premiums.

It makes sense. Insurance, after all, is just a pool of money into which we all pay. In determining how much we or our employers pay, risk is taken into account.

The perfect analogy is smoking. If you smoke -- and want to turn your lungs black and spend a greater portion of that pot of money on your possible chronic lung disease or any cancers you'll get -- then you may have to pay more.

Why shouldn't we impose the same logic on parents who refuse to vaccinate their children?

 
Old 01-22-2011, 12:44 PM
 
3,842 posts, read 9,416,221 times
Reputation: 3189
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taboo2 View Post
Why shouldn't we impose the same logic on parents who refuse to vaccinate their children?
You would have to have concrete proof that nonvaccinated children use more health care benefits than vaccinated children. And most importantly, that every issue that the nonvaccinated child sees a health care provider for is specially due to them not being vaccinated.

Young males have a higher number of car acccidents & tickets than older males. It's been proven. That is why car insurance for a 18yo male, no accidents, no tickets is out the roof compared to a 40yo male, no accidents, no tickets.

With universal healthcare on our doorstep, we have much bigger issues to worry about & that is if any of us will be able to afford healthcare & the healthcare we do get won't be substandard.
 
Old 01-22-2011, 01:20 PM
 
43,012 posts, read 92,038,610 times
Reputation: 30379
I like the idea! I think it's annoying that people take advantage of the fact that others vaccinate. People who don't vaccinate are not being fair. They're letting the rest of the population take the risk. If the rest of the population didn't vaccinate, they wouldn't have the luxury to not vaccinate. It blows my mind how they don't realize how selfish they are being.
 
Old 01-22-2011, 01:50 PM
 
Location: Florida
5,661 posts, read 3,644,631 times
Reputation: 10613
What about those whose kids can't have vaccines due to medical issues?
 
Old 01-22-2011, 01:52 PM
 
4,267 posts, read 5,297,470 times
Reputation: 3579
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taboo2 View Post
Should parents who refuse to vaccinate their children be forced to pay higher health care costs because they are putting their children at unnecessary risk?

Make anti-vaccine parents pay higher premiums - CNN.com

Refusing to vaccinate a child is dangerous not just for that child but for entire communities. It's precisely this point a colleague of mine was considering when he had the idea that parents who refuse to vaccinate their kids should pay substantially higher health insurance premiums.

It makes sense. Insurance, after all, is just a pool of money into which we all pay. In determining how much we or our employers pay, risk is taken into account.

The perfect analogy is smoking. If you smoke -- and want to turn your lungs black and spend a greater portion of that pot of money on your possible chronic lung disease or any cancers you'll get -- then you may have to pay more.

Why shouldn't we impose the same logic on parents who refuse to vaccinate their children?
No, I don't. I agree with what 121804 said about having concrete proof that non-vaccinated children use more health benefits then vaccinated children. Also how would you adjust things for parents who choose to partially vaccinate or who vaccinate fully but just follow their own schedule?

I know parents who take their kids to the pediatrician every time their child has a cough and a sniffle. Should those parents have to pay more for health insurance? They are using more of their benefits then parents who know what a cold is and realize that it's not something that needs to be seen by a Dr.
 
Old 01-22-2011, 02:04 PM
 
852 posts, read 1,170,191 times
Reputation: 1047
I think that what needs to happen is that schools really need to demand that incoming children be fully vaccinated, barring a medical reason for not being (ex: a child recently in remission from leukemia). It's far too easy these days for parents to get excused because they don't believe in vaccination.
 
Old 01-22-2011, 02:21 PM
 
43,012 posts, read 92,038,610 times
Reputation: 30379
Quote:
Originally Posted by AnotherTouchOfWhimsy View Post
What about those whose kids can't have vaccines due to medical issues?
True medical issues are acceptable reasons to not vaccinate IMO.

Quote:
Originally Posted by lucygirl951 View Post
I think that what needs to happen is that schools really need to demand that incoming children be fully vaccinated, barring a medical reason for not being (ex: a child recently in remission from leukemia). It's far too easy these days for parents to get excused because they don't believe in vaccination.
I agree. Too many people use the religion excuse when their religion doesn't oppose vaccination. They'll readily admit that they are taking advantage of it--that it's not truly their religious belief. They figure if there is a loop hole out there, it's there for their advantage. I remember someone posting about that in this forum within the last year or two. The poster was not ashamed of lying about religious beliefs to avoid vaccination. If they're truly that passionate about it, they should homeschool.
 
Old 01-22-2011, 04:45 PM
 
Location: In a house
13,258 posts, read 36,275,153 times
Reputation: 20198
Well we can go the other direction:

If I get sick, and it's proven that my sickness was caused by someone's kid living in the community whose parents -chose- not to vaccinate (as opposed to -was unable due to medical situation-)..

Then those parents would have to cover the entire bill for me getting well. Parents need to be held responsible for their decisions to put an entire community at risk.

If you choose not to vaccinate your child, then your child should not be allowed out in public, without a face mask. Personally, I think even if a kid -can't- be vaccinated, they shouldn't be allowed out of the house without a facemask. But I'd pick my battles and start with the ones whose parents didn't -need- to refrain, but did so anyway.
 
Old 01-22-2011, 07:05 PM
 
10,630 posts, read 23,369,332 times
Reputation: 6702
Quote:
Originally Posted by lucygirl951 View Post
I think that what needs to happen is that schools really need to demand that incoming children be fully vaccinated, barring a medical reason for not being (ex: a child recently in remission from leukemia). It's far too easy these days for parents to get excused because they don't believe in vaccination.
Yes, I definitely agree with this. I'm not sure about the premiums issue -- that seems a very complex issue, although I'm sure the details can be or are being worked out. But the rules for schools should be tightened up.

As far as some earlier posts about the cost of care for non-vaccinated patients; the non-vaccinated patients may not themselves be costing more in care, but by being more likely to spread diseases (and therefore make it easier for epidemics to take hold, which can affect both vaccinated and non-vaccinated children) they ARE both endangering the health of the general population, as well as contributing to overall health care costs associated with certain illnesses. It's different than smoking in that way; a smoker is hurting his or her own health, but not that of others, but a non-vaccinated child is risking the overall "herd immunity" of a community. The choice of someone to not vaccinate their child has the potential to hurt all of us. I think it's reasonable that they should have to pay in some way for that. (I would not include children who can't be vaccinated in that category; I'd put them in the category of potential victims of those who COULD be vaccinated but aren't.)
 
Old 01-22-2011, 10:12 PM
 
Location: Florida
5,661 posts, read 3,644,631 times
Reputation: 10613
Quote:
Originally Posted by AnonChick View Post
Well we can go the other direction:

If I get sick, and it's proven that my sickness was caused by someone's kid living in the community whose parents -chose- not to vaccinate (as opposed to -was unable due to medical situation-)..

Then those parents would have to cover the entire bill for me getting well. Parents need to be held responsible for their decisions to put an entire community at risk.

If you choose not to vaccinate your child, then your child should not be allowed out in public, without a face mask. Personally, I think even if a kid -can't- be vaccinated, they shouldn't be allowed out of the house without a facemask. But I'd pick my battles and start with the ones whose parents didn't -need- to refrain, but did so anyway.
And what if you get sick (even though you have been vaccinated), and you infect someone else? Should you pay their bill as well? How would you even begin to go about proving such a thing?

Unvaxed children are not generally walking around harboring various diseases, LOL. And if they ARE exposed to something, their parents are typically aware and cognizant of the need to keep them in quarantine until the incubation period passes. When we exposed our kids to chicken pox, for example (and ironically, the kid who had it was actually vaccinated for it!), we kept them in from day 10 to day 21 after exposure. (They didn't end up developing pox.) If they were vaccinated, like our young friend was, I would not have given their exposure a second thought, and would have been out and about, potentially infecting the community for 11 days. My non-vaxing friends are similarly cautious... one friend recently thought her kids had whooping cough (it turned out to be something else, not vaccine preventable), and was very careful to keep them in until it was ruled out. In actuality, you are probably very unlikely to catch something from a non-vaxed child... probably less likely than picking it up from a vaccinated child whose vaccine simply didn't work (because their parents would not know to keep them away from others prior to symptoms appearing the the illness being diagnosed). And if your position is that kids need to be vaxed because the vaccines are EFFECTIVE, then you should have very little to worry about at all, assuming you're all caught up on yours.
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.


Closed Thread

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Parenting
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top