|
|
Post by Lurkin McGurkin on Aug 26, 2021 10:09:19 GMT -6
Cost of free choice, even without mandate and even if you are willing to take a greater risk of Covid.
So how much is the premium increase for those that refuse to vaccinate against measles, mumps, rubella? Polio? First time I've ever heard of an insurance company charging people more to NOT do something. Legal challenges sure to follow. |
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Aug 26, 2021 11:56:21 GMT -6
Cost of free choice, even without mandate and even if you are willing to take a greater risk of Covid.
So how much is the premium increase for those that refuse to vaccinate against measles, mumps, rubella? Polio? First time I've ever heard of an insurance company charging people more to NOT do something. Legal challenges sure to follow. There may legal challenges, but I don't see how that is going to be successful. It's a matter of contract. If you want coverage, pay for it.
Insurance charges different premium for people with higher risk all the time. If you are high risk for bad health you may NOT have done anything, but to get coverage must pay extra in a high risk pool. You can lose coverage completely or never be able to get it by failing to do things where that failure creates risk. Insurance often requires you to do things to mitigate losses if they occur. Coverage is reduced or eliminated if you do NOT act.
This is mostly your employer's decision who is self insured and has to deal with an extra cost. Other choice is to raise premiums for everyone. Or exclude coverage for Covid care.
Those other vaccines you mention are in many cases required for school kids, and schools track immunization. Not much additional risk to the insurance company. They choose not to charge extra premium, but they likely could charge extra if they wished subject to regulation.
Insurance regulation limits insurance charges for some things like cost of many vaccines. If red states wish to regulate insurance companies offering policies in their states to forbid the extra charge, they would force insurance companies to make a choice whether to raise rates for everyone or exclude coverage. How do you propose the insurer otherwise covers the costs?
|
|
|
|
Post by Lurkin McGurkin on Aug 26, 2021 12:25:57 GMT -6
Insurance charges different premium for people with higher risk all the time.
Those other vaccines you mention are in many cases required for school kids, and schools track immunization.
Smoking, sure. I've never seen any other extra charges for "higher risks." No insurance company has ever asked to see my immunization records. |
|
|
|
Post by sweep on Aug 26, 2021 12:29:54 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by villagepub on Aug 26, 2021 12:51:41 GMT -6
BRILLIANT!!! Well, after all you wouldn't want to send a used muzzle from a second-hand store to yourself. Would you? And why pay cash? Credit card purchases on Amazon are so easy. |
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Aug 26, 2021 13:21:26 GMT -6
Insurance charges different premium for people with higher risk all the time.
Those other vaccines you mention are in many cases required for school kids, and schools track immunization.
Smoking, sure. I've never seen any other extra charges for "higher risks." No insurance company has ever asked to see my immunization records. You know anybody who is in the high risk pool? The extra charge for insurance is substantial.
The insurers exclude coverage, charge copay for treatments, charge for out of network when people want better care and can offset costs in a variety of ways. You may not consider that an "extra charge," I suppose, but the person who needs expensive care bears the cost of the extra care.
Which of these other ways do you suggest they use to offset Covid costs? This is a business decision.
|
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Aug 26, 2021 13:36:04 GMT -6
Those other vaccines you mention are in many cases required for school kids, and schools track immunization.
No insurance company has ever asked to see my immunization records. Insurance companies aren't worried about the other vaccinations since the costs incurred by higher risks are not great. The cost of care in these cases is usually small, rarely as high as that for Covid, rarely involving hospitalization, or as much ICU care. Covid care is costing billions and is easily preventable. A high enough percentage of the population is vaccinated or has immunity that the cost is acceptable for those other diseases. Oh, BTW, your school kid is asked for immunization records. Our parents were likely asked about polio at least. Employees are asked for vaccination records in some cases. What is the big deal when there is a very good justification for vaccination?
Currently 100000 people in the US hospitalized. 3 states with no ICU beds available. Record number of daily deaths in several states.
|
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Aug 26, 2021 14:03:04 GMT -6
It is an odd turn.
It was poor policy to fire her though.
|
|
|
|
Post by sweep on Aug 26, 2021 14:27:24 GMT -6
It is an odd turn.
It was poor policy to fire her though.
Since when is it poor policy to fire whacknuts ? |
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Aug 26, 2021 14:45:15 GMT -6
It is an odd turn.
It was poor policy to fire her though.
Since when is it poor policy to fire whacknuts ?
I have some doubt that the vaccination thing was just coincidental with her firing. Not the best career move to be sure...but not whacknut crazy as a public employee to fight for good policy.
|
|
|
|
Post by sweep on Aug 26, 2021 16:21:44 GMT -6
The only mistake her employer made was hiring her batshit crazy ass to begin with.
|
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Aug 26, 2021 19:21:51 GMT -6
The only mistake her employer made was hiring her batshit crazy ass to begin with. Under your theory he made a mistake in that employment review. Her agency was functioning and her performance was at least acceptable. Hard to do if batshit crazy.
Seems to me reasonable people might disagree on whether the Tennessee policy was a good one. THAT was her real offense. And arguably a reasonable act, except for being certain to cause her employment issues.
|
|
|
|
Post by bsutrack on Aug 26, 2021 20:30:13 GMT -6
That's exactly how the Delta Variant is behaving. It's certainly more contagious; however, the hard data indicates it's approximately 1/10th as deadly.
I wonder why that is true since delta is 1/10 as deadly according to your math.
The answer is as I tried to explain above is that the level of current deaths at a given time depend on the population. Comparison must be of similar populations to be valid. And of course how many infections in the population. Deaths depend on not only how many cases we are seeing, but also on how many vulnerable people are vaccinated and avoid infection or have it at a lower level as a result. The rate of death for those infected with one variant or another is not the same as number of deaths due to one variant. Not unless circumstances are similar to compare. That also depends on current mitigation efforts which act to reduce viral load for those infected as well as to slow spread.
The article also looks at Florida versus California results. Florida which I believe you have praised for emphasizing treatments is a state where politicians and leaders have disparaged mitigation, and vaccination, and actually is trying to prevent schools from masking and requiring vaccination. Not a rigorous study in the article where it concedes it may be tricky to compare states, but Florida sure seems to be having a worse time with delta than California where the more effective public health measures have been emphasized. Also a state with a shutdown as a spike occurred in LA.
Any way you cut it cannot be good that Florida has more deaths now with a good deal of their vulnerable population vaccinated.
I would make a wild guess this reflects two things. delta is at least as deadly and/or Florida is doing worse with mitigation of the virus in the population not vaccinated. When you declare the pandemic over and business as usual you would expect that.
They don't release figures in Florida very readily to look at the numbers to tell about that guess.
I read your Yahoo News hit piece on Florida Governor Ron DeSantis. You socialists much really be afraid of him. Unfortunately for you, the facts presented in the article don't seem to match reality. If you go to the following link: usafacts.org/visualizations/coronavirus-covid-19-spread-map/There is a state by state breakdown of Covid-19 cases and deaths. For August 26, 2021, the 7-day running average for the state of Florida is 18,114 cases of Covid-19 and 12 deaths; not the 228 deaths cited by your article. Now this website updates each day, so if you look at it in a few days from now, it might be a bit different. I don't have a subscription for the New York Times link your yahoo article uses for the 228 number. 12 deaths/18,114 cases is 0.00066 or 0.06% which is far below the 0.1% death rate for the influenza. This is assuming every single case of Covid-19 is tested for and reported. I would argue there is at least 1 unreported case for every reported case. Florida is doing even better than the United Kingdom (see my earlier post) where the unadjusted numbers were between 0.16 and 0.21% (unadjusted in that you assume every covid-19 cases is tested for). I will admit a daily average of 18,114 is a lot of Covid-19 cases. My guess is there are a lot of Cubans and Venezuelans coming across the border right now. Most of them have relatives in Florida and head there. The socialist paradises of Cuba and Venezuela might be what your fellow socialists want to turn the USA into, but their current citizens mainly just want to escape. As for California, another border state, the 7-day running averages are 8,836 cases and 43 deaths for 0.49% death rate which is approximately 5 times the normally accepted date rate of influenza of 0.1%. Those numbers say Florida is 800% better than California right now. The state that really looks bad is Texas with a 7 day average of 16,608 cases and 155 deaths (0.9% or 9x seasonal influenza) which is approximately twice the death rate of California. This most likely is a "gift" of Joe Biden's open door at the southern border. In summary, the numbers in your Yahoo News hit piece article are totally bogus. In the future, I suggest you save yourself some embarrassment by checking your basic facts before posting. |
|
|
|
Post by bsutrack on Aug 26, 2021 21:06:55 GMT -6
While on the topic of Governor DeSantis, you have mentioned several times about DeSantis forcing anti-mask mandates on Florida schools. I believe he is only attempting to allow parents to decide if they want their children to wear masks while in schools. www.flgov.com/2021/07/30/governor-desantis-issues-an-executive-order-ensuring-parents-freedom-to-choose/I personally don't see anything wrong with parents deciding what they want their underage children to do. This would be like the government deciding all girls between the age of 16 to 18 must be on birth control. I believe it's a parent's prerogative to decide such matters for their children. If I had a 17-year-old daughter, I wouldn't want the government telling me she should be on the "pill" so she could be sexually active and be "safe" from pregnancy. |
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Aug 26, 2021 22:11:11 GMT -6
Parents may have rights to take risks with their own but have no right to endanger children other than their own.
This rule says a local mandate is never reasonable.
If local circumstances are different and more severe local danger exists the Florida rule would forbid a school to take action. Gives no voice to the local board, or community decision maker.
Why exactly is this case different than the others where local boards have authority and make rules where some parents disagree with those rules?
Holcomb here in Indiana was concerned about choice but trusted local community decisions and set an objective level of danger where a locality could make the call.
|
|
