Make anti-vaccine parents pay higher premiums

[BCDisneyFanatic]

Please forgive my ignorance since I've never had to pay for health insurance out of pocket, but do companies charge people more if they have pre-existing conditions? If so, then I guess being unvax'ed could fall into that category .

I like the PP's suggestion of earning credits for a healthy lifestyle. I think that insurance companies could make a lot of savings if they offered discounts for people who lost weight, got regular physicals, vaccinated, etc. Offering positive reinforcement for making good health choices makes sense to me!

 

[emma'smom]

So..."healthy life style choices" could include vaccinations, right? Raise everyone's premiums x-amount and then deduct this amount for those who have their children vaccinated. Same effect, right?

 

[jjarman]

Very slippery slope.

I'm very pro vax and I'd never subscribe to such an idea. However, I do believe that schools should have the right to ban students who aren't vaccinated without a known negative reaction or family history of vaccination problems.

This seems to me to be the answer. I am also very pro vaccination. Why take even a small chance on your child getting a fatal disease. The numbers of children who have any kind of reaction to a vaccine are so small. And as has been shown there is no connection with autism or any other malady. But the connection between not being vaccinated and getting a deadly disease is much stronger.

 

[bdcp]

As much as I want to agree with this it leaves out the fact that children die from vaccinations.

My oldest has a vaccine allergy with the Pertussis. So she should have to pay a higher premium because she cannot get the full vaccine.

I think not.

As much as you want to think this is a good indea, giving that kind of power to insurance companies is probably not a good idea in the end.

Children also die from riding bikes, falling out of trees, getting hit in the head or chest by baseballs, etc. Does that mean the parents who refuse to vaccinate also refuse to let their kids play? It's a very, very small minority of children that have true reactions to vaccinations. How many children have died from vaccinations in the last decade? Do you even know or do you have to google it?

People who make decisions on vaccinations about their child that affect everyone are doing so based on a lot of false information.

I do not agree with doing what this article suggests because it opens a huge can of worms that most people don't even have any concept of. It would result in more government intervention in our lives among other things. However, I do think that parents who don't vaccinate without a legitimate reason aren't necessarily as intelligent as they think they are.

And I know your daughter can't have the vaccine for very legitimate reasons, that is not what I was referring to. That's very different than random decisions due to fear. What I saw in the article is those parents that CHOOSE to not vaccinate should not pay more. Nowhere did I see where those with legitimate medical reasons would have to.

Anyone can have a reaction to anything at any time. We take risks everytime we eat something or use perfume, makeup,etc. And, yes, people have died from allergic reactions to things they'd never had a reaction to in the past.

 

[KristaTX]

Topper - This is unrelated to the topic at hand, and I have no opinion on you or your posts.

But I have to ask - Is your signature supposed to flash and say "Revenge is sweeter than you ever were", or is another website blocking your picture and replacing it with that annoyance? I've noticed it before on other threads. The flashing looks like it could give someone a headache at best, a seizure at worst. Just curious.

 

[Reddy]

I think reaction would be exempt from more of those shots
but if you are not getting them because of Religion - what would you say here??

my opinion - 2 austic boys - both up to date on shots

I do think 4 shots at one time is crazy (several of them for several different things)
one at a time would be better for the child but it takes up the nurses time so that is why they push all they can

 

[bellebud]

Topper - This is unrelated to the topic at hand, and I have no opinion on you or your posts.

But I have to ask - Is your signature supposed to flash and say "Revenge is sweeter than you ever were", or is another website blocking your picture and replacing it with that annoyance? I've noticed it before on other threads. The flashing looks like it could give someone a headache at best, a seizure at worst. Just curious.

yes, I have to scroll down to block your sig - it's hurting my eyes.

 

[tiggersbombed2]

I'd go with that. I refuse to get my kids vaccinated for flu every year, but we do the other standards.

Here's another thing. How about you keep your sick kids home instead of sending them back to school full of advil and cough medicine where they can sneeze or cough and spread their germs? And how about YOU stay home when you're sick too? Not rocket science.

I get that people need to go to work, but I'm tired of paying the price.

 

[princessmom29]

Personally I think it is a GREAT idea. Mabye it will make more people inclined to vaccinate and keep us all safer!

 

[Magpie]

I don't like it.

I'm generally in favour of MORE choice when it comes to our children, not less. I went to several vaccination information sessions when I was pregnant, looked around the room, counted up the number of parents swearing off of vaccines and decided to get my children vaccinated, since it seemed to me that herd immunity wasn't likely to be very effective in our town.

But I still had them vaccinated on a delayed schedule, as per my doctor's recommendation. Very delayed, in the case of my son, as he was homeschooled and we managed to forget some of his shots until Grade Five. He was not thrilled. It's very different giving the shot to a kid who can describe exactly how awful he's feeling, at length! For days! All toddlers do is cry a bit.

That said, I'm generally in favour of vaccines. In Pakistan my mother made sure her bodyguard's baby got vaccinated, and she's paying for the next baby to be vaccinated, too. Her bodyguard's baby is noticeably stronger and healthier than her cousin, who was born at the same time and who has already come down with Pertussis. My mother credits the vaccines. When a baby in a country like Pakistan gets sick with Measles, Mumps, Rubella and/or Pertussis, it takes energy away from their growth. Long term, it can have a negative impact on their brain development. Vaccination programs in the third world make a huge difference.

But even with all that, I'm uncomfortable with the idea that an insurance company can decide what's best for MY children. Remember little breastfed Alex Lange, who was denied health insurance at 4 months old because he was too fat?

I'm grateful I had the freedom to raise my children my own way. I didn't have anyone telling me what to teach them, or when. I didn't have anyone telling me what to feed them, or how much. I didn't have anyone coming in and forbidding me from sleeping with them. And I didn't have anyone telling me how to get them vaccinated or which vaccines to give them!

I don't want to change any of that. I'd like to have more info sessions, more ads on TV, more discussion. But I definitely don't want to see penalties for non-compliance.

 

[castleview]

I'd go with that. I refuse to get my kids vaccinated for flu every year, but we do the other standards.

Here's another thing. How about you keep your sick kids home instead of sending them back to school full of advil and cough medicine where they can sneeze or cough and spread their germs? And how about YOU stay home when you're sick too? Not rocket science.

I get that people need to go to work, but I'm tired of paying the price.

I hear you. I get that it's easier to get a phone call from the school nurse than tell the boss you can't come in at all, but it's really sad that we've reached the point where someone staying home with the kids is secondary.

 

[tiggersbombed2]

The gov't already decides what's best for our children, so do the schools, by demanding the children be vaccinated.

Anyone who doesn't want to vax can do so, all they have to do is pull out the "my religion doesn't believe in vaccinations" card or anyone of a number of other reasons.

The only way to make it fair it to charge the non-vax kids more. Non-vax kids are the ones spreading the diseases for the most part, costing everyone else time and money. Fair is fair. It leaves the choice up to you, do you want to vax or do you want to pay the price? Because your choice not to vax impacts me and my family.

Again, I'm tired of paying the price for other people. I would be fine with paying extra because I refuse to have my kids vaxed for flu every year.

 

[Acklander]

Instead of paying higher premiums, maybe if someone gets sick because of their lifestyle, the insurance company should cover less of the costs involved. For example, if a smoker gets lung cancer. But if a smoker gets hit by a bus, that's an unrelated injury.

You really don't want to open up that can or worms. What if someone has a heart attack, and they lived on Cheeseburgers. What if they ate cheeseburgers once a week, once a month or once a year? Do you really want the insurance companies deciding how much they're willing to pay on your medical costs depending on your risk factors?

 

[Acklander]

Please forgive my ignorance since I've never had to pay for health insurance out of pocket, but do companies charge people more if they have pre-existing conditions? If so, then I guess being unvax'ed could fall into that category .

!

They don't charge more, they either refuse to sell them insurance at all, or exclude the preexisting condition from being covered. That part is supposed to change (or not change, depending on what happens with things we're not allowed to discuss on the dis)

 

[Hoodie]

Our pediatrician no longer accepts patients who are not vaccinated or will not be vaccinated. There are too many infants in their practice who have not yet received vaccinations and they had a scare with a 3 day old infant being exposed to whooping cough due to an unvaccinated child.

Thankfully nothing happened, but their policy is now no vaccine=find another doctor.

 

[Planogirl]

You really don't want to open up that can or worms. What if someone has a heart attack, and they lived on Cheeseburgers. What if they ate cheeseburgers once a week, once a month or once a year? Do you really want the insurance companies deciding how much they're willing to pay on your medical costs depending on your risk factors?

Another thing, how would anyone know how many cheeseburgers a person ate? An insurance company could find out about smoking and vacs but I can't see any way to know how much "bad" food anyone eats.

I find all of this judging people for their lifestyles kind of creepy.

 

[wvjules]

Until we make all individuals pay premiums that correspond to their health choices, this is a silly suggestion.

(I am not anti-vaccine.)

Don't we already do that? Which health choices should require an increase in premiums and which shouldn't?

 

[Hannathy]

Our pediatrician no longer accepts patients who are not vaccinated or will not be vaccinated. There are too many infants in their practice who have not yet received vaccinations and they had a scare with a 3 day old infant being exposed to whooping cough due to an unvaccinated child.

Thankfully nothing happened, but their policy is now no vaccine=find another doctor.

I like this DR!!!!

 

[pansmermaidzlagoon]

Very slippery slope.

I'm very pro vax and I'd never subscribe to such an idea. However, I do believe that schools should have the right to ban students who aren't vaccinated without a known negative reaction or family history of vaccination problems.

that puts the schools even deeper in the business of policing families......do you really want your school wasting its time and resources this way by fighting these battles in court (battles they can't win)? Not to mention once this 100% consumer compliance is put in place the government will mandate all vax - flu, HPV, chicken pox, you name it. Do want them taking those decisions away?

and, as our school nurse says, kids are just as or more likely to pick things up at the mall...school isn't a special case. You take your kids to the mall, the movies, etc where they mix with all the same kids and more. I don't get the emphasis on school - it is foolish really when you think about it.

Let's not forget, the not to vax exemptions for schools are often made on religious terms (you can argue that all you want), but the bottom line is that to argue against those reasons have been found to constitute religious persecution as far as schools fighting them. I would assume it would be the same for insurance.

good luck with that. Thank goodness most people don't see this as sensible.

me, I want monitors at all restrooms to make sure everyone complies with hand washing with soap while they sing happy birthday to you twice. If not they are reported to big brother, fined, and given higher premiums. I can dream can't I? (totally tongue in cheek, but yo get the point)

 

[anna_chronistic]

People who make decisions on vaccinations about their child that affect everyone are doing so based on a lot of false information. ....

However, I do think that parents who don't vaccinate without a legitimate reason aren't necessarily as intelligent as they think they are.

And I know your daughter can't have the vaccine for very legitimate reasons, that is not what I was referring to. That's very different than random decisions due to fear. What I saw in the article is those parents that CHOOSE to not vaccinate should not pay more. Nowhere did I see where those with legitimate medical reasons would have to.

Ah, and that's where it comes out. A legitimate reason can only be legitimate based on your criteria, which evidently is a severe allergic reaction? No other reason is legitimate, really?

Huh, I completely disagree. I'm not anti-necessary vaccinations, but really, a vaccination for chicken pox? A vaccination for HPV (Gardasil, which hasn't been sufficiently tested and particularly hasn't been tested in combination with other vaccines)? People who choose not to have their children subjected to certain vaccines (not ALL vaccines) are most certainly not doing so because of "false information" and because they "aren't necessarily as intelligent as they think they are" (and from that, I'm sorry, but I read it as you saying, "they're not as intelligent as I am" ).

As I said, I'm not opposed to ALL vaccines, but I have the right to make an educated decision about non-required vaccines. Actually, I even have the right to at least protest vehemently if a vaccine becomes required and I have found good research indicating it is dangerous, unneccessary, poorly tested, or if I have a serious problem with that particular vaccine because of my religious beliefs.

Plus, as other posters have said, there are too many other ways insurance companies could investigate every aspect of a person's life and find "legitimate" reasons not to cover that person or to hike up his or her rates. Other posters have mentioned poor eating habits, smoking, what about people who simply don't exercise? What about a skinny person who -- under the surface -- are actually less healthy than an overweight person? There are just too many ways this could go wrong, and I don't see evidence supporting the idea that unvaccinated people are endangering anyone any more than those who go to work with a cold, strep, a flu, sinus infection, etc. I have a strong feeling (not that a "feeling" is evidence, of course) that those are the ones who cause more problems. But it still shouldn't affect their insurance.