Hacker News Reader

Comment by humanistbot | Hacker News Reader

What this heartbreaking article leaves out is that none of these unvaccinated patients or their relatives have to personally pay any of the medical costs for their advanced treatment. (Edit: FYI, the CARES act reimburses providers for any COVID-related costs if you're uninsured: https://www.hrsa.gov/coviduninsuredclaim) At this point, being unvaccinated without an approved medical reason (e.g. immunocompromised) should be treated as a pre-existing condition. If you decline the vaccine, you should have to pay the full cost of the medical treatment.

View on HN

At this point, being unvaccinated without an approved medical reason (e.g. immunocompromised) should be treated as a pre-existing condition

What are you talking about?

Under current law, health insurance companies can’t refuse to cover you or charge you more just because you have a “pre-existing condition” — that is, a health problem you had before the date that new health coverage starts.These rules went into effect for plan years beginning on or after January 1, 2014.

https://www.hhs.gov/healthcare/about-the-aca/pre-existing-co...

Please don’t be one of those “if you don’t listen to me I hope you die” types; you can catch more flies with honey.

If you are willfully ignorant and cause yourself and others harm, you should be exposed to the full financial cost of your ignorance.

Vaccines are free and widely available; there are no more carrots left to offer the ignorant.

I don’t wish any harm on anyone though. If you assume I’m unvaccinated because I called someone out on their outdated misunderstanding of how pre-existing conditions work it says more about you than me.

How about no understanding of potential long term side effects whatsoever? Fancy some liver cancer in four years?

What part about 'not been fully studied' and 'experimental' do people such as yourself not understand?

Wait a second, you think everyone that hasn't been vaccinated is "willfully ignorant"?

Bruh, c'mon, anyone can look at the numbers and come to their own conclusions (until complete censorship takes that option away). I mean, have you not had coworkers disagree with you about how to implement or do something? If the choice is made to use their idea instead of yours, are you secretly hoping for the project to fail?

Hoping the project to fail, no. Willing to pay real money when their project failed for predictible causes because they didn't do basic due diligence, also no.

If the team is using python and they decide they know better and go rogue and use haskell, I'll hope they fail/be punished. Group cooperation is important on big issues.

Nothing against haskell.

That argument falls on its face as soon as you check most other illness. What if you're sick because you don't work out, eat like shit, etc? If you start discriminating on what people did/do to prevent illness when treating them you'll never stop and are bound to have biased judgment.

Unhealthy lifestyle habits are priced into both health and life insurance.

Not familiar with those that much (I live in a public healthcare country where they can't discriminate on bad lifestyle), but from parent it seems they can't change your premium if your lifestyle changes? (Which seems more similar to what op proposed).

Okay, I got the "preexisting conditions" terminology wrong. I think if you don't listen to medical experts and get a free, universally available vaccine, the rest of society shouldn't pay for the very expensive costs of your choice.

Health insurance is more expensive for smokers generally. Why not antivaxers too?

The ACA does allow health insurers to charge up to 50% more for smokers' health insurance premiums (though some individual states have banned it)

I also feel your frustration, but if one isn't convinced by "You may get this virus and die," then I don't think they'll be convinced by "You may get this virus, die, and your family will be in crippling debt."

I'm done with persuasion. I just want them to pay for the consequences of their decisions.

> If you decline the vaccine, you should have to pay the full cost of the medical treatment.

Would you accept the same approach also for other cases where people could prevent (or decrease risk by orders of magnitude) by their own choices, like "who gets HIV from high-risk unprotected sex, should pay the full cost of treatment"?

If there was a free and universally available HIV vaccine at every corner drugstore, then yes.

They do have condoms at every corner drugstore.

Fine, then let people choose to be treated early on with Ivermectin or HCQ. Lets see what the results bear out.

Considering 'right to try' essentially amounts to 'you are dying, so you can try and experimental drug and see if it works' and the vax is presently experimental and emergency use only, why not permit the other two?

If Ivermectin is allowed as a treatment, then an existing option existed and the vaccines would not have been allowed under the FDA emergency authorization

Bingo. This is also correct.

Obese people next please!

Reply on news.ycombinator.com