No jab = higher health insurance premiums

[Left Coast]

Yes.
I had a health that gave discounts for exercise.
It strikes me as immoral to have no disincentive
for dangerous behavior. It harms not only the
schlubs behaving that way, but also the others
who subsidize their wanton ways.

In the aggregate, the outcomes are actually worse, both economically and clinically, when you treat healthcare as something to be earned for the few who deserve it rather than implementing a system of universal care. We spend more per capita and have worse patient outcomes on numerous measures despite our for-profit system that attempts to punish people for bad health behavior. And as I mentioned before, such a system assumes that health decisions are made autonomously and have nothing to do with the social determinants of health that we know mediate downstream health decisions.

So if ethics are your main concern, you should be advocating a system of universal care.

 

[Revoltingest]

So if ethics are your main concern, you should be advocating a system of universal care.

It appears that you don't read my posts.
I've advocated exactly that.
I also favor a Plan B, so that when government
fails to delivery what's wanted, one can legally
buy private health care.

There should be a perceived cost to any service.
This encourages better behavior, & better health
at a lower cost.

 

[Left Coast]

It appears that you don't read my posts.

Sorry, all of them?

No, I most definitely do not.

I've advocated exactly that.

Oh okayhethen we have a contradiction at play. Universal coverage means everyone gets covered, even the people who make health decisions of which you disapprove.

There should be a perceived cost to any service.
This encourages better behavior, & better health
at a lower cost.

The cost of not providing care to people who can't afford it is demonstrably higher than providing it universally universally those who need it. Again, look at the scoreboard internationally.

 

[Revoltingest]

Oh okayhethen we have a contradiction at play. Universal coverage means everyone gets covered, even the people who make health decisions of which you disapprove.

I see no contradiction.
Even Canuckistanians pay something.
Understand how health care works in Canada - Canada.ca

The cost of not providing care to people who can't afford it is demonstrably higher than providing it universally universally those who need it. Again, look at the scoreboard internationally.

I'm not proposing the strawman you just created.
It's about having incentives & disincentives to encourage
better health at a lower cost than your approach.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You don't believe the race we are born into has any effect on the choices we make?

Race is a social construct, it is not a genetic one. People do not have to follow the actions of their race if they are involved in destructive behavior. There is no "it is my racial heritage" exception when one is tried for various felonies.

 

[Left Coast]

I see no contradiction.
Even Canuckistanians pay something.
Understand how health care works in Canada - Canada.ca

Of course people "pay something," they pay taxes. The point is that people are not denied coverage based on inability to pay. Ergo, universal.

I'm not proposing the strawman you just created.
It's about having incentives & disincentives to encourage
better health at a lower cost than your approach.

If the disincentive makes the cost of coverage unaffordable, then that's precisely what you're proposing. Which will inevitably drive up costs as you're just delaying the inevitable care those people will ultimately need. So no, your method would not lower costs. If it did, the USA would have the lowest costs around. Instead we have the highest.

This is the entire reason why health economists in the US (and elsewhere) have placed such heavy emphasis of late on addressing social determinants of health - one of which is health insurance coverage. Because they recognize that is the most efficient and economically sound way of addressing rising healthcare costs.

 

[Revoltingest]

Of course people "pay something," they pay taxes. The point is that people are not denied coverage based on inability to pay. Ergo, universal.

I favor direct payment for service....not just the
bottomless pit of taxation.

If the disincentive makes the cost of coverage unaffordable, then that's precisely what you're proposing.

I never said it shouldn't be affordable.

Which will inevitably drive up costs as you're just delaying the inevitable care those people will ultimately need. So no, your method would not lower costs. If it did, the USA would have the lowest costs around. Instead we have the highest.

This is the entire reason why health economists in the US (and elsewhere) have placed such heavy emphasis of late on addressing social determinants of health - one of which is health insurance coverage. Because they recognize that is the most efficient and economically sound way of addressing rising healthcare costs.

I suspect that your system of having no economic
consequences for bad health choices will cost more.
Don't encourage anti-vaxers.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It always feels good to declare victory before you've actually dealt with what your interlocutor has actually said.

Then please try to make valid claims. Please note I am not the only one that sees that you keep using strawman arguments.

By the way, the "healthcare is a right" is not the best argument to get single payer. Rights are not something that we are born with. Rights come from the government. Don't believe me? Go to another country and try and practice some of your "rights" there. I argue on the fact that at a certain point services are better provided by the government rather than private enterprise. Roads, schools, police and firemen, there are endless examples of this.

But until then we must live with the system that we have.

 

[Left Coast]

I never said it shouldn't be affordable.

What happens when it is, though? People don't get coverage, right? Thus the system you're advocating is not universal coverage.

I suspect that your system of having no economic
consequences for bad health choices will cost more.
Don't encourage anti-vaxers.

Did you know that one of the most influential variables in changing the mind of people who are hesitant about vaccines is whether it's recommended by their personal doctor?

In order to have a personal doctor, you have to be able to afford it, ie have insurance.

So if you want to discourage anti-vaxx attitudes, advocate a system that expands coverage rather than contracting it. That's what will actually work if you care about that issue.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I'm understanding pretty clearly, from what I can see. You think people who don't make the correct health decision (to get vaccinated) should pay more for care coverage. I disagree. I explained why that is from multiple vantage points, economically and ethically.

If you agree with the idea that vaccines should be free, it shouldn't be that much of a stretch to understand why a person would advocate that care generally should be free. Healthcare should be a right, as you yourself agreed would be the case "ideally." So let's make it real instead of just an abstraction. Let's stop perpetuating a system of merit-based care.

Assuming that because I disagree with you that therefore I don't understand you is an issue on your part, not mine.

Ethically the argument fails since you are only supporting antivaxxers with such a policy. Economically it fails because these people are not in need and the results are due to their bad decision. You would have those that do the right thing pay more and that is unethical.

 

[Subduction Zone]

What happens when it is, though? People don't get coverage, right? Thus the system you're advocating is not universal coverage.



Did you know that one of the most influential variables in changing the mind of people who are hesitant about vaccines is whether it's recommended by their personal doctor?

In order to have a personal doctor, you have to be able to afford it, ie have insurance.

So if you want to discourage anti-vaxx attitudes, advocate a system that expands coverage rather than contracting it. That's what will actually work if you care about that issue.

We are talking about one specific company here. It is actually a more than reasonable compromise if you think about it.

 

[Left Coast]

Then please try to make valid claims. Please note I am not the only one that sees that you keep using strawman arguments.

You keep saying that but not actually showing it. instead of just actually addressing the substance of what I say.

By the way, the "healthcare is a right" is not the best argument to get single payer. Rights are not something that we are born with. Rights come from the government. Don't believe me? Go to another country and try and practice some of your "rights" there. I argue on the fact that at a certain point services are better provided by the government rather than private enterprise. Roads, schools, police and firemen, there are endless examples of this.

Thank you for that informative strategy lesson. I seem to be doing fine in this conversation though, thank you.

But until then we must live with the system that we have.

The only way to change the system that we have is to...actually change it. Which means not continuing to perpetuate the mindset that healthcare is a privilege for the worthy.

 

[Left Coast]

Ethically the argument fails since you are only supporting antivaxxers with such a policy.

Incorrect. If you want antivaxxers to make better health decisions, let them talk to a doctor. That has an actual demonstrated influence on people's vaccine decisions. Universal coverage would ensure that.

Economically it fails because these people are not in need and the results are due to their bad decision.

Everyone needs healthcare at some point in their lives. So you're just plain wrong, again. Universal systems of coverage save money, they don't cost more.

You would have those that do the right thing pay more and that is unethical.

That is the entire logic of all systems of insurance, so if you have an issue with that I'm not sure what to tell you. Good drivers' premiums pay for the outsized costs of paying to repair the cars of bad drivers. That's literally the entire point of insurance - the pooling of risk.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You keep saying that but not actually showing it. instead of just actually addressing the substance of what I say.



Thank you for that informative strategy lesson. I seem to be doing fine in this conversation though, thank you.



The only way to change the system that we have is to...actually change it. Which means not continuing to perpetuate the mindset that healthcare is a privilege for the worthy.

I did show the strawman argument that you used at least once. You ignored it.

And yes, the only way to change it is to get a new system. Until then we live with what we have and try to make it work better. Your solution appears to fail. And there you go with your strawman again.

No one is claiming that it is a privilege for the worthy.

Try again. See if you can be a bit more accurate.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Incorrect. If you want antivaxxers to make better health decisions, let them talk to a doctor. That has an actual demonstrated influence on people's vaccine decisions. Universal coverage would ensure that.



Everyone needs healthcare at some point in their lives. So you're just plain wrong, again. Universal systems of coverage save money, they don't cost more.



That is the entire logic of all systems of insurance, so if you have an issue with that I'm not sure what to tell you. Good drivers' premiums pay for the outsized costs of paying to repair the cars of bad drivers. That's literally the entire point of insurance - the pooling of risk.

You do not understand antivaxxers. Talking to a doctor will not help. Reason does not work on them. That is why they are antivaxxers in the first place. They can understand economics.

And you are back to your failed strawman. No one is denying anyone healthcare here. You need to try again.

 

[Left Coast]

I did show the strawman argument that you used at least once. You ignored it.

You mean when you claimed that you didn't say I didn't understand you, immediately after saying I didn't understand you, and me showing you that's exactly what you said?

Or something else?

And yes, the only way to change it is to get a new system. Until then we live with what we have and try to make it work better. Your solution appears to fail. And there you go with your strawman again.

No one is claiming that it is a privilege for the worthy.

Try again. See if you can be a bit more accurate.

Ah, now I see what you're calling "straw man." When I cut out the euphemisms and don't use your exact words, you say it's a "straw man."

Sorry, no.

If you're advocating a system where you make premiums more expensive based on health decisions, you are literally guaranteeing that some portion of the population won't be able to afford it. Insurance premiums are already absurdly high I'm the US, so I hope you're not going to try to absurdly protest that point. It is a statistical certainty, depending on the size of the population we're talking about.

Thus, you'll cause them to lose coverage, because they made the wrong health decision.

The logic here is inescapable, if you're not playing word games.

 

[Left Coast]

You do not understand antivaxxers. Talking to a doctor will not help. Reason does not work on them. That is why they are antivaxxers in the first place. They can understand economics.

I should have said "unvaccinated people," to be more accurate. It's certainly true some of them are too far gone to reason with. That is not the case with all of them. You should actually look at the research on the subject before opining further.

And you are back to your failed strawman. No one is denying anyone healthcare here. You need to try again.

You are denying coverage to people who can't afford an increased premium. That is literally what you are advocating.

I don't need to try anything again. You need a better policy.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You mean when you claimed that you didn't say I didn't understand you, immediately after saying I didn't understand you, and me showing you that's exactly what you said?

Or something else?



Ah, now I see what you're calling "straw man." When I cut out the euphemisms and don't use your exact words, you say it's a "straw man."

Sorry, no.

If you're advocating a system where you make premiums more expensive based on health decisions, you are literally guaranteeing that some portion of the population won't be able to afford it. Insurance premiums are already absurdly high I'm the US, so I hope you're not going to try to absurdly protest that point. It is a statistical certainty, depending on the size of the population we're talking about.

Thus, you'll cause them to lose coverage, because they made the wrong health decision.

The logic here is inescapable, if you're not playing word games.

No, your continued false claims about not providing services. That is a strawman. It does not deal with the case that is being discussed.

 

[Left Coast]

No, your continued false claims about not providing services. That is a strawman. It does not deal with the case that is being discussed.

Services are not provided to people who cannot pay for them, either out of pocket or through insurance, other than emergency services. You know this, yes?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I should have said "unvaccinated people," to be more accurate. It's certainly true some of them are too far gone to reason with. That is not the case with all of them. You should actually look at the research on the subject before opining further.



You are denying coverage to people who can't afford an increased premium. That is literally what you are advocating.

I don't need to try anything again. You need a better policy.

LOL! You were the one that used the term antivaxxers. And at this point anyone that is not vaccinated is some sort of antivaxxer. The need has been well explained. There has been no shortage of vaccine. And, this should make you happy, there is no charge. For anyone. If you are insured your insurance pays for it, and I think that the government pays for any copayments, at any rate the person getting vaccinated is not charged. If a person does not have insurance the government pays for the whole thing. The only legitimate reasons are those that cannot get vaccinated due to severe health issues and they would be aware of this.

And no, what you are saying is false. No matter how many times your repeat it. No one is advocating taking away coverage.

If you do not understand then ask politely and I will try to explain it to you again.