Do vaccine refusers have an ethical duty to pay for their own Covid care?

jinjuku

jinjuku

Moderator
It is also a vaguely disguised judgement, and not one associated with the hippocratic oath.
I really wish people wouldn't put words in my mouth...

I clearly said even in light of getting Covid and you refused vaccination you should get top notch care. There is a difference between that and having some of the care cost come directly out of your hide for refusing preventative, efficacious, care.

My judgement is this: Who's the bigger asshole: Me for not wanting to pay for stupidity in this edge case of global pandemic, or someone else that is simply an anti-vaxxer?

I'm 100% for everyone getting the medical treatment they need. I think if anti-vaccine crowd was told that some of the cost of their care was directly on them you would get some % to begrudgingly accept the vaccine.

My experience with my fellow humans is that many can be dumb as poop but when $5 is on the line they all the sudden have PhD's.
 
M

Mr._Clark

Audioholic General
This logic, or ethics if you will, also applies to anything else that is knowingly potentially preventable. That list is too long to even get into. But seat belts, texting while driving, or how about destructive life habits like alcoholism, smoking or poor diets full of salt and sugar? Smite them all? They could have chosen to do the right thing?
I realize this isn't what was originally proposed in this thread, but I think you'd agree that it is ethical to charge smokers more for health insurance?

>>>The practice of charging tobacco users more is called tobacco rating. The ACA allows for insurance companies to charge smokers up to 50 percent more than non-smokers through a tobacco surcharge.<<<

 
jinjuku

jinjuku

Moderator
I realize this isn't what was originally proposed in this thread, but I think you'd agree that it is ethical to charge smokers more for health insurance?

>>>The practice of charging tobacco users more is called tobacco rating. The ACA allows for insurance companies to charge smokers up to 50 percent more than non-smokers through a tobacco surcharge.<<<

Add to that texting while driving, seatbelts, etc are all ticketable offenses. This is in line with and why I asked the question I have. We penalize poor decision making all the time outside of the direct ramifications of being on the receiving end of your own choices.

I don't know why others have taken my question and twisted it into a quality of care issue. It's a burden of the cost of care. Not whether you receive care or not.

The real issue I see with my question is the person that refuses the vaccine, gets Covid, and then doesn't seek care due to the direct monetary consequence. That light bulb just lit for me and I have to admit I didn't consider that till now.
 
MalVeauX

MalVeauX

Full Audioholic
I realize this isn't what was originally proposed in this thread, but I think you'd agree that it is ethical to charge smokers more for health insurance?

>>>The practice of charging tobacco users more is called tobacco rating. The ACA allows for insurance companies to charge smokers up to 50 percent more than non-smokers through a tobacco surcharge.<<<

It's a dangerous question. It does apply in this thread though. It's a basic concept that can be reiterated any way you wish with any subject regarding health. If we know something is detrimental to our health, and the public health in general, then if you choose to engage in that behavior or lifestyle or consumption of, or refusal of something that results in known detriment to health, should it incur a premium regarding their health care or insurance for said health care? When does it end? This logic cannot carry obviously. Some things will be targeted based on how they're impacting throughput in the system. Every couple of years this changes in terms of subject matter. For a long time it was heart attack, then stroke, now it's sepsis, and the next one is obesity. And it all stems from who's funding the system. There will always be a popular crusade on something, like smoking (now), or pick something else. It depends on what the for-profit insurance system wants to target to reduce their payouts until you get on medicaid. It's not about saving lives, unfortunately. It's the result of lobbying by for-profit systems to avoid paying out. And it's a pick and choose thing. The next big one is obesity, in a very big way.

This obviously begins to side rail from the original thread, so I'll leave it there. But just pointing out that it's not some computer system with utopian ideals (this isn't Star Fleet) that takes anything that is self-induced, like smoking, and turns it into a punishment system. It's the result of for-profit humans leading a business and lobbying for what will allow them to be as profitable as possible without incurring litigation that crashes their profits. Health care is a business in the USA, disguised as health care. COVID? Smoking? Alcoholism? Any at-risk behavior? Any consumption of anything that is known to cause issues with health? Any cancer risk? Obesity? It's literally handled the same in terms of it being ethical or not, and is heavily impacted by who is at helm of liability and payout schemes. It's wealth generating with pretty words to make the public not feel like cattle.

You start to get into dangerous water because many things are legal but lethal to health. And health doesn't rule all. The amendments do. Those virtual freedoms. So there are dirty ways around that because it's all profitable and supports the economy. Let's keep it legal to smoke, and let them generate wealth, while causing harm to people who will eventually need health care, and charge them more for it because of their bad choices of using a legal product that causes bad health results. Insert whatever you want. You cannot force something and not expect legal issues, like a vaccine. But to suggest they be punished in their health care in some way for not taking the COVID vaccine? You can't. It's not that its not ethical, it's a legal thing. And you bet your butt for-profit insurance is going to absolutely capitalize on COVID. And again, soon, there will be penalties for you being obese/fat. Just wait until you see the outcry of obese America when they're told their health care costs more because they chose a poor diet for a lifetime.

Very best,
 
Last edited:
Swerd

Swerd

Audioholic Warlord
But do we force anyone who refuses any of these to then be 100% liable for their medical care due to this refusal? No.

To force people to be liable for all their medical care with no help due to a refusal of a vaccine, for anything, is just emotional response to the idea of vaccines and the situation with COVID (or insert any pathogen here). But none of it is new. We've been doing this, just pick a different pathogen to target. So to answer fairly certainly to burden someone who refuses vaccine(s) in general with 100% of their medical care is not ethical.
I agree with most of your comments – in general. However, jinjuku's original post proposed the idea that those who refuse Covid-19 vaccination be financially responsible for the medical expenses incurred only if they become infected. I don't believe he suggested that people who refuse vaccination loose all their medical insurance.
If you are refusing the vaccine, that the efficacy of is now beyond reproach, I don't want it coming out of the societal pocket book. I want you to bare 100% of your own costs on this choice you are making.
I see Mr._Clark already pointed out the same as I have. And that you responded to him.
 
jinjuku

jinjuku

Moderator
should it incur a premium regarding their health care or insurance for said health care? When does it end?
So it's all individual rights then? You can have any health consequence you want and while you may pay the personal health price society at large should take the economic costs? Because if we don't and allow you to go into debt you now get to be an even bigger burden?

This sound's like a hostage situation... :)
 
Swerd

Swerd

Audioholic Warlord
It's a dangerous question. It does apply in this thread though. It's a basic concept that can be reiterated any way you wish with any subject regarding health. If we know something is detrimental to our health, and the public health in general, then if you choose to engage in that behavior or lifestyle or consumption of, or refusal of something that results in known detriment to health, should it incur a premium regarding their health care or insurance for said health care? When does it end? This logic cannot carry obviously. Some things will be targeted based on how they're impacting throughput in the system. Every couple of years this changes in terms of subject matter. For a long time it was heart attack, then stroke, now it's sepsis, and the next one is obesity. And it all stems from who's funding the system. There will always be a popular crusade on something, like smoking (now), or pick something else. It depends on what the for-profit insurance system wants to target to reduce their payouts until you get on medicaid. It's not about saving lives, unfortunately. It's the result of lobbying by for-profit systems to avoid paying out. And it's a pick and choose thing. The next big one is obesity, in a very big way.

This obviously begins to side rail from the original thread, so I'll leave it there. But just pointing out that it's not some computer system with utopian ideals (this isn't Star Fleet) that takes anything that is self-induced, like smoking, and turns it into a punishment system. It's the result of for-profit humans leading a business and lobbying for what will allow them to be as profitable as possible without incurring litigation that crashes their profits. Health care is a business in the USA, disguised as health care. COVID? Smoking? Alcoholism? Any at-risk behavior? Any consumption of anything that is known to cause issues with health? Any cancer risk? Obesity? It's literally handled the same in terms of it being ethical or not, and is heavily impacted by who is at helm of liability and payout schemes. It's wealth generating with pretty words to make the public not feel like cattle.

You start to get into dangerous water because many things are legal but lethal to health. And health doesn't rule all. The amendments do. Those virtual freedoms. So there are dirty ways around that because it's all profitable and supports the economy. Let's keep it legal to smoke, and let them generate wealth, while causing harm to people who will eventually need health care, and charge them more for it because of their bad choices of using a legal product that causes bad health results. Insert whatever you want. You cannot force something and not expect legal issues, like a vaccine. But to suggest they be punished in their health care in some way for not taking the COVID vaccine? You can't. It's not that its not ethical, it's a legal thing. And you bet your butt for-profit insurance is going to absolutely capitalize on COVID. And again, soon, there will be penalties for you being obese/fat. Just wait until you see the outcry of obese America when they're told their health care costs more because they chose a poor diet for a lifetime.
Although heart disease, smoking, alcoholism, cancer risks, obesity, etc. are all known serious health risks, there is a difference between them and infectious virus diseases. The viruses are easily transmitted to others, and pose a widespread danger to the public in general. Those other health problems pose a danger only to individuals — they are not contagious. And, with vaccines, we have a cheap, effective, and widely available preventative treatment. We don't have anything like that to prevent those other health issues.

All the rest of your post, suggests that for-profit health insurance and health care is a major part of the problem. I agree. The entire experience with the corona virus pandemic makes a strong case for the existence of nation-wide health insurance, and even large scale (state-wide if not nation-wide?) health care system(s).
 
MalVeauX

MalVeauX

Full Audioholic
This sound's like a hostage situation... :)
It is.

Come to the hospital with a problem and when the other problems found are then presented to you and it's suggested you be admitted to the hospital for this care. If you refuse and want to walk out, it's AMA and you're going to be liable for a lot of things and it will be in your medical history. You will be financially and insurance coverage penalized for your behavior of refusing care against medical advice. That's the result of legal liability, so if you leave and get worse you cannot sue them and win. And keeping you in the system is supporting billing someone or something (don't have insurance? Ok, we'll find a way to bill you and sell your debt to collections and at least get some money out of your visit in some way, and wreck your credit and other things along with it, causing more economic issues globally).

COVID unfortunately is a real problem.

But the health care system we have right now is so completely broken and is a giant for-profit business. COVID has had many people in healthcare leave it because it's so unethical when you poke the pocket book of the hospital.

Very best,
 
MalVeauX

MalVeauX

Full Audioholic
Although heart disease, smoking, alcoholism, cancer risks, obesity, etc. are all known serious health risks, there is a difference between them and infectious virus diseases. The viruses are easily transmitted to others, and pose a widespread danger to the public in general. Those other health problems pose a danger only to individuals — they are not contagious. And, with vaccines, we have a cheap, effective, and widely available preventative treatment. We don't have anything like that to prevent those other health issues.
They do pose threat to others. Directly and indirectly. You're attaching a sort of personal value to them instead of just seeing that they're absolutely all communicable in various ways (yes, including cancer, but then again you don't have to deal with the trauma alert when someone on chemo passes out driving into someone else's van full of kids who then need life long medical care for some major injuries and the burden it becomes to our greater healthcare system and economy to see what I'm saying). How about the non-stop Baker acts and mental health admission because they were raised by an alcoholic abusive care-giver? How about the obese parents raising obese children? It all ends up impacting and it wasn't a self-induced thing or a personal choice. You can take this to any level and remove emotion and all of it overlaps. We just like to focus on one thing at a time because it's emotionally charged, politically charged or financially charged.

The real danger, outside of our atrocious business practice of healthcare, is the now rampant self-informed (read: social media educated) population lobbying for things they have zero actual clue about.

Very best,
 
Last edited:
jinjuku

jinjuku

Moderator
They do pose threat to others. Directly and indirectly. You're attaching a sort of personal value to them instead of just seeing that they're absolutely all communicable in various ways (yes, including cancer, but then again you don't have to deal with the trauma alert when someone on chemo passes out driving into someone else's van full of kids who then need life long medical care for some major injuries and the burden it becomes to our greater healthcare system and economy to see what I'm saying). How about the non-stop Baker acts and mental health admission because they were raised by an alcoholic abusive care-giver? How about the obese parents raising obese children? It all ends up impacting and it wasn't a self-induced thing or a personal choice. You can take this to any level and remove emotion and all of it overlaps. We just like to focus on one thing at a time because it's emotionally charged, politically charged or financially charged.

The real danger, outside of our atrocious business practice of healthcare, is the now rampant self-informed (read: social media educated) population lobbying for things they have zero actual clue about.

Very best,
I think you are minimizing, or attempting too at least, Swerds point about infectious disease control, and non-infectious disease. I work with icra/pcra as far as hospital construction goes so I understand those concerns.

Bacterial or Virulent outbreaks, depending on organisms replication and infection rate, have the ability to be exponential. If you are on chemo and there is a driving restriction then don't drive. If you do happen to have some episode while driving it's a linear episode and not one where you are going to have 24 different wrecks while driving down the road.
 
MalVeauX

MalVeauX

Full Audioholic
If you all want to really talk about ethical stuff in medicine, just open the can of worms for people who work in health care and how the hospitals and administrations have been responding internally and the behavior, treatment, policy changing, security, etc, has gone. Lots of people exited healthcare because it was so unbearably unethical and horrible, and it wasn't even COVID directly, it was the hospital's truly unethical behaviors related to COVID because it interrupted their billing throughput. The business was threatened. It's absolutely disgusting what is going on in hospitals right now simply because COVID hurt the pocket book and there's too many legal issues with refusing the care. This is where the vaccine burst out from. Not to save lives. To alleviate a then failing business model (hospital and insurance billing cycling).

Anyhow I'll drop it there. It's way off track and there's really no point in my continuation in this thread. Just wanted to share some perspective from the other side. Thanks everyone for your thoughts.

Very best,
 
Swerd

Swerd

Audioholic Warlord
They do pose threat to others. Directly and indirectly. You're attaching a sort of personal value to them instead of just seeing that they're absolutely all communicable in various ways (yes, including cancer, but then again you don't have to deal with the trauma alert when someone on chemo passes out driving into someone else's van full of kids who then need life long medical care for some major injuries and the burden it becomes to our greater healthcare system and economy to see what I'm saying).

How about the non-stop Baker acts and mental health admission because they were raised by an alcoholic abusive care-giver?

How about the obese parents raising obese children? It all ends up impacting and it wasn't a self-induced thing or a personal choice. You can take this to any level and remove emotion and all of it overlaps. We just like to focus on one thing at a time because it's emotionally charged, politically charged or financially charged.
I don't doubt that you've had direct experience with what you've described. But trying to include highly communicable and sometimes fatal diseases caused by infectious viruses with those other health issues is painting with too a broad brush. Let's stick with diseases for which we have vaccines that prevent the disease.

(As I write this, I am well aware how cervical cancer is almost certainly caused by human papillomavirus [HPV]. And the evidence is accumulating that HPV may cause other types of cancer, such as mouth, throat, vulva, vagina, penis, and anus. The HPV vaccines are already impacting the incidence of cervical cancer among women in the USA. With time, will we also see any impact on those other forms of cancer?)
 
L

lp85253

Audioholic Chief
Close your eyes and keep repeating "I really want the Constitution to say vaccine mandates are prohibited." If you keep wishing long enough, the constitution fairy will grant your wish.
I dont " wish" anything to that effect, I'm a card carrying social dem that wants everybody to clue up and get on board , I'm just realistic in my view of the oversized idiot fringe and their enablers in the gop...including the sc...Edit .. The resolution of this debate is in the future , not the past.. And like reproductive rights and other similar gop election fodder , the sc is set up to overturn whatever they want..
 
Last edited:
Swerd

Swerd

Audioholic Warlord
… Anyhow I'll drop it there. It's way off track and there's really no point in my continuation in this thread. Just wanted to share some perspective from the other side. Thanks everyone for your thoughts.
I think the points that MalVeauX raises are enough to show that trying to deal with vaccine refusers, as an ethical issue, is fraught with complexity and difficulty. It's not likely to be productive.
 
L

lp85253

Audioholic Chief
I think the points that MalVeauX raises are enough to show that trying to deal with vaccine refusers, as an ethical issue, is fraught with complexity and difficulty. It's not likely to be productive.
Like my 1st post said , unsolvable political fodder..
 
GO-NAD!

GO-NAD!

Audioholic Spartan
I remember saying this:

"You should get top shelf care even if you refused to get vaccinated, I just don't want it coming out of my pocket book."

That was right above what I hope you didn't purposefully didn't quote out the context. I made my opinion quite clear. So why would you take my question and intimate that it's actually an opinion about what level of medical care a Covid patient should receive when the preceding statement made my position 100% clear?

I find your interaction disingenuous.
I did state that I might be wrong. You ignored that. If find your accusation that I'm being disingenuous to be utterly ludicrous

So, I'm out of this thread completely.
 
jinjuku

jinjuku

Moderator
did state that I might be wrong.
My problem is that you ignored a statement by me that established my position on the health care matter verses patient pay. What would you reasonably expect me to conclude?
 
L

lp85253

Audioholic Chief
My problem is that you ignored a statement by me that established my position on the health care matter verses patient pay. What would you reasonably expect me to conclude?
and we're right back to :"it's cheaper just to insure them and pay for it via medicaide" than worry about collecting all the defaulted bills.. so where does this go from here??
 
GO-NAD!

GO-NAD!

Audioholic Spartan
My problem is that you ignored a statement by me that established my position on the health care matter verses patient pay. What would you reasonably expect me to conclude?
So much for backing out of this thread.:rolleyes::D
I wasn't ignoring your statement, I was addressing a question you posed that appeared to contradict it. There was no deliberate intention to take your words out of context, if that's what you perceived.

There is/was no malice behind any of my comments and no intent to antagonize. So, can we have a reset?

Again, I understand your position that you don't want to pay for the care of anti-vacination COVID patients. I get it. I just don't think that it can be divorced from other risky behaviors that are not penalized - smoker premiums and coverage limitations notwithstanding.*

You posed a question regarding how care for unvaccinated COVID patients should be prioritized if it comes to competition over hospital beds, yes? To me, asking the question suggested that you might possibly think such patients should have lower priority. From your subsequent statements, I understand that you are not of this opinion.

*I should add that, in Canada, the question is moot, as there is no mechanism under universal health care to make such patients pay for hospital care.
 
newsletter

  • RBHsound.com
  • BlueJeansCable.com
  • SVS Sound Subwoofers
  • Experience the Martin Logan Montis
Top