Posted on 10/01/2021 3:30:02 PM PDT by ransomnote
“Insurance charges more for smoking right?”
I’m completely in favor of this, as long as ALL OTHER “high-risk” lifestyles are ALSO charged more. That includes, but is not limited to:
1. Eating yourself to an early grave
2. Speeding/car accidents
3. Drug abuse
4. Non-monogamous/non-heterosexual sex
Every one of the above can be backed up with statistics just like smoking can.
Repeal The 17th wrote:
“One could always just decline the insurance and go get their own.”
How easy is this, for a spouse to do?
You can bet that more of this is coming, though. We're renewing our own group plan, and while our current insurer does not have anything like this, we got quotes from a couple of different companies who told our broker that they would be floating "surcharges" for unvaccinated insureds, employees or insured dependents. They claim to be developing an actuarial basis for this, presumably both as a legal defense, and because insurance is at least loosely based on actuarial data.
Where in that notice does it talk about “optional group health insurance”?
This doesn’t apply to any children over 12, only the spouse or domestic partner, that now gets covered for $50.
So, they are doing unequal treatment vis a vis the spouse vs children over 12.
Highly illegal to me.
(Now, if the spouse isn’t vaxxed, is the fee $100 or $150?)
Sheep
No fee if their children over 12 aren’t vaxxed, only if their spouses or domestic partners aren’t vaxxed.
Another point of discriminatory behavior, this time based on whether the person has children or not.
Unequal treatment is unequal treatment, and the lawsuits should be filed.
Health Insurance has never been mandatory
at any place that I have ever worked,
you have always been able to decline,
just like life insurance...
Maybe you are one of them “Union” folks or something?
I ain’t never belonged to no “Union”.
I’m not a lawyer, but that’s not my understanding of what would make a winning discrimination claim. I would like to be wrong about that, but if wishes were horses...
The problem is, the health insurance is offered as an optional benefit, to employees and their dependents. It’s not like they’re cutting their pay, they’re just reducing the benefit amount that the company is offering, by effectively making the employee pay a share of the premium.
The people who could argue (though not within the context of current legal thinking as I understand it) are employees without dependents. They’re effectively being paid at a lower rate, since employees with dependents are getting insurance that has some effective dollar value, while the single employee only gets his own premium paid.
Montana addressed this with legislation (HB 702) http://laws.leg.mt.gov/legprd/LAW0203W$BSRV.ActionQuery?P_SESS=20211&P_BLTP_BILL_TYP_CD=HB&P_BILL_NO=702&P_BILL_DFT_NO=&P_CHPT_NO=&Z_ACTION=Find&P_ENTY_ID_SEQ2=&P_SBJT_SBJ_CD=&P_ENTY_ID_SEQ=
Though it’s not clear if this would be sufficient to protect these employees in this case.
Again, I am not defending this decision (though I expect that we’ll be seeing something similar from more group providers in the coming months), just pointing out that litigation based on a theory of discrimination is unlikely to lead to relief.
Looks like Hawaii is gonna make opt-outs pay for their own tests...
https://www.khon2.com/coronavirus/gov-david-ige-to-announce-latest-covid-emergency-proclamation/
How is this NOT illegal? Fascism is taking hold in this country.
P
LOL
Is that grounds for divorce?
These people are intent on pissing off employees and effing up their own business.
Is this even legal?!
Repeal The 17th wrote:
“Health Insurance has never been mandatory
at any place that I have ever worked,
you have always been able to decline,
just like life insurance...
Maybe you are one of them “Union” folks or something?
I ain’t never belonged to no “Union”.”
I’ve never been a union person.
I don’t like being mandated and coerced into doing something medical that could be irreversible or very difficult to recover from.
Though health insurance is not mandatory, seeking a typical POS private insurance plan (if can find one) is much more expensive than employer supplied/funded insurance. I can think of 2 reasons why...no employer contribution and no large employee pool.
To say it is not mandatory and you can decline It is similar to the argument you can decline your job if mandates...
“Just go find another job if you don’t want the jab.” It is not necessarily that easy—and more and more employers are not even allowing people to even apply if they are unvaccinated.
Our health care system has been built around employer-supplied/partially funded healthcare insurance...There may be better systems, but that is what we currently have.
This is why often find spouse of an entrepreneur working for a company/business/corporation—for the healthcare insurance.
“Insurance charges more for smoking right?”
I’m completely in favor of this, as long as ALL OTHER “high-risk” lifestyles are ALSO charged more. That includes, but is not limited to:
1. Eating yourself to an early grave
2. Speeding/car accidents
3. Drug abuse
4. Non-monogamous/non-heterosexual sex
Every one of the above can be backed up with statistics just like smoking can.
I have a different POV.
Soo these employers and insurance companies think is OK to fund transgender surgery, yet if spouse not jabbed, then they pay a penalty?
I am not in favor of smoking—I lost a family member to it; however, I will tell you part of the reason the family member smoked was to stay thin...So argument could be made they were avoiding the “eating themselves into an early grave” by smoking. Just saying, that was their motivation.
RE lifestyle choices, the whole idea of employer GROUP health insurance was to spread the risk among a large group—young, old, thin, heavy, people with strong immune systems, people with weak immune systems, etc. Our family pays for all kinds of expenses/services we don’t use—mental health, pregnancy, transgender surgery, etc. And it is difficult to find individual policies that compete with price and coverage of group plan.
By expanding the list of “lifestyle choices” that are tied directly to the employee, some anonymous board could be enabled to determine if a car accident should not be covered because one was so foolish to drive in bad weather, etc. This is how creeping incrementalism works...
Frankly, I would prefer insurance companies/employers not be privy to so much of our private lives...Just seems so CCP to me.
Not to be off topic, but:
Full disclosure I am extremely biased and frustrated about intrusiveness as I just helped family complete a Religious Exemption for employer mandate waiver. For the exemption, family member was asked (though not required) to provide name of church/denomination and name and phone number of the priest or pastor...This was for a 30-year old professional, not a junior high student seeking a doctor’s excuse from gym class.
Oh and family member had to provide a faith testimony and complete a questionnaire about their “religious group’s” tenets and what the “group” does and does not believe that is related to the vaccines...and how the vaccine factors in...So anonymous panel knows all about family member, but they do not know who knows, and where the paperwork ends up.
The company knows of the vaccine status of the employees because the jabs go through “Employee health” and are not subject to HIPPA...
Just too much lack of privacy.
Enjoy rest of your night.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
