Originally Posted by Otto
Yah, that's an expectable response, but I was thinking more about insurance proper. Let me try narrowing it down so as to avoid a debate about the issues surrounding the Vaccine Court: If, on a purely actuarial basis, an insurer determined that writing a policy for someone who "preferred treatment over prevention" warranted a higher premium, would you object?
I would not be willing to pay a higher premium. Premium is an ongoing payment, and I should not have to pay constantly higher rates because I choose not to vaccinate.
However, it would be absolutely reasonable, IMO, to have a higher deductible. That, to me, is putting my money where my mouth is. I pay my deductible only if a claim is made. So, if due to not vaccinating myself or my family, we have more frequent or more serious illness, then I will have to pay more. And if, as I believe, we are in fact healthier and have fewer claims due to not vaccinating, we will not have to pay that deductible as often.
But then, I think that deductible should be higher all around
Because I believe heavily vaccinated people will in fact be sick MORE often, not less, and therefore make more claims against their insurance.