or Connect
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Baby › Baby Health › Vaccinations › Vaccinations Debate › Should All Insurance Co's Require Vaccines or No Coverage?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Should All Insurance Co's Require Vaccines or No Coverage?

post #1 of 31
Thread Starter 

Or should they charge higher rates for unvaxed? 

post #2 of 31

No.  I don't think they should.

 

Actually, I think all insurance companies should take a flying leap off the closest bridge and we should go to a single-payer system.

 

I doubt I'll see it in my lifetime, though.

post #3 of 31
I doubt it, too, Wildkingdom.

No, I don't insurance companies should get involved in making health care decisions, or pushing health care choices. What they *should* do is help make insurance more affordable for all.
post #4 of 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by pek64 View Post

I doubt it, too, Wildkingdom.

No, I don't insurance companies should get involved in making health care decisions, or pushing health care choices. What they *should* do is help make insurance more affordable for all.

I'm with you and WildKingdom on this one.

Insurance companies exist for profit. Period.
post #5 of 31
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taximom5 View Post


I'm with you and WildKingdom on this one.

Insurance companies exist for profit. Period.

i agree, however we see ins co's dictating what kind of treatments are covered at their discretion.  Will the day come when an inurer says, 'since you didn't vaccinate for 'x' disease, we are not going to cover expenses to treat it'   ..   

 

they already have a say so in what kind of treatments they will cover for injuries, cancer, autoimmune disease and a host of other things.....for example, my ins co didn't want to cover my asthma med i have been using for 10yrs--why?  there is a cheaper alternative out there...unf, it doesn't work for me as i'm allergic to it, was documented in the original referral for this other med, and it was STILL denied...i had to use old expired meds until i DEMANDED they pay or i'd take them to court on an appeal.  My dh is being denied pain saving treatments for his back injuries recieved in a car accident--why?- because pills are a lot cheaper to give him, than actual treatment for the disability.  

post #6 of 31

I'm confused by the question.

 

Do you mean, in an ideal world, should they?

 

Or, given that they make all these questionable decisions out of self-interest, should they also include vaccine-preventable diseases in this current frustrating insurance model?

post #7 of 31
While I would be furious if we were denied coverage/had to pay more because of our vax decisions, I think the argument could be made that they do that to smokers, why not non-vax ers too? In their eyes we are making a conscious choice to put ourselves at risk for VPD's or in a smokers case, cancer.
post #8 of 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by emmy526 View Post

Or should they charge higher rates for unvaxed? 

Don't give them any ideas!
post #9 of 31

My insurance company has saved BOATLOADS by our Vax choices, and since we have not done any visits beyond the Well Schedule and also not contracted a single theoretically VPD, there would have to be some really costly bouts with VPDs to outweigh the savings from families that are like mine. We all know that insurance companies make money based decisions. I am with the others who want insurance companies making FEWER health decisons, not more. With Tobacco, the increase in health costs is staggering and undeniable. So FAR, non-vax families spend LESS on health care, not more. Gardasil series alone is like 600 dollars . . . My SIL's insurance company recently decided that she HAD to use Pentacel even tho her office stocked DTaP, Hib and IPV, when there is legit research that Pentacel is more reactive. So is that right?

post #10 of 31

Should they charge more for Soda drinkers? Research just came out that drinking even ONE can of HFCS soda per day increases your risk of Type II of diabetes substantially . . . 

 

Should they charge more if you don't join a gym or if you knowingly and willfully live in a very polluted place like NYC? What if you work in a factory where you are exposed to pollutants? And forget about Nuclear or Coal Plant workers, they should be denied all coverage entirely, right?

 

And since we KNOW that Breastfeeding reduces infant hospitalizations, do you think there should be a Formula Feeding rider? And what about those folks who expose their LOs to tobacco in the home? That is responsible for a significant portion of hospital admissions for asthma. So I guess if a nurse smells smoke on your child's clothes, they should double the bill.

post #11 of 31

This is actually my biggest fear with national health care: that the only way to control costs will be to limit services OR police behavior . . . 

post #12 of 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by dinahx View Post

This is actually my biggest fear with national health care: that the only way to control costs will be to limit services OR police behavior . . . 

I don't know how the USA would react to national health care - but I will say that some countries do manage to have universal health care without policing behavior.  

 

Speaking just for Canada, only 3 of the 10 provinces require any sort of exemptions for unvaxxed children to be enrolled in school and the exemptions are easy to get.  (For all the pro-vaxxer cringing - look up Canada's vax rate - they are as high as Americans).

 

I will also say that while I have heard of doctors in Canada refusing service to unvaxxed people (I have heard about it on the news) I have never met or conversed with someone online who was refused service due to  vaccine status..  Perhaps because we pay for health care with our tax dollars refusing to see patients just on vaccine grounds would not go over well. 

 

I do think there can be less products available under universal healthcare.  When we talk about different brands of vaccines for example, I know that I have less choice than Americans.  I may only have one or two brands available - and if I wanted another one, it would be a major PITA to get.

 

While i do think this is important for the small number of people who want vaccine brand choice, the exemption thing is far bigger in my mind.

post #13 of 31
Interesting Kathy! Thx for sharing!
post #14 of 31
I'm curious how Canadians pay for health care and parental leave. But maybe that's another thread...
post #15 of 31
Also Kathy: fewer choices ARE available in the US depending on your payer. Medicaid & Insurers both limit choices around vaxes & otherwise. An example is my new insurance WILL cover HomeBirth, but they won't cover it with a CPM unless my employer was based in another state that forces them too & there are no CNMs that practice out of hospital in my town. So it may sometimes appear that we have more choices in the US than we do. Mostly if you want choices you need CASH! wink1.gif
post #16 of 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by dinahx View Post

This is actually my biggest fear with national health care: that the only way to control costs will be to limit services OR police behavior . .

I am in the US and have never had my choice of Dr or even hospitals, I am restricted and have always been due to my health care insurance (private) no govt type ever - I will gladly welcome nation health care - I have had restricts all my life with health insurance, be it service provided, what they will cover, won't cover, pre approvals, etc - frankly some of the changes under the AFC will really help me and those who have been dealing with insurance companies that limit what they will provide!!

post #17 of 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by serenbat View Post

I am in the US and have never had my choice of Dr or even hospitals, I am restricted and have always been due to my health care insurance (private) no govt type ever - I will gladly welcome nation health care - I have had restricts all my life with health insurance, be it service provided, what they will cover, won't cover, pre approvals, etc - frankly some of the changes under the AFC will really help me and those who have been dealing with insurance companies that limit what they will provide!!

Do you think national healthcare in the US would NOT limit you? 

post #18 of 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marnica View Post

Do you think national healthcare in the US would NOT limit you? 

ah,,,,,,,,,compared to the last 40 plus year - NO!!!!!!!!joy.gif

 

if you have a lived with nothing but a PPO or an HMO you have a great desire for the ACA!!! 

 

 

IRL I know of only ONE person that has a conventional indemnity plan and this person had NO clue the others did not have this type of insurance and had to deal with (gasp!!!) in and out of networks! This person was shocked when we had this conversation - yea, it's real and it really really SUCKS to have no choices - I have only had company provided insurance plans and never have I had "so-called" choices, this person thought everyone had! I can not wait for the full ACA to go into effect - unless you have deal with restrictions and in and out of network, will cover this, won't cover this (and most you have NO CLUE about until AFTER the fact!!) than you will be like me and can't wait!! joy.gif joy.gif

 

ETA -  my state does not currently mandate that insurance companies pay for vaccines - you don't have do, you don't- if you paid a nice chunk each week of you pay for insurance and still had to pay out of pocket (and by the way, we don't vac and I could give you lists of things we personally dealt with over the years that were not covered) you would like to get what you pay for - even state (assistance) insurance gives more options and opting out of company insurance is not an option for most


Edited by serenbat - 5/6/13 at 3:35pm
post #19 of 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by tm0sweet View Post

While I would be furious if we were denied coverage/had to pay more because of our vax decisions, I think the argument could be made that they do that to smokers, why not non-vax ers too? In their eyes we are making a conscious choice to put ourselves at risk for VPD's or in a smokers case, cancer.

...except, if you have a severe reaction to a vaccine, your insurance will not cover the resulting medical bills.  Even if you call it "vaccine-induced seizure and resultant brain damage" rather than "autism," the therapies necessary for any degree of recovery (speech therapy, occupational therapy, physical therapy, ABA, etc.) are either not covered by standard health insurance, or are covered in such ridiculously small amounts (we were covered for exactly EIGHT speech therapy sessions) that it's like a sick joke.

 

So it's not really fair to compare non-vaxers to smokers.

 

For those of us who have severe reactions to vaccines, we would either have to pay more to avoid vaccination, or pay more for the care necessary after vaccine damage.

 

Either way, it's punishing those who cannot be vaccinated--and there is absolutely no system in place to pre-screen for those who might be likely to have reactions.

post #20 of 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taximom5 View Post

or are covered in such ridiculously small amounts (we were covered for exactly EIGHT speech therapy sessions) that it's like a sick joke.

 

So it's not really fair to compare non-vaxers to smokers. - I totally agree, and for all practical reasons vaccines are a great scapegoat but the bigger drain is in obesity related medical care costs, I can sooner see insurance going after the over weight first not vaccinators, vaccines seem like a quick money fix but really insurance companies deal with other more costly people.

 

or to add to your "sick joke" - try having to search within a 150 miles (and that was considered expectable under my previous insurance plan to drive to see a specialist) and find out when you try to make the apt they no longer will except your insurance! next you have to apply and show need to get a "waiver" to see someone else - that's really fun too because they only would cover 80% after I meet my deductible!

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Vaccinations Debate
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Baby › Baby Health › Vaccinations › Vaccinations Debate › Should All Insurance Co's Require Vaccines or No Coverage?