It's time for insurance companies- BC/ BS etc to charge higher rates

[essme]

for folks that refuse to wear a mask.

We are super careful- we wear masks, stay home, use hand sanitizer--- why should smokers pay higher rates, but not anti-maskers?

[customerserviceguy]

1. In theory

that makes sense, but how would it be enforced? How would they spy on people to figure out compliance?

[essme]

2. Well, the anti maskers seem pretty proud of themselves

I think it's time to explore this.

[customerserviceguy]

4. So

Identifications will be made from photographs taken during protests? You ready for that tactic to be used against us, too?

[Voltaire2]

3. its a terrible idea.

Insurance companies of course would love to hike rates based on a huge variety of risk factors, and ideally they would prefer to not cover anyone who might get sick anytime soon and remove coverage for anyone who does get sick.

So no thanks. I understand the motivation, but it's the wrong approach.

[customerserviceguy]

5. Agreed

Insurance companies are already doing pretty well during the pandemic, the so-called "elective" procedures that hospitals thrive on are not taking place, so the health insurers are not paying for them. We're not talking about nose jobs or tummy tucks here, we're talking about things like surgical procedures to remove cancer, etc.

Let the consequences of going maskless be their own punishment for pigheadedness.

[ProfessorGAC]

13. UHC Posted A $7 Billion Profit...

...in the 2nd quarter.
You said the cessation of elective procedures was good for them
You weren't kidding!

[essme]

6. oh, don't get me wrong--- I am all for single payer

That said, we don't have it yet. So why should I pay for people that deliberately put themselves at risk?

[Voltaire2]

8. because we are the compassionate people

and we try not to punish idiots for being idiots.

But more to the point any legislation that opened up risk rating would instantly become a cash cow manure heap for the Health Industry Complex.

[demmiblue]

7. +1

[fescuerescue]

9. They would probably just go ahead and raise rates on wearers and non-wearers

Giving the non-wearers and extra bump, and wearers like you a smaller increase.

Why? #1 it's an excuse to raise rates. and #2, they would have to to fund all the expenses of hiring an army of people to track this.

[durablend]

12. You forgot #3

"You're out there...in public...risk of being infected, mask or no mask. You think we're paying for that?"

[MichMan]

10. Do people that have more hazardous occupations pay more?

[essme]

11. they already do. Next.

nt

[MichMan]

14. Didnt know that health care & grocery store employees were charged extra ,

since they have higher risks of catching the virus than other occupations.

I didnt realize that was already being done. I would have thought they would have been pooled with a number of people across all occupations.

[essme]

15. Sorry, I thought you were discussing insurance policies that are in place

Dr's, nurses, paramedics, etc. already have to carry umbrella policies.