I think this makes absolute sense, but why stop there?

Amy, I think most government doctors would agree your low carb diet is dangerous, and will kill you prematurely, thus robbing society of your economic contributions. You should be force fed carbs or pay the government and society compensation for the loss of your expected economic contributions.

And alcoholics, they not just kill people on the freeway, but kill themselves off early, again taking from society their economic contributions as well as robbing them of taxpayer dollars spent to fund their liver killing practices.

Smokers, fatties, meat eaters, druggies, speeders,

Indeed, is there any one of us who does not owe the taxpayer money for our habits? I eat donuts. I am criminal. And I don't care. I suspect that makes me a sociopath.

What this guy WANTS to do is figure out how to mandate government vaccination into YOUR body. And so he makes an argument to charge you for your sins.

I am not an anti-vaxxer -- I've had most of my vaccinations (up until a disease that meant from then on, the CDC would tell doctors not to vaccinate me.) I do believe not all vaccines are the same, and some are much safer than others, have better track records, fewer side effects, less risk. I do think everyone should speak with their doctors and make their own decisions about what goes in their body, and we should respect that decision, up until their is an immediate health threat to society.

But charging people for that? Or mandating it for just any tom, dick, or harry vaccine they feel like it?

Well Amy, the government says you need to eat your carbs.

No one seems to remember "government off our bodies" any more....

(anon due to health information I'd prefer to keep private.)

I've said it before and I'll say it again: it's only herd immunity if the HERD is immunized.

I'm totally in agreement with this.

They stopped this nonsense cold here in Israel by refusing to enroll any child not vaccinated by first grade.

This makes a lot of sense. The problem is that this is the start of
a slippery slope.

Let's charge higher medical premiums if you refuse to use vaccines.
Let's charge higher medical premiums if smoke.
It's hard to argue with either of these. It's so clear. But what's
next?

Higher premiums if you drink alcohol.
Higher premiums if you're overweight.
Higher premiums if you ride a motorcycle.
Higher premiums if your job is stressful.
Higher premiums if you're not on an approved exercise program.
Higher premiums if you don't wear long underwear in the winter.

If you're not careful, any lifestyle risk factor will start
being policed. It may be worth the higher general premium simply to
keep the insurance companies from poking into our lives.

How is it that, for any other type of insurance, it is normal to take risk factors in account when pricing the product, but as soon as anyone suggests doing the same for health insurance, someone calls foul?

It is sign of how frakked up health insurance is. Oh, wait, I swore I'd never use the term "health insurance" again because it has gotten so far removed from the concept of insurance.

Amy, I think most government doctors would agree your low carb diet is dangerous, and will kill you prematurely, thus robbing society of your economic contributions.

My health stats are those of an elite athlete (except that they're probably better). Blood pressure always causes the nurse to go "wow" for how amazing it is -- and I barely exercise. Just do 100 reps a day with tiny weights and a wee bit of cardio. The scientific evidence actually is behind how I eat as a healthy diet -- because they don't know what is healthy and operate according to hearsay-based medicine doesn't mean the evidence isn't there.

DWatney is right. Oh, and drinking alcohol isn't unhealthy unless you are an alcoholic.

Have any of you ever applied for a life insurance policy? Last one I purchased took everything into consideration. Smoking, drinking, body fat, blood tests, how often I flew, did I ride a motorcycle, etc. The insurance company has a right to change rates based on any of those factors. They also have the right to refuse you their service if they deem you too high of a risk. Insurance is a private industry and is not some God given right. If you are making poor choices (diet, medical, etc...), it should cost you. So, while I support your right to make bad decisions, I don't feel everyone else should pay for your poor judgment.

Anon, I drink and smoke way too much. And I'll probably end up as a net benefit to society. Taxes and excise on my drugs of choice more than pay for whatever medical care I'll need, and I won't be drawing pensions for long either, or needing extended palliative care for 'old man' cancers.

Every genuine cost-benefit analysis has found that reducing smoking ends up costing more, because people live longer.

I disagree with your argument about vaccination - as Daghain said, herd immunity makes it different from individual lifestyle choices, you're affecting others with this one - but irrespective, your basic argument that alcoholics and people with unhealthy diets cost society more is wrong.

Agree with Amy about drinking alcohol.

You can actually be an alcoholic and die with a healthy liver if you maintain a wholesome diet during your drinking career. Most drunks don't, though, because eating interferes with the buzz.

Of course, you can also develop other issues related to alcoholism.

Re: the comparison to life insurance

It's true, life insurance has lots of rating factors. On the other
hand, there are mitigating factors that work in your favor. First
of all, if they don't write policies, they don't make money, so
they're motivated to insure you, though possibly at a non-preferred
rate. Secondly, the rating factors are a snapshot, not a
continuing factor. Thirdly, after a year or two (depending on the
state), your coverage becomes non-contestable.

In contrast, look at the health insurance industry. They have a
history of denying coverage on the flimsiest of excuses if you
should end up with an expensive illness. What, you had a headache a
year ago? Your brain tumor must be a pre-existing condition!
Giving them yet more ways to deny coverage at time of greatest need
seems like a really bad idea.

The inflexibility of health insurance is caused by strict government regulation.

"One price for all" is the idea pushed by Progressive government, because it wants the young to pay for its past promises to the now old. Repeal health regulation, and insurance companies will offer whatever plans make economic sense.

Stop empowering the government to Do the Right Thing

Kind of agree with Ron on the slippery slope argument. Charging higher premiums for people who refuse vaccines might be fine as far as that goes, but as Ron says, what barrier exists to prevent extending that policy to people who have other behaviors that run against prevailing orthodoxy, such as alcohol use or abuse?

As far as Miss Alkon's retort that her health is great or that alcohol is only unhealthy if your an alcoholic -- who cares? Scientific evidence supporting these views is important only if the insurer agrees with it and uses it in developing its policies. If not, too bad.

In a perfect world, if insurers were factoring behavior into their premium calculations, you might be able to find an insurer whose policies ran more to your liking. But, we all know what would happen: the government would regulate what behaviors would impact insurance rates, and mandate what these impacts would be. That would be burdensome enough if these regulations were based on Big-S Scientific Evidence, but that strikes me as unlikely. I suspect we'd see the regulations based on the little-s scientific fad of the moment, plus whatever influence affected industries and lobby groups would be able to throw into the mix.

"My health stats are those of an elite athlete (except that they're probably better). Blood pressure always causes the nurse to go "wow" for how amazing it is -- and I barely exercise. Just do 100 reps a day with tiny weights and a wee bit of cardio. The scientific evidence actually is behind how I eat as a healthy diet -- because they don't know what is healthy and operate according to hearsay-based medicine doesn't mean the evidence isn't there."

I think anon's point is that what the government tells us is healthy isn't necessarily healthy. You're right (or at least righter than most) about the healthy way to eat, the government is wrong. Analogously, someone could be right about their decision not to vaccinate even though it flies in the face of what science tells us is healthy. Although I think that's a big stretch--I mean, obesity isn't contagious--I do get the slippery slope argument.

On a different note, I remember seeing an episode of Law and Order SVU about this issue. Hilary Duff guest starred, playing a teen mom whose baby daughter died from contracting measles from a child whose mom decided not to vaccinate. The irony was that Duff's character was a wild, partying, immature teen baby mama, whereas the other mother was a devoted and responsible stay-at-home mom who made the carefully researched and conscientious decision not to vaccinate, yet it was the latter's actions that ultimately resulted in a child's death.

Anti-vaccine idiots do more damage than just exposing children to these diseases. Many adults who have been vaccinated as children lose their immunity over time, and if a pregnant woman with reduced immunity is exposed to measles it can cause serious damage to the baby.

I have a friend whose son was born deaf with serious developmental disabilities b/c some jerk exposed her to measles while she was pregnant.

It is a slippery slope -- but I'm ex USAF. When we were shipped overseas -- one part of the requirement was that you had to have your vaccines updated. I knew more than one guy that lost his vaccine sheet over the years. They had to get the full spectrum from MMR to polio to flu to malaria. Some were only 24 weeks out of basic where they had been given them. The guys looked like a pin cushion. ;-)

I would do it that if you don't get your vaccines when traveling out of the country -- when you come back in you have 30-45 days in quarantine at your expense.

If your child comes up with any communicable disease that has a vaccine (not common flu) and you didn't vaccinate -- you can be sued for the cost of care, and damages.

I don't want the government involved other than to rule the lawsuit.

Jim P., when I was on active duty USAF, a sergeant I knew told me about being shipped out to Okinawa as a dependent in the 1960s. He had been thoroughly vaccinated, but for some reason his family couldn't find his shot records, meaning he had to get the whole litany of jabs before boarding the ship across the Pacific. You can imagine how he felt, fighting seasickness and the vaccinations at the same time! To make matters worse, as his family was going through the luggage in their cabin, what do you suppose they found?

Like everyone else in the military, I had all the required vaccinations including small pox updates, anthrax and black death. I also had an annual flu shot. The first year after I got out, I didn't get a flue shot, because I didn't have to anymore. I got the flu and was sick as a dog for two weeks. Ever since I get a flu shot every year. Last year I had two, swine and regular. I have not had the flu for the last 14 years.

This gets to a point where it's ridiculous.

How do you identify "patient zero" in an outbreak? Should we charge the kid who brough the measles from Europe or charge the kid in Europe who gave them to him?

What do we do with the ones who get vaccinated & get sick anyways?

I was vaccinated as a child. But I got measles anyways. Being alive is a dangerous business, get over it.