Hacker News Reader

Comment by chernevik | Hacker News Reader

By that logic insurers could deny claims related to obesity, or risky sexual behavior. Would you approve of that?

This is a grossly disingenuous analogy. A vaccine is trivial to get, takes no willpower, isn’t a result of addiction, isn’t negatively influenced by such factors as advertising, restaurants, food deserts, requires no trust in individuals, etc.

I have never seen a person trying hard to get vaccinated with available vaccines all around them unable to do so. I have seen people attempt to lose weight. The fact that it’s big business is a testament to this.

Sexual behavior, well yea there is careless behavior but also deceit. How would you tell the difference?

With vaccines, the end goal is to get people to get the vaccine so they can live their normal lives. There is no one time simple action someone can take to prevent obesity. There is no vaccine for all stds I’m aware of.

I would not be in favor of denying health insurance claims but I would be less averse to allowing health insurance companies to factor in certain chronically risky behaviors when calculating health insurance premiums.

For example, a smoker who is not actively engaged in a smoking cessation program or someone who is morbidly obese by choice and not actively engaged in a medical weight loss program should be paying higher health-insurance premiums to offset their increased costs. (The former is not uncommon and while the latter may be controversial it is not necessarily a niche perspective. [1])

So yes, I think the same logic should apply to individuals who choose not to receive vaccines.

[1] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19548556/

Try getting a liver transplant without sobriety.

Sure, but everything up to that point gets paid for happily.

It is not possible to spread obesity or risky sexual behavior to others.

Irrelevant? Personal choice = costs to others.

Isn’t that the argument?

Not true. It's trivial to spread immorality and normalize it which would lead to risky sexual behavior. We're literally living through it now. Just look at how things slid in the past 100 years on that front.

People who engage in risky sexual behavior increase the spread of STDs in the population as a whole, causing increased risk even for those who don't engage in risky sexual behavior. The parallels to COVID seem pretty clear, no?

Not denial, but businesses classified as for profit are certainly within moral rights to claim risk appropriate premium.

Insurance companies have to toe the thin line between a business and a social good. With prediction models to become more and more accurate I would be happier if we have non-profit insurance that amortizes/socializes the draw of the lottery. For voluntary choices of risky behavior, drug addiction, unsafe sex, etc etc., I think insurance companies are within their rights to charge more.

I would agree in principle, but notice that health "insurance" has migrated from a risk-management product to a health care financing/service provision mechanism.

Some of us gladly would.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com