Parents who won’t vaccinate their kids should pay MUCH higher insurance premiums
Cory Doctorow at Boing Boing links pediatrician Rahul K. Parikh, writing on CNN:
Refusing to vaccinate a child is dangerous not just for that child but for entire communities. It’s precisely this point a colleague of mine was considering when he had the idea that parents who refuse to vaccinate their kids should pay substantially higher health insurance premiums.
It makes sense. Insurance, after all, is just a pool of money into which we all pay. In determining how much we or our employers pay, risk is taken into account.The perfect analogy is smoking. If you smoke — and want to turn your lungs black and spend a greater portion of that pot of money on your possible chronic lung disease or any cancers you’ll get — then you may have to pay more.
Cory is writing from England where vaccination does not appear to be required for public school attendance. As far as I know it is required here. I hope it is anyway.
Hold on a minute! Are you aware some parents refuse to get the 3 in l shot which many parents of autistic kids believe caused their childs autism? If I were a young parent today I would be very leary of giving my child all these shots.
No vaccination history (as well as smoking) is a pre-existing condition! Therefore, it is illegal, according to the new health care law, to force such people to pay higher premiums.
By the way, I agree with you. This whole no-vaccination thing is one big hoax. The doctor who came up with the autism theory lost his medical license. I think there was a PBS frontline piece on this. It just shows how some people refuse to believe reality, even when confronted with the facts.
all those myths about autism and vaccines have been debunked numerous times.
Wow, I think this is the first time I wholeheartedly agree with socialistic ben
On the other hand, what if there is a religious basis for not vaccinating? Are you proposing higher rates for those who practice certain religions? What does federal non-discrimination law say about that?
And anon, you do realize that the autism link has been shown to be totally spurious, don’t you?
No one is saying the CANNOT have health insurance – Just that they have to pay more.
kind of like people with poor credit (usually minorities) pay higher insurance premimums, or higher mortgage loan rates (you know, the sub-prime market)
or people who speed with tickets (generally younger drivers) pay hight preminums
same church – different pew
you make the choice to not vaccinate – you ultimately pay (literally) for it
Why should there be a religious exception? I can’t think of a plausible reason why there should be one.
under the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Religion is a protected class – one may not discriminate on its basis.
Therefore, they cannot be precluded but may be charged more – like a Muslim female may not have a photo on her drivers license with a burqua on – her face MUSt be visible for identification purpose – so no one is saying she has to remove the burqua and driving is not a right. but, ones face must be clearly visible on a passport or license – having a license is not a right, it is a priviledge, one may cover ones hair for modesty purposes, but not one’s face
It’s a slippery slope and very tricky – please see how France is dealing with it – overll, not well.
That’s why
– like race, national origin, ethnicity and gender are also protected classes of people that may not be discriminated against
Luckily, STUPID is not a protected class of people.