Covid vaccination status for CF members

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by valhalla360

In the short term, demand exceeds supply and it's under emergency approval, so hard to mandate it without huge pushback and potential lawsuits. How do you charge someone more for not taking a product that isn't available?

In the long term, it's likely a non-issue if it fades away. There isn't much savings to be had if case loads are negligible.

At least with the flu vaccines, they've taken more of the carrot approach by including them at no additional cost for high risk individuals.

It's kind of ironic in the capitalist vs socialist health care discussion you are trying to bring up...the US (primarily capitalist) is doing quite well on distribution. The EU the prime example of socialist health care is lagging by a huge amount and really has turned into a laughing stock after a few months ago warning against vaccine hording and now displaying that exact behavior.

You're hilarious... you can't help but see everything through your right-left lens.

NO... I wasn't trying to bring up anything about "capitalist vs socialist health care." I was, and still am, asking a simple question that seemed a logical follow up from your comment about paying people to get vaccinated.

And I'm not even asking about legal mandates. I'm ASKING if you thought your private insurance companies would make it a requirement since it would reduce their risk. Is there some legal barrier to them demanding this?

The influenza vaccine might be a good guide on this. Do private insurance companies penalize people who don't get vaccinated?

[Montanan]

In the USA, the federal government is paying for the vaccine. And most every insurance company pays for all vaccines. No out of pocket cost is the norm fro those that have private insurance.

[valhalla360]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

You're hilarious... you can't help but see everything through your right-left lens.

NO... I wasn't trying to bring up anything about "capitalist vs socialist health care." I was, and still am, asking a simple question that seemed a logical follow up from your comment about paying people to get vaccinated.

And I'm not even asking about legal mandates. I'm ASKING if you thought your private insurance companies would make it a requirement since it would reduce their risk. Is there some legal barrier to them demanding this?

The influenza vaccine might be a good guide on this. Do private insurance companies penalize people who don't get vaccinated?

Read the first part of my response where I pretended you weren't trying to take a dig at that in a roundabout way.

But if you want to pretend that wasn't your intent...fine, you weren't hinting around at that. We'll all wink and pretend it's true.

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by valhalla360

Read the first part of my response where I pretended you weren't trying to take a dig at that in a roundabout way.

But if you want to pretend that wasn't your intent...fine, you weren't hinting around at that. We'll all wink and pretend it's true.

I did read the first part, but it didn't answer my question. It's ok to say you don't know ... probably no one does. A quick search reveals there is chatter about this, but I can't find any definitive statements of action.

And I'm sorry if you can't see outside your partisan prism. I actually thought your comment about a $1000 carrot was an interesting one. I thought the stick question was an obvious follow up, but I guess it triggered you. Next time I'll offer trigger warnings .

[boatman61]

Says the partisan with the Lanchester..
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lanc...submachine_gun

[valhalla360]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

I did read the first part, but it didn't answer my question. It's ok to say you don't know ... probably no one does. A quick search reveals there is chatter about this, but I can't find any definitive statements of action.

What is your question then? I laid out a likely path based on your question.

If you expect a firm answer that could not possibly change...good luck with that.

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by valhalla360

What is your question then? I laid out a likely path based on your question.

If you expect a firm answer that could not possibly change...good luck with that.

You offered the suggestion of a carrot approach ($1000). I asked if you thought the private insurance companies would pursue a stick approach, and either make it requirement that people get Covid-19 vaccinated, or perhaps face premium increases if they didn't.

I modified "would" to ask, can they do that? Or is there some legal barrier that prevents a private insurance company from doing this?

As I said, I've spent a bit of search effort, and found some babble about this possibility, but nothing firm. So the idea is out there, but as you say, if Covid-19 drops to background levels, it will become a non issue. However, that wasn't my question.

BTW, the question can also apply to publicly funded health insurance systems. Once again, insurance providers (private or public) try to limit their risk, so why wouldn't they do it once the vaccine becomes fully available, and at no direct cost?

[valhalla360]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

You offered the suggestion of a carrot approach ($1000). I asked if you thought the private insurance companies would pursue a stick approach, and either make it requirement that people get Covid-19 vaccinated, or perhaps face premium increases if they didn't.

I modified "would" to ask, can they do that? Or is there some legal barrier that prevents a private insurance company from doing this?

As I said, I've spent a bit of search effort, and found some babble about this possibility, but nothing firm. So the idea is out there, but as you say, if Covid-19 drops to background levels, it will become a non issue. However, that wasn't my question.

BTW, the question can also apply to publicly funded health insurance systems. Once again, insurance providers (private or public) try to limit their risk, so why wouldn't they do it once the vaccine becomes fully available, and at no direct cost?

I didn't offer a suggestion. I was relaying a suggestion I read about:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...-john-delaney/

Honestly, I think we missed the opportunity as it would require another huge trillion dollar spending spree. If the vaccine is successful with cases/deaths dropping and the economy opening back up as it appears to be doing, I don't think there will be an appetite for another spending spree. Keep in mind, it would be politically difficult to only pay the hold outs while those who went early get nothing.

As previously stated, at this early stage there are two major issues with the stick approach:
- Demand exceeds supply. Hard to penalize someone who can't obtain it even if they want to.
- It's an emergency authorization. I'm not sure immunity would hold for insurance companies that mandate a product with only emergency approval. Not saying it's right or wrong but not a hornets nest they are likely to step into unless there is large and ongoing financial benefits.

Long term:
- It's likely to be a non-issue before it's worth developing a policy and going thru the fights it might start. While insurance is provided by private companies, it's a heavily regulated industry. It would have to be substantial and ongoing associated costs before it would be worth the fight.
- If it comes back as new variants, it likely would be treated the same as the flu. Insurance companies cover the shot, they encourage you to take it but don't penalize you if you don't take it.

As far as your final paragraph, insurance isn't some wild west thing. It's got it's problems but it's heavily regulated (often the regulation is as much of the problem as anything else) and they are walking a fine line politically. There is some impact of personal behavior (smoking for example will affect your rates) but they have to be careful of playing into a political minefield. Penalizing people for something out of their control can unify political forces against a not beloved industry.

[Montanan]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

You offered the suggestion of a carrot approach ($1000). I asked if you thought the private insurance companies would pursue a stick approach, and either make it requirement that people get Covid-19 vaccinated, or perhaps face premium increases if they didn't.

I modified "would" to ask, can they do that? Or is there some legal barrier that prevents a private insurance company from doing this?

As I said, I've spent a bit of search effort, and found some babble about this possibility, but nothing firm. So the idea is out there, but as you say, if Covid-19 drops to background levels, it will become a non issue. However, that wasn't my question.

BTW, the question can also apply to publicly funded health insurance systems. Once again, insurance providers (private or public) try to limit their risk, so why wouldn't they do it once the vaccine becomes fully available, and at no direct cost?

Incentives, so got that handled.

[jtsailjt]

For $1000 I think I’d claim that i ‘identified’ as a skeptic even though ive already been vaccinated! I bet wuite a few others would too. So that might not work.

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by Montanan

Incentives, so got that handled.

An incentive that makes sense

[boatman61]

Originally Posted by Montanan

Incentives, so got that handled.

Not really.. People have gotten used to drinking at home.. and it's cheaper.. invite the mates round.
Might just be the death knell for pubs.

[Montanan]

First ‘real-world’ study from the United States on Pfizer and Moderna COVID-19 vaccines found 90% efficacy

The CDC study included 3,950 people in the U.S. who received either the Pfizer-BioNTech or Moderna vaccine during the height of country's winter surge, from mid-December to mid-March. All were essential workers, including health care personnel and first responders from six states: Arizona, Florida, Minnesota, Oregon, Texas and Utah.

Two weeks after participants received both of the recommended doses, their risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection was reduced by 90%. (People are considered fully vaccinated two weeks after they received their final dose.) Even the first dose had an effect, reducing infection risk by 80%, the study found.
Importantly, the research also showed that both vaccines not only prevent people from getting sick with COVID-19, they also help prevent asymptomatic infections, in which people never develop symptoms.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Montanan

First ‘real-world’ study from the United States on Pfizer and Moderna COVID-19 vaccines found 90% efficacy

The CDC study included 3,950 people in the U.S. who received either the Pfizer-BioNTech or Moderna vaccine during the height of country's winter surge, from mid-December to mid-March. All were essential workers, including health care personnel and first responders from six states: Arizona, Florida, Minnesota, Oregon, Texas and Utah.

Two weeks after participants received both of the recommended doses, their risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection was reduced by 90%. (People are considered fully vaccinated two weeks after they received their final dose.) Even the first dose had an effect, reducing infection risk by 80%, the study found.
Importantly, the research also showed that both vaccines not only prevent people from getting sick with COVID-19, they also help prevent asymptomatic infections, in which people never develop symptoms.

And here's the story: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/29/w...fee6102b823658


This is fantastic news -- results of clinical trials verified in real life -- these are spectacularly effective vaccines. Compare to 40% to 60% for flu vaccines -- in a good year.


And it gets better and better -- even one dose of the Pfizer or Moderna is very effective, AND both vaccines highly effective against the variants.

[Thumbs Up]

Originally Posted by Montanan

First ‘real-world’ study from the United States on Pfizer and Moderna COVID-19 vaccines found 90% efficacy

The CDC study included 3,950 people in the U.S. who received either the Pfizer-BioNTech or Moderna vaccine during the height of country's winter surge, from mid-December to mid-March. All were essential workers, including health care personnel and first responders from six states: Arizona, Florida, Minnesota, Oregon, Texas and Utah.

Two weeks after participants received both of the recommended doses, their risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection was reduced by 90%. (People are considered fully vaccinated two weeks after they received their final dose.) Even the first dose had an effect, reducing infection risk by 80%, the study found.
Importantly, the research also showed that both vaccines not only prevent people from getting sick with COVID-19, they also help prevent asymptomatic infections, in which people never develop symptoms.

After plagiarizing the above text you failed to link to the actual "study" put out by the CDC (https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/...cid=mm7013e3_w).
The "study", which is not peer reviewed, claims to have matched cohorts, but appears to use the same participants (over time?) to obtain the data. It will be interesting to see an objective critique of this so called study. (if they will even release the raw data) The CDC was given billions of dollars explicitly to promote these COVID vaccines.https://www.cdc.gov/budget/documents...accine-508.pdf