Advertisement

Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Tuesday, December 07, 2021

People who choose to remain unvaccinated and subsequently become severely ill with COVID-19 should be responsible for paying the entirety of their hospital bills out of pocket, according to Illinois Representative Jonathan Carroll. The Democrat from the Chicago suburb of Northbrook introduced legislation Monday that would amend the state's insurance code so that accident and health insurance policies in 2023 would no longer cover COVID-19 hospital bills for people who choose to remain unvaccinated. Carroll said the rule would not apply to those with medical conditions that prevent vaccination.

More

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

More from the article...

...The Democrat from the Chicago suburb of Northbrook introduced legislation Monday that would amend the state's insurance code so that accident and health insurance policies in 2023 would no longer cover COVID-19 hospital bills for people who choose to remain unvaccinated. Carroll said the rule would not apply to those with medical conditions that prevent vaccination.

The bill will likely face considerable political and legal opposition. Most notably, federal law prevents insurers from denying coverage or increasing rates based on a change in a person's health status, such as a new diagnosis of COVID-19.

But Carroll is not bothered by this, telling the Chicago Sun-Times that the proposed legislation is just a "starting point" to hold people who choose to go unvaccinated responsible for their decisions. ...


#1 | Posted by LampLighter at 2021-12-07 04:49 PM | Reply

I'm sure health insurance companies would love a massive exclusion handed to them by a state legislature.

But as Lamp already cited...."Federal Law prevents........"

#2 | Posted by eberly at 2021-12-07 04:55 PM | Reply

#3

I'm sure there is a difference, but my medical coverage provided by the military places limits on what it will fund. For instance, all military members are required to wear a helmet when riding a motorcycle. If I were to injure myself on a bike while not wearing a helmet, they're not obligated to pay the medical bills.

I think it would be strange for an insurance provider to be told that they were not allowed to pay COVID bills, but for those who are on government plans, be they as a function of employment or medicare/medicade, I don't know why they wouldn't be able to do this.

#3 | Posted by madbomber at 2021-12-07 07:43 PM | Reply

And I don't know the answer, but I don't know why those on government plans couldn't be required to get the vaccine or forego further coverage.

#4 | Posted by madbomber at 2021-12-07 07:44 PM | Reply

Will never happen since a majority of the unvaccinated are african americans which makes the law racist.

#5 | Posted by fishpaw at 2021-12-08 10:21 AM | Reply

FISHPOO ate all the stupid... AGAIN!

#6 | Posted by RightisTrite at 2021-12-08 12:56 PM | Reply | Funny: 3 | Newsworthy 1

So what about poor people who are unvaxxed? Do we just let them die?

My point is, the premise of this proposal is silly and unworkable even if it would give the rest of us some satisfaction to see the idiots get their come-uppance.

#7 | Posted by moder8 at 2021-12-08 01:59 PM | Reply

IIRC, if you aren't wearing a seat belt and you're injured in a traffic accident, your auto insurer is not required to cover medical expenses.

"Government mandated" requirements to wear seat belts and for automakers to install air bags and other safety measures in autos have saved countless lives.

Where are the massive right wing protests against that? Are right wing parents telling their teenagers not to wear their seat belts?

Protests against vaccines that save lives make absolutely zero sense.

#8 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2021-12-08 03:55 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"Where are the massive right wing protests against that?"

There were protests.
But, the President didn't politicize it.
It takes a loooong time for common sense to prevail.

The virus can evolve much faster than a Conservative can evolve their thinking.
The definition of Conservative as "resistance to change" is the most accurate functional description of the thought process.

"As late as 1983, fewer than 15% of Americans said they used seat belts consistently."
www.businessinsider.com

#9 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-12-08 04:00 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"IIRC, if you aren't wearing a seat belt and you're injured in a traffic accident, your auto insurer is not required to cover medical expenses."

Not in my state. I suspect most others as well

#10 | Posted by eberly at 2021-12-08 04:07 PM | Reply

Should people who have a fatty diet have to pay their own heart related hospital bills? Should people who love the beach have to pay for their own skin cancer treatments? Should people hurt engaging in a high risk sport have to pay their own hospital bills if they get hurt doing it? Should people who don't practice safe sex have to pay for STD or HIV treatments?

The concept suggested by Rep Carroll is absurd.

#11 | Posted by jakester at 2021-12-08 04:38 PM | Reply

#11 The government doesn't give out healthy food to all Americans for free.

The vaccine; they do.

The comparison suggested by jakester is absurd.

#12 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2021-12-08 04:54 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Illinois Representative Jonathan Carroll sounds like Margaret Thatcher.

#13 | Posted by lee_the_agent at 2021-12-08 05:01 PM | Reply

Will never happen since a majority of the unvaccinated are african americans which makes the law racist.

#5 | Posted by fishpaw

Tell me you can't do basic math without saying I can't do basic math.

#14 | Posted by jpw at 2021-12-08 06:59 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

The concept suggested by Rep Carroll is absurd.

#11 | Posted by jakester

Only if you believe a bunch of false equivalency bulls&^%.

None of those are as high a likelihood to happen and none of them are as intensive an acute care situation.

When an STD is more than a course of antibiotics and includes ventilation, paralytics, ECMO and weeks to months in an ICU followed by months of rehabilitation and likely life-long disability and care.

#15 | Posted by jpw at 2021-12-08 07:06 PM | Reply

Protests against vaccines that save lives make absolutely zero sense.

Not according to the FDA, seems like the trials indicated sacrifice of 2 lives for everyone saved. There could be more recent information, but basically at some point who do believe.

Do seatbelts kill 2 people for every 1 it saves?

FDA: Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee " 9/17/2021
youtu.be

I understand it appears to be a simple question. But its not and those that pretend it is, are one dimensional thinkers.

I have been vaxxed and boosted, but I understand the issue people have given this video and data. If governments and corporations aren't going to compensate for loss of lives or wages, medical given illness due to the is particular vaccine, then mandating is simple fascist.

Let science do what it has to do, quit rushing things.

#Science
#Anti-Mandate
#Pro-Vaccine

#16 | Posted by oneironaut at 2021-12-08 07:33 PM | Reply | Funny: 2 | Newsworthy 1

#11 | POSTED BY JAKESTER

Are any of those comparisons clogging up hospitals to the point that typical healthcare cannot be provided to other patients?

No?

Your comparisons are absurd.

#17 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2021-12-08 07:35 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

-Will never happen since a majority of the unvaccinated are african americans which makes the law racist.

It doesn't have to be a majority...it just needs to be a "significant number" which is enough to make it racist.

#18 | Posted by eberly at 2021-12-08 07:50 PM | Reply

Will never happen since a majority of the unvaccinated are african americans which makes the law racist.

#5 | Posted by fishpaw

Wrong as always stupid.

Your cult is winning the superbowl of the unvaccinated. By far.

Besides, if the law WAS racist, you'd love it.

#19 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2021-12-08 08:08 PM | Reply

Not according to the FDA, seems like the trials indicated sacrifice of 2 lives for everyone saved. There could be more recent information, but basically at some point who do believe.

Do seatbelts kill 2 people for every 1 it saves?

FDA: Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee " 9/17/2021
youtu.be

I understand it appears to be a simple question. But its not and those that pretend it is, are one dimensional thinkers.

I have been vaxxed and boosted, but I understand the issue people have given this video and data. If governments and corporations aren't going to compensate for loss of lives or wages, medical given illness due to the is particular vaccine, then mandating is simple fascist.

Let science do what it has to do, quit rushing things.

#Science
#Anti-Mandate
#Pro-Vaccine

#16 | Posted by oneironaut

I've never seen someone act so pro science and then demonstrate such a horrible grasp of science and math.

The trials were not "sacrificing" anyone. Nor is the vaccine killing anyone on any scale comparable to what covid does.

#20 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2021-12-08 08:11 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"Do seatbelts kill 2 people for every 1 it saves?"

No, you're thinking of guns.

#21 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-12-08 08:31 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Not according to the FDA, seems like the trials indicated sacrifice of 2 lives for everyone saved. There could be more recent information, but basically at some point who do believe.

Do seatbelts kill 2 people for every 1 it saves?

FDA: Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee " 9/17/2021
youtu.be

#16 | Posted by oneironaut at 2021-12-08 07:33 PM | Reply

You do know the individual speaking at that point in the video wasn't from the FDA, correct? He was just a person who requested to testify before the panel, and did not give any information about himself that would indicate he had any expertise in virology, epidemiology, or even statistics. This was clear because his math made no sense. He claimed a 4 times increase in heart attacks associated with this vaccine compared to other vaccines, then quoted that 20 people died in the vaccine group and 14 died in the placebo. That isn't 4 times; it isn't even double. Statistically, it's probably not even a significant difference with such a small sample.

If we really were killing 2 times as many as we saved, there would be at least 1.6M dead from the vaccine, based on the numbers who have died from CoViD-19. That's the most charitable way to interpret his statement. If it was 2 times as many died from the vaccine as would have from CoViD-19 based on the population vaccinated, it would be 6.5M dead from the vaccine. I think everyone would have noticed either one of those death tolls by now.

Nothing that person on the video said made any sense. His 2:1 ratio came from VAERS reporting, but he didn't explain where he got his other number from. We already know VAERS reports don't distinguish deaths actually casually related to the vaccine and those which coincidentally happened within the reporting window, so his numbers are already going to be high for the deaths attributable to the vaccine. As it is, there are only a little over 7k reports of deaths in VAERS, compared to 200M people being vaccinated. So, is his assertion that only 3.5K of the vaccinated population would have died of CoViD-19 absent the vaccine? That seems extraordinarily dubious.

#22 | Posted by StatsPlease at 2021-12-08 09:21 PM | Reply

Spelling error: "We already know VAERS reports don't distinguish deaths actually casually related to the vaccine" - casually should be causally

#23 | Posted by StatsPlease at 2021-12-08 09:23 PM | Reply

So what about poor people who are unvaxxed? Do we just let them die?

When Ron Paul asked what to do with people who could not afford health care at a GOP debate...several of the sh*tstains in the audience yelled out "let them die".

#24 | Posted by Nixon at 2021-12-09 08:50 AM | Reply

-several of the sh*tstains in the audience yelled out "let them die".

I'm hoping we don't listen to them.

Keep in mind the idea isn't to deny care....just allow the insurance company to deny coverage.

Never thought I would see the same people who think insurance companies are the devil for their shady practices cheer the notion of denying coverage.

Every single day responsible people pay for the irresponsible.

diseases and injury with enormous costs tied right back to choices made by people.

smoking, drinking, drugs, obesity, refusal to even get a flu shot, seatbelts, etc....this all costs society plenty. It's been happening right in front of your eyes forever.

You could have asked insurance companies to tell those folks to "---- off" in the past.......but nope. Instead, you curse at them. Not until there was a partisan angle to it....now you want insurance companies to tell them to "---- off".

Let me put it another way.....you're cheering for insurance companies to PROFIT MORE.

You realize that, right?

#25 | Posted by eberly at 2021-12-09 09:21 AM | Reply

We already know VAERS reports don't distinguish deaths actually casually related to the vaccine and those which coincidentally happened within the reporting window, so his numbers are already going to be high for the deaths attributable to the vaccine.

#22 | POSTED BY STATSPLEASE AT 2021-12-08 09:21 PM | FLAG:

We also already know that VAERS is the only place to report vaccine injury/death. Are you suggesting we stop looking there? Who is responsible for someone who is injured/dies from a vaccine?

#26 | Posted by lfthndthrds at 2021-12-09 11:02 AM | Reply

diseases and injury with enormous costs tied right back to choices made by people.

People who engage in high-risk behaviors like smoking pay higher premiums to the extent they are honest with their insurers. This goes beyond health insurance; the same is true for, say, hazard insurance costing more for properties more susceptible to disaster.

I don't think anyone should be denied care, but the unvaccinated should absolutely be paying more for insurance under already existing principles.

#27 | Posted by JOE at 2021-12-09 11:10 AM | Reply

-People who engage in high-risk behaviors like smoking pay higher premiums to the extent they are honest with their insurers

not really in a group health plan. Whatever the difference....it's not remotely close to the actual difference in expsoure.

IOW, the non-smokers pay for the smokers. The responsible pay for the irresponsible.

"but the unvaccinated should absolutely be paying more for insurance"

I don't disagree but it's hilarious this occurs to people now......

#28 | Posted by eberly at 2021-12-09 11:13 AM | Reply

" We already know VAERS reports don't distinguish deaths actually casually related to the vaccine and those which coincidentally happened"

Read the site carefully. It specifically states they investigated all the deaths reported, and only three of them could be traced back to the vaccine, all Johnson and Johnson. Then the site specifically warns against anyone connecting any other deaths to vaccines.

#29 | Posted by Danforth at 2021-12-09 11:16 AM | Reply

it's hilarious this occurs to people now......

Who's saying it only occurred to them now? It we're going to have a ------ system like private health insurance, i and plenty if others have always been in favor of the willfully dangerous people paying more.

#30 | Posted by JOE at 2021-12-09 11:17 AM | Reply

-Who's saying it only occurred to them now?

me.

Specifically, I'm referring to Jonathan Carroll. But there obviously a ton of folks out there who haven't considered this either.

-i and plenty if others have always been in favor of the willfully dangerous people paying more

Are you sure? Really?

For the better part of the last 75 years, insurance actuaries have pooled risk in a way that would allow them to identify behavior that should be either avoided or specifically charged more for.

When it comes to "risky behavior".......in the end, it's usually concluded that minorities are disproportionately adversely impacted by requiring the practice of having "willfully dangerous people paying more".

What you really mean to say is that you're in favor of white republicans who are willfully dangerous paying more.

But can you say the same of anyone else you'd like to pay more?

#31 | Posted by eberly at 2021-12-09 11:27 AM | Reply

Never thought I would see the same people who think insurance companies are the devil for their shady practices cheer the notion of denying coverage.

Let me put it another way.....you're cheering for insurance companies to PROFIT MORE.

You realize that, right?

#25 | Posted by eberly

Yeah it's funny how people are willing to take extreme actions TO SAVE INNOCENT LIVES.

And funny how other people (especially supposed christians) aren't even willing to take tiny actions to save innocent lives.

#32 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2021-12-09 11:47 AM | Reply

FDA: Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee " 9/17/2021
youtu.be

#16 | Posted by oneironaut

And here we have the problem with america. A moron watches propaganda on youtube and thinks he's found the truth and now knows more than experts and scientists.

Of course the moron won't bother reading the actual explanation for the video in post#22 and will continue believing his fallacies no matter what.

#33 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2021-12-09 11:49 AM | Reply

When it comes to "risky behavior".......in the end, it's usually concluded that minorities are disproportionately adversely impacted by requiring the practice of having "willfully dangerous people paying more".

Good point. Scale the premium increases by income. Not perfect, but neither is America. Not by a long shot.

#34 | Posted by JOE at 2021-12-09 11:56 AM | Reply

Read the site carefully. It specifically states they investigated all the deaths reported, and only three of them could be traced back to the vaccine, all Johnson and Johnson. Then the site specifically warns against anyone connecting any other deaths to vaccines.

#29 | POSTED BY DANFORTH AT 2021-12-09 11:16 AM | REPLY

Only three. Who can someone sue for a loss if the are injured or killed by a vaccine?

#35 | Posted by lfthndthrds at 2021-12-09 12:00 PM | Reply

Who can someone sue for a loss if the are injured or killed by a vaccine?

They can file for benefits under the Countermeasures Injury Compensation Program, which you could have discovered with a simple google search if you were actually curious instead of asking a stupid question for innuendo purposes.

#36 | Posted by JOE at 2021-12-09 01:54 PM | Reply

See what happens if you're injured in a car wreck and weren't wearing a seat belt ...

#37 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2021-12-09 02:47 PM | Reply

#37 - which state?

#38 | Posted by jakester at 2021-12-09 02:52 PM | Reply

-See what happens if you're injured in a car wreck and weren't wearing a seat belt ...

like what?

are you still suggesting insurance companies exclude coverage for bodily injury when not wearing a seatbelt?

Like Jake said....which state?

Insurance companies would love to exclude coverage for that but I suspect most, if not all, states won't allow it.....but I'm talking exclusively about auto policies.

Now, under many state's workers compensation statutes, there is an exclusion for coverage for workers who "willfully disregard safety policies".

I've seen a carrier deny a death claim in an auto accident because the driver was not wearing a seatbelt and the highway patrol said the fatality was due to exactly that.....not wearing a seatbelt.

The guy had a wife and 4 kids......work comp paid ZERO. I never thought I would see that.

#39 | Posted by eberly at 2021-12-09 03:08 PM | Reply

The guy had a wife and 4 kids......work comp paid ZERO. I never thought I would see that.

#39 | Posted by eberly

That woman is now experiencing the consequences of marrying a moron.

#40 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2021-12-09 03:29 PM | Reply

40

It was a family of African Americans.

Dad was a good guy from what I was told by the employer (my client). Good worker, showed up on time, worked hard....very reliable.

Just got in a hurry and didn't buckle up....he was only driving about 3 miles to deliver some fertilizer.

Now, we have a widow and 4 kids who will be on the government dole for a long time.

This is actually where I take the liberal side and believe that since society will be responsible for this anyway.....just force the insurance company to pay the death benefit (would have been $350K in this instance) and build the coverage into the rates for a small amount of increase.

And to top it off.....if you saw how much profit insurance companies are making in workers compensation these days primarily due to these kinds of exclusions???

------- criminal.....

#41 | Posted by eberly at 2021-12-09 03:35 PM | Reply

Eberly

It all depends on how an adjuster determines the level of fault for not wearing a seat belt. This can result in partial or total denial payment for medical bills.

And if someone is found to have not been wearing their seat belt (a violation in every state but New Hampshire) their premiums are going to go up as well.

#42 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2021-12-09 03:40 PM | Reply

42

you're correct. I was thinking only in terms of you injuring yourself in an accident (no other parties). your carrier is paying regardless.

However the "seat belt defense" can be used (not sure everywhere...but in general this is attempted).

The seat belt defense itself is relatively simple. In an accident where the person hit was supposed to be wearing a seatbelt, but wasn't, the responsible party uses the seat belt defense to reduce their liability by the amount of damages that would have been avoided if the person had been wearing their seat belt.

Good catch.

#43 | Posted by eberly at 2021-12-09 03:48 PM | Reply

On the auto insurance thing about seat belts - you are violating the law. If you read your insurance and are breaking the law all sorts of things can and will happen. Try drunk driving and getting in an accident. Fleeing the police. etc. I'm going to imagine is it is a case of "it depends". However most people that are ejected during an accident don't need much more than a body bag.

#44 | Posted by GalaxiePete at 2021-12-09 05:07 PM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2022 World Readable

Drudge Retort