6 ms·
Delta Air Lines is imposing a $200 monthly healthcare surcharge on unvaccinated employees, citing an average cost of $50k for a COVID-related hospital stay, whi
by MontyCarloHall 5y ago
Delta Air Lines is imposing a $200 monthly healthcare surcharge on unvaccinated employees, citing an average cost of $50k for a COVID-related hospital stay, which were appreciably affecting company health care policy expenses [0].
I wonder when insurers will follow suit. All these totally preventable hospital stays aren’t cheap, and insurers aren’t charities.
[0] https://www.wsj.com/articles/delta-air-lines-to-impose-200-monthly-surcharge-for-unvaccinated-employees-add-testing-requirements-11629902326 https://www.wsj.com/articles/delta-air-lines-to-impose-200-m...
- galangalalgol 5y agois that legal, or is that like charging for a preexisting condition?
- tibbydudeza 5y agoIt is a preventable condition or choice - if you smoke they charge you more.
- ajsnigrutin 5y agoWait... your employer charges you money if you smoke? How the hell is that legal? What if you're fat? Or drink alcohol (but still sober at work)? I mean.. our european worker protections are overkill.. but compared to this, they still seem as a better option.
- aikinai 5y agoIt sounds like you're not familiar with the US system. The employer isn't charging for smoking, the health insurance, which is mostly provided through employers in America, is charging a higher premium for smoking since you will cost much more in future payouts.
- galangalalgol 5y agotechnically the insurer charges you more. And often they just give you credits towards healthcare costs if you don't smoke, instead of charging you more if you do. As to why this is acceptable, cultural views on smoking tobacco in the US hover just this side of pedophilia it seems like. I don't know a single person who smokes and has a professional career.
- paulgb 5y agoTobacco use is actually written into the ACA as an acceptable thing for insurers to discriminate on (there’s even a cap to how much they can add on for it — 50% of the total premium IIRC). I assume Delta’s lawyers know better than I (who am not a lawyer), but I’d be curious to know how this squares with the ACA.
- lamontcg 5y agoYou can argue smoking/addiction is a disease, possibly genetic which reduces the element of choice involved, potentially creating a problem. Vaccination status wouldn't have any such issues.
- throwawaylinux 5y agoWhat if you're overweight?
- lotsofpulp 5y agoACA does not allow for that to be a factor in pricing an individual’s premiums. https://www.healthcare.gov/how-plans-set-your-premiums/ https://www.healthcare.gov/how-plans-set-your-premiums/
- throwawaylinux 5y agoSeems hypocritical and inconsistent. Why are harmful drug addictions a choice acceptable to discriminate against, but not a harmful food addiction I wonder? Probably because of the huge number of overweight making it socially and politically expedient to have their costs subsidized by others, whereas smokers are a much smaller minority so it's easy to discriminate against them.
- galangalalgol 5y agoI think its a bit apples and oranges. Smoking is a choice, and obesity is (quite often at least) the outcome or symptom of choices. It should be even easier to charge more for obese insured, they already have the symptoms! But that symptom is a preexisting condition which can't be considered. Also, thyroid disorders (1 in 5 women) can also cause obesity with otherwise healthy diets by dramatically lowering metabolism. So can some gut disorders. I think a way around that would be to self certify that I haven't used tobacco, alcohol, or non whole foods in the last 24 months to get my healthcare credits for each. Of have had no added augar (that gets tricky) or haven't eaten in excess of some number of calories based on my height and age.
- throwawaylinux 5y agoNo I think it's still hypocritical and inconsistent in spirit. There are reasons why a smoking addiction is not a simple choice in all cases, and conversely if smoking is a choice then obesity is also a choice in most cases being caused by food addiction.
- kevinmchugh 5y agoThe effect of this has been more smokers go without insurance, not fewer smokers
- ceejayoz 5y agoI presume they are reducing the employer contribution towards premiums instead of raising premiums (which they can’t do).
- lotsofpulp 5y agoI am wondering how this would affect their non discrimination testing (for tax purposes).
- ceejayoz 5y ago“Refusing to get a vaccine” is not a protected class.
- lotsofpulp 5y agoI specified for tax purposes because I was not referring to that kind of discrimination, but rather where employer paid benefits to employees have to be offered in a manner that does not discriminate against lower paid employees otherwise they become taxable.
- ceejayoz 5y agoWhy would that apply here, then? The premiums are the same. The fine is the same. Access to vaccines is the same.
- lotsofpulp 5y agoThe employer paid portion of the premium is reduced, which is what the non discrimination testing is looking at to make sure employer benefits are not disproportionately going to higher paid employees.
- ceejayoz 5y agoAgain, premiums are the same, the fine is the same, the vaccination is available to all. How does the discrimination provision apply?