US Politics on Sidechat | Companies already do this, dumbass. People are denied general insurance because of “pre-existing conditions” like obesity (surgery, IVF). There was also huge flack from insurance companies denying ER coverage because they deemed ER visits “avoidable.”

Sidechat

Download

Join communities on Sidechat Download

US Politics 1w

Companies already do this, dumbass. People are denied general insurance because of “pre-existing conditions” like obesity (surgery, IVF). There was also huge flack from insurance companies denying ER coverage because they deemed ER visits “avoidable.”

US Politics 1w

This logic would have insurance companies denying people for major surgeries because they “didn’t get checked out fast enough” or “ate too much fast food”

Anonymous 1w

I’m a dumbass because I don’t want an already existing issue to get worse okay

-2

Anonymous

#1 1w

I mean like yeah a little. It seems like you’re more interested in making sure being anti vax isn’t illegal than you are this whole insurance issue you’ve conjured in your head. Also worse? How would it get worse if they already do everything you described.

Anonymous

#2 1w

Conflating intentional killings and bad parental judgment could open the door to all sorts of issues. This theory would completely upend our legal system.

-1

Anonymous

#2 1w

There is a big difference between an insurance company’s discretionary decisions and the law embracing a broader theory of culpability when it comes to any avoidable acts.

-1

Anonymous

#1 1w

Huh??? I’m telling you insurance companies ALREADY do this. Risks of deadly diseases like measles, tetanus, or meningitis are greatly reduced with vaccines. Do I think that means individuals who contract them shouldn’t receive care? No. However, it’s ridiculous to ignore the effectiveness and empirical evidence of one type of treatment (vaccines) and then rely on life-saving treatments that are ALSO empirically proven and effective.

Anonymous

OP 1w

Are you stupid? I’m not anti vax

Anonymous

OP 1w

And yeah I kind of addressed the whole “insurance companies already do this point” by saying that YES, it’s an existing issue, and a policy like this would make it worse by codifying the theory into law!

Anonymous

#1 1w

I never claimed you were. All I’m saying is you made a poor analogy. I understand that intentionality behind murder is different than choosing not to vaccinate your child, but stating it’s “bad parental judgement” is a reductive way of saying negligent. Choosing not to vaccinate your children despite their proven benefit and effectiveness can be seen as negligent behavior. It’s different than not going to the ER fast enough or not having a healthy diet.

Anonymous

OP 1w

Sorry my words weren’t sharp enough for your interpretation. Sure it’s negligent. My whole point is if you start to claim it’s legally negligent it’s an issue.

Anonymous

#1 1w

Then using insurance is a poor analogy to determine il/legal negligence. That’s what my original post was about bae