Have any health insurance companies attached a surcharge for unvaccinated people?

[Poiuyt]

They've put one on for cigarette smokers, they should do it for this.

[alwaysinasnit]

1. Delta Airlines, while not an insurance company, self funds health insurance.

https://www.npr.org/sections/coronavirus-live-updates/2021/08/25/1030949428/delta-covid-unvaccinated-employees-monthly-charge-200-dollars

[Ocelot II]

2. Can't do it per the ACA, except for smoking, and then only if the employer offers

smoking cessation assistance.

[Hugh_Lebowski]

3. 'They' did not do that. The ACA allows for it ...

ACA doesn't allow insurers to up and decide different premiums because of pre-existing conditions, except as allowed for in the law.

So no, they haven't.

Guessing it would require an Act of Congress.

[totodeinhere]

4. Is not being vaccinated a pre-existing condition?

Myself I do not think that not being vaccinated qualifies as a pre-existing condition. Insurance companies should definitely charge a surcharge to anyone stupid enough to refuse getting vaccinated. (Unless they are not eligible for the vaccine for some reason.)

[Ms. Toad]

5. The language isn't pre-exisiting condition.

It is insurance companies many not charge different premiums except for these 5 things:

smoking, age, geographic location, family v. individual, and level of coverage.

[totodeinhere]

6. I was responding to post #3. That poster used the term "pre-existing conditions"

and the use of that term was what I had an issue with. The use of that term was not mine.

[ProfessorGAC]

7. Tricky Legal Point

Everybody had that preexisting condition. Those of us vaxxed have mitigated that to a considerable degree.
Legal experts are saying that if that is a preexisting condition, then it applies to everybody. It appears that getting vaxxed doesn't change that we once had the same condition.
I wonder if they could raise everybody's premium, then offer a discount if one is vaxxed.
There's probably a bending the law issue there, though.

[Ms. Toad]

8. Pre-existing condition is just shorthand for the very few exceptions permitted

for charging a higher premium.

The issue isn't whether it is a pre-existing condition or not, it is whather vaccination status falls within the 5 permitted reasons for charging more. It does not. That's not a tricky legal point at all. The law is very specific as to the excptions that can triggger a higher premium. Vaccination status is not one of them.

[ProfessorGAC]

11. Not At All My Point

Thanks, anyway.

[Ms. Toad]

12. You are suggesting raising a premium based on something that is not one of the 5 permitted

reasons for raising premiums. Not a fine legal point, at all. Is it one of the 5 exceptions? (No). Since it isn't, you can't raise premiums and then lower them.

[Ms. Toad]

9. You were using that term, and suggested that based on that term

insurance companies should charge more.

My point is that they can't, since pre-existing conditions is not the language used in the law. Exceptions for disparate charges are expressly listed - and vaccination status is not one of them. It doesn't matter whether it is a pre-existing condition or not. If it ain't one of the 5 permitted exceptions, you can't charge more for it.

[totodeinhere]

10. As I said, I only used the term because that poster that I responded to used it. And

in my reply to you I said I objected to the use of the term, so in effect I agree with you and I have no argument with you at all. But having said that, I wish the law could be changed. I would love to see people who are stupid enough to refuse getting vaccinated being charged extra as a penalty for their stupidity. (Except for people who are ineligible to get vaccinated.)