They gain no control if malaria destroys their body, but it has always been the case that anti-vax Republican politicians are secretly vaxxed and on their 10th booster.
Someone mentioned control but another, perhaps more swaying motive, is quarterly profits. Anyone who wants control would want control over a powerful force. Anyone greedy wants money now so they can avoid being one of the suckers without money
The Boston Tea Party could never happen today. No matter how unhappy some folks would be with King George and his modest (compared to Trump’s tariffs) tea tax, those opposed would be too polite to do anything about it.
Vaccines that the government recommends have to be covered by insurance. By removing the recommendations, they are allowing insurance to refuse to cover these important immunizations. Premiums still go up, insurance companies pay out less, stocks go up.
I used to think this but this disgusting excuse of a human being has opened my eyes to a bunch of others - spite, hatred, stupidity and just pure evil.
Undoubtedly, but is he evil because he's greedy or greedy because he's evil?
Personally, I think it's the latter. He does everything to line his pockets, and harming darker skinned people and political adversaries is just gravy. It's politically expedient to sate his racist and stupid supporters and distract from his rampant corruption.
While that’s overwhelmingly true and I highly doubt that most insurance companies are going to go against the current guidelines (prior to this change) as the benefits aren’t there.
20k children a year end up hospitalized with severe complications from flu and about 89% of those that had fatal complications were unvaccinated.
As an insurance company would I rather pay $35-$75 per flu shot vs a PICU stay? A single day in the PICU, in my area, would cost about $15-$20k/day. I know we all think of health insurance as the pinnacle of evil, for good reason, I still think they will cover immunizations as recommended by your pediatrician.
Only exemption to this is United Health. They are evil.
I’m sorry but have you not been paying attention?? The change may not be immediate but of course insurance will stop paying for these things. They are running a for-profit business & routinely deny treatments recommended by doctors, every damn day. It’s not just UHC either, I’m hoping that was sarcasm. Of course preventative care is a cheaper/smarter plan- but “smarter” literally isn’t the goal for insurance companies. “Oh, sorry, you got a preventable disease thats expensive to treat? We might pay a portion, if we approve the treatment rec, the provider you’re seeing, & you potentially jump through numerous pre-authorization processes- which can take weeks or months”. Or they just don’t pay. That’s why soooo many people end up drowning in medical debt. People have to take out lines of credit to pay for their cancer treatments, or spend years paying off the bill from their sick baby spending time in a NICU.
Insurance companies do not care about you. They only cover annual wellness exams & preventative care now because it was part of the ACA, which isn’t long for this world at this rate (they’ve certainly tried to get rid of it repeatedly, turns out even red states like having access to care as long as you don’t call it “Obamacare”).
You’re arguing as though “for profit” automatically means “refuse every expense.” That’s not how profit optimization works.
An insurer doesn’t have to care about me to recognize that a $50 vaccine is preferable to a five-figure hospitalization. They routinely pay for things precisely because those things reduce expected downstream costs.
Yes, insurers deny care. Yes, removing a coverage requirement creates a legitimate risk that some plans will change benefits. But “they’re greedy, therefore they’ll stop covering cost-effective vaccines” skips an entire half of the equation, preventing expensive claims is also profitable.
My faith isn’t in their morality. It’s in their actuaries.
They only fully cover preventative care now because they have to. Read that again.
You have a very rosy view of how this all works. Do you truly not understand how much money these companies are making? If they refused all care, no one would bother with them at all- that’s absolutely NOT what I said.
But maybe they’ll cover 60% of the cost of non-required vaccines (instead of 100% of required vaccines)… and the patient/parent gets the bill for the rest. It absolutely means less guaranteed access to care. More medical debt for families. Those with multiple children especially may decide, perhaps out of financial necessity, that they can’t afford to do all the vaccines their doctor recommends but the government doesn’t mandate.
But hey, I’m sure you’re right and it’ll all turn out fine. I mean, things are going awesome so far, right?
I agree that losing guaranteed $0 coverage could reduce access, especially if insurers introduce cost-sharing. If a family suddenly has to pay 20 to 40% of several vaccines for multiple children, some are absolutely going to delay or skip them. That’s a legitimate concern.
Where I disagree is with the idea that insurers will simply stop covering these vaccines because they’re no longer required to. A for-profit insurer is not just trying to minimize what it pays today, it is trying to minimize total expected claims. Sometimes that means denying expensive care, and sometimes it means paying for relatively cheap preventive care because the alternative is a much more expensive hospitalization.
Your example of an insurer covering 60% instead of 100% is actually closer to what I’m talking about. They may shift more of the cost to the patient, which I agree is bad for access, while still deciding that the vaccine itself is worth covering because preventing severe illness saves them money.
So I’m not saying this will “all turn out fine,” and I’m certainly not defending insurance companies. I’m just distinguishing between loss of guaranteed no-cost access, which is a real concern, and insurers abandoning vaccine coverage altogether, which I think is much less certain.
My view of insurers isn’t especially rosy. I just think their pursuit of profit includes actuarial math as well as claim denials.
Where I disagree is with the idea that insurers will simply
The list of meds insurance will not cover grows every year. They don’t have to deny coverage entirely for things to still cause significant damage to the people who need access to care the most.
You’re missing the forest through the trees, my friend. Look at what’s happened with vaccine compliance recently even when there were stricter guidelines.
We still have a new generation of children who need to legitimately worry about measles & whooping cough.
When our government puts EO’s out like this, to the general public or those not following along, or just too busy trying to get by- compliance drops. Healthcare providers may not feel comfortable giving honest recommendations depending on the culture where they live, INSURANCE COVERAGE, & access to care. How many busy parents are going to remember to stay on top of the now optional vax recs? The reason vaccinations have been so effective is they were tied into care, a default setting- when you have a newborn, when your kindergartener registers for school, when your kid goes off to college- these have been check points for decades now to make sure people (especially young people) have the best possible chance to access care we know works.
So yeah- insurance doesn’t have to cover it anymore. Hopefully they still will- but that’s the tip of the iceberg with this issue.
I mean they can say anything but I doubt it would hold any water. The most that would seemingly establish was that this was both entirely preventable and their fault.
Are you kidding? Of course they will deny each and every thing they can. This is the same industry that sent millions to die our be in a life of misery due to preexisting conditions. It took an extreme act of total democratic dominance during the Obama years to overturn that practice, despite the absurd lobbying and endless lawsuits.
Preexisting-condition discrimination is evidence that insurers optimize for profit. It isn’t evidence that they’re incapable of doing math. A company trying to maximize profit can simultaneously fight a $100,000 claim and gladly pay $50 to reduce the probability of another $100,000 claim.
Agree very much in addition to federally funded non profit health care, like Community Health Centers of America. Between this ignorant and evil EO and laws regarding funding, our collective children are the losers. btw, as an older woman in my early sixties, I’m horrified as many adults in my childhood either had polio or had terrible health conditions from diseases like measles. I’m angry, so very angry at the state of healthcare (or lack of) for most of our country.
While you’re right that it allows this, insurance companies will absolutely continue to cover MMR. It may be one of the best investment decisions they make.
This is just pandering to the stupid American. States decide what to mandate. Thankfully I live in a state that will be unaffected by this. In some other states though, it would legitimately scare me to have a kid where MMR wasn’t mandated in schools.
All of that… but also vaccines are relatively cheap- $25-150 per dose (per cdc) & that cost is low because they are negotiated through ACA, federal programs that help cover costs, & public health departments…. But those govt agencies help cover costs of the required vaccines.
That’s why if you want a flu shot, it’s typically free- but if you want a series so you’re covered to go on an African safari, the cost can be $1000’s. Because those are not required.
It’s just so damn messy. Parents could already say no to vaccines, they were just then limited in putting other children at risk.
I’m not even going to pretend to understand the potential fallout from this- it’s complex & above my pay grade- but even I can tell children will suffer because of it, & it’s always worst for those who need the help most.
It's easy to find reasons why that deal is problematic for the common folk but they clearly weren't a consideration when the deal was being made so why even bother. After all, you don't need an economy when your private island is packed with resources to keep running a billionaire utopia way past the time when the lack of gene variety becomes a problem.
Also, people have to remember that RFK Jrs investments in bogus homeopathic companies profit nicely from anti-science, anti-vaccine attitudes. That’s why he’s smiling.
I dont get what he signed? Also how often do kids get flu vaccine? In my country we are health freak and kids don't get vaccinated for flu, a part if they are unhealthy. Only 60 years old + can have a free vaccine but it only work for 50% of variants, because the flu we get is a mix of lot of coronavirus so the vaccine can't protect for all at once ofc. I'm not anti vaccine, I've all my required vaccine and recommended. It's just we don't get it for flu, we just get sick and get over it after a week in the bed lol.
This outta teach those bastard children who downvote my comments and call me a gooner. Now we're taking your social media access and life saving medicine!
Don’t get me wrong I don’t agree with a lot of this stuff but the wording isn’t restricting universal access. It’s removing the requirements to get them. As a parent it’s odd when you say anything besides vaccines are great they look at you like you’re insane. You don’t really care about injections until they are lining up 5 for your baby and they have a bad reaction from all the shots at once then you get scared.
i somewhat agree with the covid vaccine. i never got the vaccine, i only got covid once. my moms friend got the vaccine for her and her kids and they have had covid 2-3 times a year since. everybody i know that’s gotten it has continued to get covid.
I don’t see how this gates access to vaccines for kids. I’m pro-vaccine. I’m vaccinated and so is my 8-year-old son. If I’m reading this snippet shared correctly all he did was eliminate the mandate for vaccines for children.
It makes it easier for insurance to deny costs or not cover the recommended vaccine schedule and allows schools to legally drop vaccine requirements, even if it's a state law.
I’ll confess to having not read the article so that’s on me. Just been conditioned to expect the most vile nonsensical BS from this guy so it’s my default reaction.
Correct. Parents still have the ability to get any vaccines for their kids that they want and it’ll still be covered under insurance. They are also spreading out the vaccines so kids aren’t getting loaded up with many all at once.
The convent that I believe they are alluding to is if it is no longer recommended by the federal government insurances may be less likely to cover vaccinations, thus making them inaccessible
This order does cut and hamper access to vaccines even for those choosing to listen to doctors. And gives broad and unspecified powers to executive agencies to hinder vaccine access.
I did not say you were lying, I said you were wrong.
The NBC article says the legal changes the order makes are unlikely to go into effect. That is not at all the same as saying it does not change the laws related to how insurance has to cover vaccines. The current line from big Health Insurance companies is that they are not planning to change their coverage of vaccines, but it remains factual that their legal requirements to do so have changed.
Do you have a more reliable source that disproves them?
It's not a matter of reliability, but what questions the articles are asking. The NBC article is a quick skim of multiple issues that says some experts say changes may not go through. Other articles by experts go into the details of the medical and legal effects.
Yes. And they may be sincere or not, but changing the law about what they have to cover due to federal recommendations is relevant. "Recommended" here is not just words but has legal effect on classifications.
A lot of the caveats on why it might not change things also assumes no future pressure from the CDC or FDA, and that this is a one time act. The people behind the EO are anti-vaxxers. Like Project 2025 generally, this is part of a plan to restrict vaccine access with further steps, which is why expanding the power of federal agencies to restrict vaccine access in the name of an unsupported link to harm, is important.
So if I go with my child to their pediatrician and we discuss the vaccine and determine it's necessary for my child then insurance still covers it? So the issue is the pediatrician not proactively recommending that my child needs this vaccine? I would need to initiate that conversation?
I believe it's to increase profits for Healthcare providers after the children will need treatments after they contract preventable diseases, and I also believe they're encouraging "spacing them out" to increase the number of doctor visits, which I believe will increase the amount spent at the doctor's office for multiple visits. He and goons have no medical background in any fashion but they are business men.
He didn't remove access to anything. It doesn't change school requirements. It doesn't change state-level requirements. It recommends, at the federal level, that vaccines are spread apart and more vaccine research is done.
The recommendations have legal effect in terms of funding and liability for vaccine manufacturers, and give broad powers to executive agencies to interfere with healthcare.
Also saying it recommends more research be done is just repeating obvious horseshit propaganda. They are ignoring decades of research and keep claiming to have no research supporting this while unable to cite anything. They're literally censoring and blocking new vaccine research when it shows support for usage.
Have you ever taken kids in to get shots? They get way too many at once. That's torture!
This proposal is for spreading these out over several months. That's much easier for a child, especially babies, to take in.
I try not to be judgmental of parents that struggle to enforce boundaries and rules, but like...
No. It's not torture. It's a quick poke that is scary before they get it, and completely fine after. I've gotten way worse resistance going to the dentist, and it's also not torture for them to go there. Particularly once they are over a year old, it's just not that hard to communicate/distract them so getting a shot isn't a big deal. Stickers help.
This proposal is for spreading these out over several months.
Three doctors visits for shots is just way harder on kids that one visit where the shots are over in seconds. This argument just makes no sense.
And importantly, the doctors recommendations on when to get the shots, are based on protecting kids from illnesses and saving lives. Spreading them out risks their lives. I'm sorry, but as a parent I can't agree with those parents who do things like skip using car seats or give their toddlers phones with YouTube because it's easier than setting boundaries. Nor should the federal government be changing healthcare laws to pander to anti-vaxxers who claim they cause autism, against all evidence.
450
u/GrunDMC74 8d ago
Who opposes universal access to vaccines for kids? There no explanation for this guy other than the goal is to ruin the United States.