Illinois State Rep. Introduces Bill Requiring Unvaccinated Residents to Pay For Their Own COVID Care

[LetMyPeopleVote]

Unvaxxed idiots need to pay for their stupidity

Link to tweet

An Illinois Democratic lawmaker has introduced legislation that would require individuals who have not been vaccinated against COVID-19 to pay for their own medical expenses, including hospital bills, if they contract the virus.

State Rep. Jonathon Carroll filed HB 4259 on Monday in Springfield. The legislation would impact those residents who choose not to receive COVID-19 vaccines, and would require them to cover medical costs associated with contracting the virus, even if they have health insurance.

Carroll says that the bill would serve as an incentive to residents to get vaccinated, and would help curb the spread of the virus in Illinois.

“If you get life insurance and you’re a smoker, you pay a higher premium than those who don’t,” he said. “The insurance companies have things like this built-in already.

[Baitball Blogger]

1. I recc'd it, but seriously, this will cause more of them to stay home, where they will die.

I know what you're thinking. Don't say it out loud.

[ProudMNDemocrat]

2. Stupidity kills.

Those rejecting the science behind medicine are demanding that very science to save their butts. HYPOCRISY comes ar a price. Time they pay it.

Let them howl like a wolf. Their decision to not be vaccinated will cost them bigly.

[MOMFUDSKI]

3. And we care

at all about WHERE they die? Darwin . . .

[lindysalsagal]

4. FINALLY

A responsible politician. Fingers crossed, this is now normalized and will spread.

[former9thward]

5. This bill is unconstitutional.

The bill would violate the federal ACA law. It would also violate contract law for those with health insurance. But I guess its ok to introduce feel good bills that have no chance of becoming law in order to get a little publicity.

[leftstreet]

6. +1

[Escurumbele]

7. I have not read the bill, is he trying to exempt insurance companies from paying, or just the state?

If he is trying to exempt the state from paying I am all for it because it is the tax payers paying for their stupidity, but if they have insurance then it is up to them and their insurance to settle payment arrangements.

Maybe the insurance companies will come up with a clause where they will not pay for unvaccinated, that would definitely change the game.

[former9thward]

9. It is illegal on many levels.

First, most insurance is group insurance through employment. It is not tailored for individuals. Evem if those clauses were permitted whathat aboiut the flu shot? Should they be exempt if you did not get a flu shot? What if your BMI is over 30? And they put in a clause saying they would not pay for any weight related health issues? Anyway, no matter. The ACA, otherwise known as Obamacare, prohibits all this nonsense. It matters not who would be paying the final bill. This is just a legislator seeking some publicity.

[sdfernando]

10. Perhaps the insurance companies could call it an "Act of GOD"???

Then they don' t have to pay.

[rsdsharp]

8. It would also violate the contracts clause of Article I.

Article I, Section 10, Clause 1.

No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.

[CaptainTruth]

11. Seems like this goes against the ACA...

In spirit at least, if not by law. Requiring persons with specific medical conditions to pay more was one of the things the ACA sought to eliminate, although in that case the cost being discussed was insurance premiums, not direct payments to care providers.

Seems like what this bill is trying to do is prevent health insurance companies from covering the cost of certain medical treatments/procedures based on some status of the patient. I really don't see how that would stand up in court.

To think about it another way, imagine the "medical treatment/procedure" being discussed was abortion, the "status of the patient" was pregnant, & Republicans were proposing a law that would prevent insurance companies from covering the cost of the procedure as well as any medical complications associated with it. Then how would you feel about a law like this?

[MichMan]

12. His analogy to smoking doesn't make any sense

While smokers can be charged higher premiums, they aren't prohibited from receiving medical treatments