I’m not a legal expert at all, so I need some help. I have the info post from 20-gauge, but I’m not sure my situation fits, or how if it does.
My husband’s company has been offering $1000 for people to get their experimental gene therapy shots. With a low turnout, they were discussing mandating it. I’m not sure if they got pushback, but they decided NOT to mandate it. However, they have created an interesting loophole. If you don’t volunteer your “vaccination” status, they’ll essentially assume you haven’t gotten the shots and will charge up to $200/month surcharge for insurance premiums. They already charge $35ish for smokers. As a benefit for our location, the company pays all of our insurance premiums.
This doesn’t sit well with me, that they want to take his hard-earned money to get an experimental treatment. We have four kids, and two of them are in private school, so extra money going out the door is not something we’d prefer. But we’re also not getting the shots. He has coworkers that are in agreement they are not getting the shot, but I know that people are more likely to do things against their conscience if it costs them money. We are in agreement that he can spearhead the peaceful noncompliance resistance, and he will make them fire him. We have faith that God will take care of our family, no matter what happens. We just need to know how to deal with his company in the meantime for his coworkers who might be tempted to comply.
TL;DR version - Husband’s company wants employees to pay insurance surcharge for NOT getting the shots and could use legal advice.
Edited to add the company pays our insurance premiums as a benefit for the area we live in.
https://www.mercer.us/our-thinking/healthcare/smoker-surcharges-its-a-trap.html
I'm not a lawyer, this is not legal advice. Check out the link above, might be worth looking into this HIPAA related 'alternative' clause...seems employers with group plans have to provide a reasonable alternative to avoid liability in a discrimination suit. This link is in regards to tobacco use surcharges, but it should apply from what I can tell. What the alternative is, and if this is ultimately helpful is another question. (also not sure if the 'group-plan' is pivotal, maybe this doesn't apply if it were individual plans?)
[Note: Mercer seems to be a Healthcare-centered risk assessment firm, with this article seemingly written with Administrators/Policy-makers as it's audience...giving it a touch more credibility in my eyes.]
https://www.mercer.us/our-thinking/healthcare/thinking-about-a-premium-surcharge-for-the-unvaccinated.html
Here's that same author's take on vax, saying basically the same thing...unfortunately we all know the 'alternative standard' is apt to be draconian as well.