Delta Air Lines announces a $200 monthly health insurance surcharge for unvaccinated employees

Delta Air Lines announces a $200 monthly health insurance surcharge for unvaccinated employees

Delta Air Lines

Delta Air Lines David McNew/Getty Images 

Delta Air Lines isn't requiring its employees to get vaccinated against COVID-19. But if they don't, they'll be facing a surcharge of $200 a month.

Delta CEO Ed Bastian announced Wednesday that the airline's employees who choose not to get vaccinated against COVID-19 and are enrolled in the company's healthcare plan "will be subject to a $200 monthly surcharge" beginning on Nov. 1.

"The average hospital stay for COVID-19 has cost Delta $50,000 per person," Bastian said. "This surcharge will be necessary to address the financial risk the decision to not vaccinate is creating for our company."

Bastian added that as the Delta variant of COVID-19 spreads, all of the company's employees who have been hospitalized with the coronavirus in recent weeks weren't fully vaccinated. Delta employees who are unvaccinated will also have to get tested for COVID-19 every week "while community case rates are high," Bastian said.

This move comes after the Food and Drug Administration officially approvedPfizer's COVID-19 vaccine, which was expected to lead more companies to announce vaccine mandates. As The Washington Post notes, United Airlines previously said it would require its U.S. employees to get vaccinated.

"We know some of you will disagree with this decision to require the vaccine for all United employees," United CEO Scott Kirby said. "But, we have no greater responsibility to you and your colleagues than to ensure your safety when you're at work, and the facts are crystal clear: everyone is safer when everyone is vaccinated."


MMW

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

That Uplifting Tweet You Just Shared? A Russian Troll Sent It

Image
Here’s what Russia’s 2020 disinformation operations look like, according to two experts on social media and propaganda. By   DARREN LINVILL   &   PATRICK WARREN Internet trolls don’t troll. Not the professionals at least. Professional trolls don’t go on social media to antagonize liberals or belittle conservatives. They are not narrow minded, drunk or angry. They don’t lack basic English language skills. They certainly aren’t  “somebody sitting on their bed that weighs 400 pounds,”  as the president once put it. Your stereotypical trolls do exist on social media, but the amateurs aren’t a threat to Western democracy. Professional trolls, on the other hand, are the tip of the spear in the new digital, ideological battleground. To combat the threat they pose, we must first understand them — and take them seriously. MORE: https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/russia-troll-2020-election-interference-twitter-916482/ Posted by Jamie B.
Read more

The Nightmare Scenario That Keeps Election Lawyers Up At Night -- And Could Hand Trump A Second Term

Image
The Nightmare Scenario That Keeps Election Lawyers Up At Night -- And Could Hand Trump A Second Term   (Photo: Photos: Getty Images) Americans will almost certainly go to bed on Nov. 3 without knowing who won the presidential election. Since millions of people will vote by mail, constraints on time and resources will slow ballot counting into potentially a weeks-long process. Voting patterns suggest it’s likely that President  Donald Trump  could end Election Day in the lead in certain key states, only to be overtaken by Democratic opponent  Joe Biden  when more votes are tallied.  This could create a nightmare scenario during the three months stretching from Election Day to the Jan. 20 inauguration: a battle on the state and congressional level over who is the legitimate winner. This could include Congress reconvening on Jan. 6, presided over by Vice President  Mike Pence , with no consensus over its potential role in choosing the next president. This is arguably the most likely of th
Read more

Philosophical Question #14 – Lifestyle Choices

Image
Here is an interesting question in my list of philosophical questions: 1.) Should governments have penalties for those who live unhealthy lifestyles? A list of unhealthy lifestyles would include things like smoking, drinking, illegal drugs, prostitution, and other “vice” type activities. I guess the “government penalties” would be referring to monetary punishments, withholding medical treatments (insurance companies would love that), possibly imposing/regulating very high (exorbitant) prices on things considered unhealthy in order to cut down on their use, and other possibilities. 2.) Or, would you say that living an unhealthy lifestyle, likely resulting in a LOT of eventual personal pain and suffering, should be punishment enough for unhealthy lifestyles? When people make bad choices in life, often in their youth where ignorance and immediate gratification takes them over,  3.) Should a society be obligated to help "fix" them, by way of tax money?   Is that part of
Read more