The compulsory vaccination of Covid-19 and its effects on health plans

The Federal Supreme Court during a virtual plenary session, judging together two ADIs under numbers 6586 and 6587 plus Are 167879, understood by majority of votes, 10 votes to at least one, to authorize restrictive measures for those that don't get vaccinated against Covid-19. ADIs rapporteur, Minister Ricardo Lewandoski, voted for the compulsory nature of the Coronavirus vaccine.

In the aforementioned Are, Minister Rapporteur Luis Roberto Barroso, in his vote, even made a regard to a precedent in his work, albeit with a special focus and focus, because there it had been a case regarding Jehovah's witnesses. For him, therein feat, life was “at stake” for religious reasons that might not involve a collectivity. Here, during this case during which the three lawsuits were concurrently judged, he stated that this is often a collective health concern where the well-being of all, consistent with the minister, overrides the individual interest, namely the interest of a minor, rectius , the simplest interest of youngsters and adolescents in being protected by the disease as expressly stated in article 227 of our Federal Constitution.

For Minister Lewandoski, Rapporteur of the 2 ADIs identified above, collective health can't be harmed by people that deliberately refuse to be vaccinated, believing that they're going to still be selfishly benefited by herd immunity. it's not an option for the govt to vaccinate or to not vaccinate, it's an obligation, the rapporteur emphasized in his learned vote.

Ministers of the very best court within the country cited precedents from other countries, standing call at the vote of Minister Alexandre de Moraes who gave as an example the need of certain health precautions for entry into certain countries, for instance, the display of the vaccine against fever Yellow.

Other precedents from the American courts served as a paradigm to spotlight the importance and wish for the vaccine.

In Brazil, it had been stressed to exhaustion that there are approximately 200 thousand families victimized thanks to Covid-19.

Only for the sake of illustration, Minister Nunes Marques, who partly understood that mandatory vaccination should be adopted within the last case, opened the dispute.

What i would like to spotlight is that the demand imposed by that Collegiate would be that the mandatory vaccination imposed on the population would be effected through sanctions stripped, evidently, of manu militari, that is, with none measure of forced driving to health posts.

Todavia, há uma informação de que o Ministério Público Federal teria expedido “um ofício” considerando preocupante a indefinição do Ministério da Saúde quanto à disponibilização de vacinas de maneira ampla pelo programa de Imunização do Sistema Único de Saúde. Pois, assim como teria ocorrido em relação aos exames de diagnósticos da Covid-19, as vacinas aprovadas pela Agência Nacional de Vigilância Sanitária (ANVISA) devem, no entender do parquet, constar entre os procedimentos médicos cobertos pelos planos de saúde.

Well then. In my understanding, if there's an imposition on health plans to supply among the list of their procedures vaccines against Covid-19, despite having no sympathy for a plethora of those plans, there'll automatically be an imbalance within the actuarial calculations spent with acquisition costs of those products, especially because within the first stage they're going to be selective, and their costs will rise at a really high level to get such vaccines among those already provided by legal requirement.

In other words, it had been underlying my understanding that those that don't get vaccinated may suffer financial sanctions like, for instance, the payment of a fine or other administrative sanction imposed by the general public entity, like attending public schools, circulating in certain environments, etc.

In the case of imposing that the plans must obligatorily make vaccines available to their members, all those that don't want to be vaccinated, for whatever reason, will need to pay a way higher cost than they pay thanks to a legal determination, which can be extended counting on the connotation that this understanding may suffer with the course of events.

This fact, in my opinion, doesn't occur in insurance except within the case of eminently mandatory insurance as are all those provided for in Article 20 of Decree-Law number 73/66, with their respective amendments.

Actions proposed by the Federal Prosecutor's Office may hurt and positively so will the binomial of the value / benefit equation, which violates the principle of mutualism one among the pillars of the insurance system.

To oblige the general public entity in favor of the collectivity is nothing but a principle of commonweal stipulated in favor of the collectivity.

On the opposite hand, in insurance law, i feel that saving, as I said above, in optional insurance like life assurance and in health plans, the principle of mutualism, which has been happening for thousands and thousands of years, are going to be compromised. with its actuarial calculations, if required by an extravagant law the need for the Covid-19 vaccine in any and every one medical procedures.

In short, I understand that two weights shouldn't be extended to 2 measures that have totally different connotations.

plano de saúde unimed fortaleza
hapvida fortaleza
plano de saúde hapvida
plano de saúde amil empresarial
Plano de Saúde Bradesco no Nordeste