Re: Anti-Discrimination Heathly Insurance Bill in Senate
I think the real problem here is that the loophole wasn't clear. There is absolutely nothing wrong with charging higher premiums from people who engage in riskier activities; nobody complains about higher life insurance premiums for smokers, right? If there's a higher chance that you'll hurt yourself and cost the insurance company more money, you should be paying more for insurance. What's bad is when someone THINKS he's covered, highsides it on the highway and runs up a 6-figure hospital bill, only to be denied coverage for something he thought was covered. That's what's morally reprehensible about the insurance industry- they'll take your premiums even if they have no intention of covering you. Charging more of everybody because some people engage in risky activities is socialism, pure and simple. That's not how we do it here in the U.S. Go to Canada if you want government-sponsored health care for all.
I think the real problem here is that the loophole wasn't clear. There is absolutely nothing wrong with charging higher premiums from people who engage in riskier activities; nobody complains about higher life insurance premiums for smokers, right? If there's a higher chance that you'll hurt yourself and cost the insurance company more money, you should be paying more for insurance. What's bad is when someone THINKS he's covered, highsides it on the highway and runs up a 6-figure hospital bill, only to be denied coverage for something he thought was covered. That's what's morally reprehensible about the insurance industry- they'll take your premiums even if they have no intention of covering you. Charging more of everybody because some people engage in risky activities is socialism, pure and simple. That's not how we do it here in the U.S. Go to Canada if you want government-sponsored health care for all.
