It’s also not fair to the people who are more likely to get cancer. People don’t choose their genes and the point of society is to reduce the negative effects of things people don’t choose.
All you are really saying is “sucks to suck” which isn’t so much a position on policy as it is a statement that under a failed social safety net you believe you would be fine.
Let me tell you something about your future, your body will (hopefully) fall apart slowly. It will be an awful, painful ordeal. Do you want the society you are in to target you as it is happening because your body is breaking down or semi-permanently injured?
It’s all about stats though, rates. If you have two separate groups that are under insurance umbrellas. Say two separate companies all insured together. One tests with high likelihood for cancer, so across the large group of 5000 people you can be pretty sure about 500 will get cancer and or heart disease. The other only 100 out of 5000.
Those diseases don’t account for all insurance expenses, so we’ll say 5 times the cancer rate means 3 times the total expense. If it’s costing three times as much to insure one group as the other, where should that money come from then? They either need to start paying more overall or folks will start being denied care since the funds aren’t there. Why shouldn’t the group pay more. But then, if it’s more expensive at group a, why wouldn’t those who are not predisposed jump over to group b?
If the US nationalizes healthcare, it also seems unfair that California has to pay for the greatly increased heart disease and obesity rates of Oklahoma and Mississippi.
I acknowledge this is a criticism of insurance as a whole, but we’re seeing these effects across healthcare but also home insurance from climate change.
If I own a house in a forest that’s dried out and dying from bark beetles, sudden oak death, and drought, my insurance is going to cost like 5 times the average. And rightfully so.
Literally the entire point of insurance is that everyone pays into a pool which is used to subsidize the people with bad luck who will have to claim more than their peers.
Devils advocate.
If you’re significantly more likely to get cancer, why shouldn’t you pay a higher rate? It’s not fair to me who doesn’t have same likelihood.
It’s also not fair to the people who are more likely to get cancer. People don’t choose their genes and the point of society is to reduce the negative effects of things people don’t choose.
Angels advocate.
All you are really saying is “sucks to suck” which isn’t so much a position on policy as it is a statement that under a failed social safety net you believe you would be fine.
Let me tell you something about your future, your body will (hopefully) fall apart slowly. It will be an awful, painful ordeal. Do you want the society you are in to target you as it is happening because your body is breaking down or semi-permanently injured?
Let me answer that one for you, you don’t.
It’s all about stats though, rates. If you have two separate groups that are under insurance umbrellas. Say two separate companies all insured together. One tests with high likelihood for cancer, so across the large group of 5000 people you can be pretty sure about 500 will get cancer and or heart disease. The other only 100 out of 5000.
Those diseases don’t account for all insurance expenses, so we’ll say 5 times the cancer rate means 3 times the total expense. If it’s costing three times as much to insure one group as the other, where should that money come from then? They either need to start paying more overall or folks will start being denied care since the funds aren’t there. Why shouldn’t the group pay more. But then, if it’s more expensive at group a, why wouldn’t those who are not predisposed jump over to group b?
If the US nationalizes healthcare, it also seems unfair that California has to pay for the greatly increased heart disease and obesity rates of Oklahoma and Mississippi.
I acknowledge this is a criticism of insurance as a whole, but we’re seeing these effects across healthcare but also home insurance from climate change.
If I own a house in a forest that’s dried out and dying from bark beetles, sudden oak death, and drought, my insurance is going to cost like 5 times the average. And rightfully so.
Literally the entire point of insurance is that everyone pays into a pool which is used to subsidize the people with bad luck who will have to claim more than their peers.
But what if you can choose your pool?