But weren't you the one who was schooling us that we 'sell risk' to insurance companies? How is the risk any different if you are genetically predisposed for a disease or if you make life choices that might lead to the same disease?
Risk is risk, regardless of what drives that risk. On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 9:38 AM, Gruss Gott <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Scott wrote: > > > > To me, that makes your suggestion unfair. If we should penalize someone > for > > smoking, why not penalize for genetic predisposition if they both carry > > equal possibility of contracting a disease? > > Because there's a difference between choice and no choice. > > Remember, we're talking about insurance. With car insurance if you > get a bunch of tickets you pay higher premiums. > > Take me. I have a genetic predisposition to speed, but speeding is > still a choice. If I get tickets or get in accidents (have claims!!) > my rates go up. Same with home insurance. > > What you're suggesting is not insurance, it's just the government > mandating that I have to pay for someone else's inferior choices - > it's welfare. > > That's not necessarily a bad thing, and maybe we need that at least in > part (like Medicaid), but I'd like an egalitarian system that gives me > flexibility in how much I pay: > > If I work at good choices I pay less. > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Want to reach the ColdFusion community with something they want? Let them know on the House of Fusion mailing lists Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:298748 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5
