But if the risk from being genetically predisposed is greater than the risk of choice, why should the choice have to pay more?
On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 10:58 AM, Gruss Gott <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Scott wrote: > > > > 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. > > Certainly true, but risk is calculated and for insurance is associated > with a base rate, and then the premium is increased based on risks of > choice. > > For example, if you buy car insurance you have a risk of getting into > an accident simply because you're on the road. I have a > predisposition to speed and drive insane. My wife does not. Given no > accidents our premiums will be based on the base rate plus an > adjustment for age (which is still the adjusted base rate) NOT on any > predispositions - this is aggregated across all drivers. > > From there my premium will be adjusted based on choice: get an Audi > S4? I pay more. (not to mention the luxury tax and the gas guzzler > tax. boo.) Get tickets? I pay more. > > And now here's the tricky one: get in accidents? I pay more. > Especially if I get in a few in a row. Why? Because the assumption > is that I'm putting myself into bad situations ... I'm differentiating > myself from the population as a whole. At some point I will simply no > longer be able to buy insurance. > > Health insurance should be no different. > > Speeding tickets are metrics of bad choices. Blood lipids are metrics > of bad choices. Premiums should be adjusted accordingly. > > At some point my predispositions combined with my choices may get me > in so many accidents that I can't buy insurance. > > At some point my predispositions combined with my choices may get me > so unhealthy that I can't buy insurance. > > This is what Medicaid & Medicare should be for. These should be the > so-called "public option"; basically a welfare-type program. > > Which, by the way, should be the same for Social Security: eliminate > that program and simply create a welfare program in it's place. > > Both systems would be way more fair. > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| 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:298751 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.5
