> Scott wrote: > > But if the risk from being genetically predisposed is greater than the risk > of choice, why should the choice have to pay more? >
Same reason as for car insurance: predisposition is aggregated across the population as a whole. Insurance companies don't test you for predisposition to driving crazy, they simply use metrics to measure it: age (16-21), number of tickets and type, number of claims. If health costs were held steady, the same model would work with health insurance with the exception of those that can't afford it who'd need to be covered unlike car insurance (but, in the nanny state, that's next). The problem is with the rising costs and number of claims, there is less profitable risk to buy and thus you have growing rolls of uninsured. One simple solution for coverage is to extend Medicaid eligibility to all those that don't have alternative plans. The problem there is that, to date, you don't want to pay for that. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| 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:298754 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.5
