“The same logic applies to other lifestyle choices.”
That’s right, so people would pay more for, let’s say, participating in contact sports where the RISK of injury is higher.
Or maybe if you’re a homosexual male you have a higher RISK of contracting AIDS.
Or maybe, the more sex partners you have, the more you pay, since you have increased RISK of catching venereal disease, some of which are fatal.
Aside from the above, there is additional hypocrisy here to point out.
I think most folks who want others to pay more for lifestyle also do not want people to be charged more for pre-existing conditions.
But think about it. A pre-existing condition means that you WILL DEFINITELY be incurring higher medical expenses NOW.
However a risky lifestyle only means that there is a RISK or CHANCE that you MAY incur higher medical expenses sometime in the FUTURE.
Hence, if you want to charge more for lifestyle, you should rationally want to charge more for pre-existing conditions.
AND, you should charge more for ALL activities that have risk, not just the ones you don’t like.
I agree with you on risk-adjusted payments. In fact, I have a wood stove and pay extra on my homeowner’s insurance to have it. On the other hand, I have a decent credit score and pay a lot less as a result of that.
I also agree about pre-existing conditions, but with a caveat. I think we should have a one-time grace period and allow EVERYBODY in the country to sign up for health insurance without consideration of pre-existing conditions. Do this during a nation-wide conversion to all private-company health insurance. Kids turning 18, or 19, would have the same grace period, say 90 days, to sign up at the regular rate regardless of pre-existing conditions.
Then, if a person lets their policy lapse, or doesn’t take advantage of the grace period offered, well, they’re on their own. They’ve assumed the risk themselves.
I also think letting companies legally assign risk for lifestyle choices makes sense, but that the particular “choices” should have to be individually authorized by law, with limits put on how much of a premium should be charged for unhealthy choices. Otherwise, insurance companies could quickly price many who’ve made higher risk choices out of the market. I know it’s more complicated than that, but given free rein, most insurance companies would immediately put obesity on the list of choices, and the obese would quickly find insurance becoming unaffordable. The resulting political backlash would probably be the law’s undoing.