should a person with 4 DUI’s pay the same insurance premiums as someone with NO DUI’s?
I bet you answered NO. Tell me then: why should someone with prior and known health problems and coditions pay the same as a healthy person with NO health problems? ...
I bet you answered NO.
Tell me then: why should someone with prior and known health problems and coditions pay the same as a healthy person with NO health problems?
Apples and oranges. The person with 4 DUIs is a criminal. Someone with a bad heart may be the deacon in your church and the best person on the block. The person with the DUIs deserves to be hammered. The church deacon did nothing except inherit bad genes.
Because thats only fair. Democrats think life is fair. But its not.
You’re absolutely right. We should gauge insurance premiums according to a person’s health at the time they sign up for insurance.
And we should make them take annual physicals so we can see if they’ve been smoking, eating too much fat, or drinking. Then we should adjust premiums accordingly. It’s only fair.
We should also make them swear, under oath, about their personal habits, including sexual contacts, whether they drive over the speed limit, whether they wear seatbelts, and whether they play any risky sports. After all, each of those things creates health risks that the rest of us shouldn’t have to pay for.
It’s about time we make people take personal responsibility by having them constantly have to report every single activity to the insurance companies so that their insurance premiums can be increased. It’s only fair.
That’s logical. But your dealing with people on the left who think with their heart and not their brain.
A person with 4 DUIs shouldn’t be driving anyway.
But with health insurance, that approach means that sick people will never ever be able to afford care.
Driving is optional. Breathing is not.
One is a choice, someone chooses to endanger themselves and others. The other can happen to any of us. It can happen to the children of the "healthy" person. What then?
Why should "illegals" receive free health care, while the rest of us have to pay for it?
Probably not.
But should an insurance company be allowed to sell insurance to someone with 4 DUIs and then when that person does get into an accident deny the claim based on the "preexisting condition"?
Yeah, it would be best if they just die quickly, right?
They shouldn’t. But like insurance coverage for autos, they shouldn’t be denied coverage.
Good question. However, I believe that 3 DUI’s and you lose your license. Also, DUI’s require some amount of premeditation which means the person has the CHOICE to drink and drive or not. Rehab is required in some form even after one DUI, so an arguement of alcoholism as an illness is weak.
SOmetimes, there are many health problems that we don’t choose (cancer, MS, etc). If a person smokes, does drugs, drinks, chooses to live and unhealthy lifestyle with their food choices or is a daredevil, they should definitely pay more in premiums.
There little correlation between driving drunk and an actual driving record. A person may have a couple of DUI and a immaculate driving record. Versus a person who has no DUI and several driving accidents.
Probably because people choose to be stupid and get drunk and drive while people DO NOT CHOOSE TO GET CANCER. Wow how stupid.
because that person CHOSE to get in the car after they’d been drinking.
people do not CHOOSE whether or not they get sick. it happens. and i shouldn’t have to choose between my child’s tuition and my own life just because i don’t make enough money to afford treatment. and i shouldn’t have to pay more than "healthy" people just because i’ve had health problems in the past.
AND just because a person has no known health problems doesn’t mean they won’t have a stroke or get hit by a bus and suffer a severe spinal cord injury. just like the fact that i’ve had precancerous cervical cells does not mean that i will one day have cancer.
I’m in the middle on this….I can see both sides. I agree that people who engage in risky behaviour (excess drinking, sky diving, smoking) should pay an increased amount for insurance. However, there are several other circumstances that I think standard premiums would be appropriate:
1. People who had insurance previously, but were dropped because they developed a medical condition. After all, the idea of insurance is for the companies to assume and share risk. If they ceased coverage because a loss occurred, I think they didn’t live up to their part of the deal.
2. People who are born with medical conditions.
3. People who develop medical conditions in the future during the term of their medical coverage. Again, if they are insured at the point that the medical condition is discovered, it kind of defeats the idea of them even having insurance if they have to pay actual treatment costs (embedded in future premiums).