I can see the argument for that, however from my reading OP was arguing that people who take greater risks shouldn't get treatment at all or be "subsidized" by people who don't. You seem to be arguing (and correct me if I'm wrong) that people making riskier choices pay more for themselves to make up for that.
I don't really understand the distinction you're trying to draw between "make those who choose to live risky lives pay more" vs. "people who take risks shouldn't be subsidized by people who don't".
yes, that is exactly what I'm arguing. if everyone pays into a pool without any risk adjustment, that is effectively a subsidy to the risk-takers. I think that is a more fair way to understand rayiner's objection to "subsidies". I don't think he is seriously arguing that risk-takers should be denied care/testing/whatever altogether.
of course this is all hypothetical with the current state of US healthcare. step one has to be a reasonable cost baseline for people who don't elect a bunch of extra risk.
How is this different from healthcare as it is set out now or in the past? (Pre existing condition? Too bad. Too expensive to keep you around. Pay out of pocket.)
Hypothetically, you don’t need healthcare if you live/lived a near fundamentally perfect lifestyle. Accidents happen but then maybe don’t use knives or ever leave your home too.
I'm not talking about preexisting conditions. I'm talking about conscious choices people make that increase their risk level. I'm not telling you how to live your life, but if our care is funded from the same pool and you live a riskier life by choice, I don't think it's unfair for me to ask that you pay proportionally more.
> I'm not telling you how to live your life, but if our care is funded from the same pool and you live a riskier life by choice, I don't think it's unfair for me to ask that you pay proportionally more.
Charging people more for coverage is telling them how to live their life. And where is the line drawn? "Oh, you like to go 10mph over the limit? Higher medical coverage fees, sir. You're likely to get hurt. Oh, sir, you live in a rough neighborhood? Very likely to get shot sir, you should definitely have higher premiums, yes."
You may as well ask people to not have health insurance and just pay out of pocket for everything.
Btw - do you really think if you do this that costs will go down for you in this hypothetical system? They won't. Premiums will go up for everyone and the people who will profit are executive leadership.
