All insurance specialises in certain groups. Regular holiday insurance is cheaper than snowboarding holiday insurance (and regular holiday insurance doesn't cover snowboarding). Why would this be different?
Because if we nickel and dime people for ever decision we risk becoming a society adverse to risk. The safest holiday is the holiday not taken. The safest visit to a national park is the visit done online. If we want people to actually do things, participate in the economy and culture at large, we should not attach a usage tax for every little activity beyond sitting at home all day.
Because if you don't get snowboarding holiday insurance then you shouldn't be snowboarding but you can do anything else while you're on holiday.
Meanwhile in the US if you get kicked off your medical insurance with any kind of chronic illness then you either pay out the ass for basic treatment or die.
but you dont seem to care if house and contents insurance doesn't insure people whose house is currently burning.
The problem with medical insurance is that it's a flawed system in the US. Everybody gets sick, it's a near 100% chance guarantee, esp. as you age.
Therefore, medical "insurance" should not be insurance, but should be a fund. It should be paid into by all taxpayers at some rate proportional to their income (like VAT), and then the fund goes to fund _all_ non-elective medical procedures.
Insurance for medical should be for _premium_ facilities, like private rooms, private nurses etc. Not for the treatment.
> but you dont seem to care if house and contents insurance doesn't insure people whose house is currently burning.
That is the case. If your house is currently on fire, no one will insure you. What are you doing about this awful situation?
> Therefore, medical "insurance" should not be insurance, but should be a fund. It should be paid into by all taxpayers at some rate proportional to their income (like VAT), and then the fund goes to fund _all_ non-elective medical procedures.
You seem to be extremely US-centric. You can't differentiate between "how the US does insurance" and "fundamental truths about insurance". This discussion is not just a proxy for an incredibly well-worn, and separate, conversation on US healthcare.
That's the same as saying someone who's poor and low risk can't snowboard, because their premiums have gone up due to a richer high-risk snowboarder you're forced to sell subsidized insurance to.
No, it's saying someone who's poor should be allowed to snowboard just as much as someone rich, and currently they can't and that's a problem. You are advocating for poor people to not be allowed to snowboard, and if they do snowboard, for them to no longer be allowed to drive.
