Quote:
Originally Posted by Villages PL
Theatrics asside, it's not about charging sick people more. It's about charging higher premiums to those who choose to take higher (undue) risks. One's premium would go down as soon as the risky behavior is discontinued.
|
What you're suggesting would be impossible to design/administer/manage. Who would decide what is risky and what isn't? And would they just take people's word for it, that they don't smoke, exercise regularly and eat only healthy food? haha.
Who would set the acceptability bar for those who choose to take higher risks? If someone exercises daily but eats fried food, should they pay a higher premium than someone who doesn't exercise and eats salads? The intricacies would be unmanageable. Who would monitor the "risky behavior" and deem it has been discontinued for a long enough period?
Not only is it an unwieldy and impossible idea, but there is something mean about the idea of penalizing anyone who is less than perfect.
__________________
Barefoot At Last
No act of kindness, no matter how small, is ever wasted.
Saving one dog will not change the world, but surely for that one dog, the world will change forever.
Last edited by Barefoot; 09-13-2013 at 11:12 PM.
|