Another one o' them smoking ban threads....

[BeautifulBurnout]

Originally Posted by IsiliRunite

Given the free market economy nature of current health insurance, it is not conceivable to have a private company that has higher standards for customers than the government would legally be allowed to. There is choice, now, but people do not exercise their own power as consumers any longer and want the government to set up the impossible system where one is not paying for retards but everyone is covered.

Don't get me wrong, I would love for everyone to get the help for all of their problems, but you can't really help someone until they are willing to help themselves i.e. smokers, non-seatbelters

You should have to pay if you play sports and hurt yoself!

It is precisely this kind of "free market" philisophy that lead to higher insurance premiums for all. The reason is simple: you are not insured and play a game of football, to take Rog's example. You have possession of the ball, another player goes for it, you trip and break your leg. The other guy has insurance. So you sue him.

In the States, most personal injury cases are dealt with by juries, rather than a single judge. And the juries award stupid amounts of compensation compared to the UK. They think to themselves "this guy has no health insurance so the other guy's insurance company will pay". And so they do. Except you all end up paying higher premiums for your insurance to cover the costs of increasingly expensive litigation. Cost to the insurance company - anything up to $500,000 plus legal costs, which they have to pass on to their customers.

Supposing you were in the UK - same scenario, leg gets broken. You go to hospital, get your leg fixed for free. It would rarely cross your mind to then decide that you want to sue the guy who tackled you on the football pitch - for a start, even if a judge were to find that your opponent was in some way negligent rather than just playing by the rules of the game, he would certainly find considerable contributory negligence on your part for participating in the game in the first place as you would know the risks. Minimal payout, if any. Cost to the public - medical expenses for one broken leg.

I know which system I prefer. And I'm a lawyer