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

[Sean]

Originally Posted by IsiliRunite

Or, more realistically, don't understand that the customer is always right or realize they have the power to support companies that fit their needs and not pay insurance companies that are out of touch or overpriced.

I'm not sure how old you are or what you've had to pay for in life, but do you know how expensive it is to pay for your own health insurance if your employer doesn't provide it? I have to assume that you don't based on what you've said, because it's simply not as easy as doing a bit of camparison shopping and choosing the budget plan that suits you. We're talking about prices that are way out of reach of your average middle class or lower income families/individuals, not to mention the fact that if you're already sick, you won't be able to get health insurance and you're screwed.

Originally Posted by IsiliRunite

Sports, while beneficial for all sorts of health, is a risky behaviour. I would not mind paying for sports injuries as much as other injuries based on personal conduct.

So then you are fine with the idea of a system that encourages people not to play sports because it doesn't pass your risk assessment test, whatever that may be based on.

Are all sports risky? What about softball compared to football? Or volleyball compared to running a marathon? Who would determine what's "risky", or "smart"? Could you still get insurance for a less "risky" sport, but have to pay a higher premium?

I have to say that I don't see where the logic in your stance is coming from at all.