I already get a decent chunk of change ($700) just for annual preventative physical, flu shot, dental exam, blood test, and eye exam, which are all free.
There is a spectrum. ACA excluded tobacco users' risk from using tobacco, but left alcohol and sugar and saturated fats in? Why subsidize the latter 3 and not tobacco?
Should others in society subsidize drunk driving? Reckless driving? Should we keep bailing out people who continue to build and buy homes built in flood plains? It makes sense to spread costs around on unknown risks, but once a risk factor is known, I can see merit in discussing whether or not it should be subsidized.
Of course, there is a spectrum of "knowing" risk factors, and everyone is different, but some factors have a very high likelihood and some are not high enough to merit discriminating. However, that is for the actuaries to decide, because if they are wrong that will show up in the bottom line and then it will be corrected.
But things like alcohol and added sugar are basically proven to only cause harm. 1 alcoholic drink and 1 cupcake a month is not going to cause an insurance company to say let's raise this person's premium, but I do not see why an alcoholic and a person that eats donuts, starbucks, and ice cream everyday should be subsidized.
>This ultra-individualistic thinking really doesn't help a society.
On the contrary, subsidizing behavior that is known to causes problems to people's health and hence increases healthcare costs and decreases productivity does not help society. If anything, I would characterize unhealthy habits (which I am also guilty of) to be ultra-individualistic thinking.
The point is, no insurance is just going to say you pay next to nothing because of... Instead, they will say you are in the lowest risk category, and here's your rate.
>Why subsidize the latter 3 and not tobacco?
Big Tobacco was sued and lost in court, so they are easy to "pick on". Nobody has sued Big Sugar. We've already seen what strict rules on alcohol does to the country, and doubtful anyone is ready to do that again.
It was never claimed that the insurance would cost nothing. There are, of course, uncountable health risks that are still in play.
>Big Tobacco was sued and lost in court, so they are easy to "pick on". Nobody has sued Big Sugar.
I do not know what this has to do with anything, nor what "sued in court" means as specific lawsuits have specific claims. It is correct that tobacco was separated probably because, politically, it is difficult to argue that people should pay for other people's smoking. And that is my point, that the risks we choose to subsidize and not subsidize are based on politics.
Hence, alcohol and sugar get a pass because lots of voters like those and want the smaller portion of people who do not consume as much alcohol and sugar to pick up the tab for those who cannot. Smokers do not have the numbers to result in sufficient political power to force others to pick up that tab.
>We've already seen what strict rules on alcohol does to the country, and doubtful anyone is ready to do that again.
I never claimed society should stop anyone from consuming alcohol or sugar.
Because... You would be saving peanuts while someone else would have to pay much more (and sometimes drop their insurance completely) and that's a much worse result for society than you paying some 50 bucks extra, even more if you have a good salary and this practice would make someone poorer be forced to be uninsured.
This ultra-individualistic thinking really doesn't help a society. Might help you as an individual but good luck living without a society.