> but please do not push this attitude as the “morally right one” unto everyone else.
I will push whatever I want to, thank you. Insurance is supposed to provide healthcare. It isn't supposed to judge what is a good life. I shouldn't have to pay extra for care that I was always paying for because you're mad your rates went up. Don't like it, don't buy the care. Ridiculous assumption to let society decide when people should live and die.
It's also unnecessary to. On the populations we are talking about, individual cases like people living long on chemo in miserable lives to die are counteracted by people who died way younger. It's easy to calculate the risk and spread that among insurance holders.
Let me rephrase that: When making an emotional appeal, you aren't making a sound argument. It's effective, but also intellectually dishonest.
> Insurance is supposed to provide healthcare.
Healthcare providers provide healthcare. They need to get paid. Insurance providers offer the insured the possibility to spread the risk of large individual healthcare costs among many participants.
If you have the opinion that health insurance should be a universal right, you will also have to consider that those countries who have such systems also put strict limits on the extent of end-of-life healthcare.
> I shouldn't have to pay extra for care that I was always paying for because you're mad your rates went up.
If costs go up, rates go up. As your individual risk goes up, your individual rates go up. The more you pay, the better your insurance is going to be able to cover you. You're going to pay extra either way.
What are you going to do if you can't afford insurance anymore, except the most basic plans that are capped at the top? You're not going to be able to afford that last round of chemo.
> Don't like it, don't buy the care.
So... let the prices rise until nobody can afford insurance anymore, then blame the people for not buying it? Medicare-for-all? I'm afraid that won't pay for everything either.
> Ridiculous assumption to let society decide when people should live and die.
That's the way it works either way. If you lived in a hypothetical society that goes to any length to extend everyone's life to the maximum extent possible, then that society decided that.
> On the populations we are talking about, individual cases like people living long on chemo in miserable lives to die are counteracted by people who died way younger.
People who died way younger also stopped paying way younger. It's also rare. The chance of developing cancer in your lifetime is 1 in 4.
Furthermore, in many cases, the effectiveness of chemotherapy is quite low, especially considering its severe impact on QOL. Many doctors refuse chemo after receiving a terminal cancer diagnosis, opting for palliative care instead.
> It's easy to calculate the risk and spread that among insurance holders.
It's easy to calculate the cost, it's not so easy to actually get it paid. Suppose your cost rises by 10%, so you raise prices by 10%. As a result, revenue goes down 5%, because people drop out of insurance. You need to raise prices again, or reduce coverage, increase co-pays, and so on.
I will push whatever I want to, thank you. Insurance is supposed to provide healthcare. It isn't supposed to judge what is a good life. I shouldn't have to pay extra for care that I was always paying for because you're mad your rates went up. Don't like it, don't buy the care. Ridiculous assumption to let society decide when people should live and die.
It's also unnecessary to. On the populations we are talking about, individual cases like people living long on chemo in miserable lives to die are counteracted by people who died way younger. It's easy to calculate the risk and spread that among insurance holders.