To a degree, insuring for pre-existing at the same rate or even less than those without, is a form of welfare, if one takes into account treatment noncompliance in those with some diseases. Diabetes, for instance, gets pretty expensive over time, if the person is totally noncompliant with treatment, and doesn't make lifestyle changes. If he had to pay out of pocket for all the sequelae of not following diabetes treatment, he might become more motivated to take better care of himself. I know, its probably heresy.
But it makes sense to live the consequences of one's behavior. Being dropped by an insurer for not following treatment for a chronic disease, would then make too much sense.
Since my point is that I think it should at least be in the conversation that we go full-retard on either free-market based or single payer, I see lots of merit there.
And as a person who eats very well, avoids sugar, exercises a lot, drinks in moderation (usually), and so on I'm also fully on board with the notion of one's choices having consequences, namely because I feel that the crappy choices many Americans are making are a big reason we are in this mess to begin with, and are costing me money, and are GOING TO bankrupt this country in the coming decades as their lifestyle choices come home to roost. And that in turn is gonna screw up my old fartitude....... I think we are all grumpy old farts here, right? Old being over 50? Guys and gals... the kids aren't what we were. Nor are the 20-somethings. Maybe it even extends into the 30-somethings. They've gone to shït. Sugar has destroyed America. There's not a chance in hell that these people will be willing, or able, to face the consequences of their actions. And their vote counts as much as any of ours.
