Neither
amoral, it is simply a calculation of what the financing would cost, a risk/benefit analysis.
Agreed. Should I cover the risk of covering your already broken leg? Should I cover the risk of covering your already dented fender? Should I cover the risk of fixing your already leaky transmission?
Risk vs. certainty is NOT a moral question. It is an easily answered logic question.
By the way, I have two serious pre-existing conditions (prior trauma) that are not covered, and I am OK with that.
the problem here is that you are using a market to address a classic market failure: adverse selection. I do not have the answer, but three obvious ones are (1) a (truly) catastrophic fund everyone pays into, (2) government program or (3) private charity. Each has its flaws.
Lunacy. Demanding fire insurance as your house is in flames, car insurance after your accident. Typical liberalism in pursuit of votes through the destruction of free enterprise. And of course that great staple of leftist thought—personal responsibility is irrelevant and unnecessary as Big Brother will pass laws to bail you out!
Conservatives need to have a better answer for people with preexisting conditions than “tough luck, buddy, you’re screwed.”
I have three preexisting conditions. Two of those conditions do not cause an increased need for health care, and the third has already been treated and resolved. But insurance companies nevertheless look at me as if I am radioactive and decline coverage.
All states should mandate open enrollment and community pricing.
Insurance by its very construct is a socialist construct, insurance socializes the risk across the base pool.
The problem is that some states allow insurers to cherry pick their pools and that is immorral.