• Ginny [they/she]@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    9 hours ago

    I also think insurance shouldn’t cover cancer treatment for smokers. Or diabetes treatment for overweight people. Or broken bones for skiers. Or literally anything for anyone who has ever done anything bad for them. /s

    • auzy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      7 hours ago

      Why shouldn’t they be able to sue cigarette companies or companies releasing unsafe products?

      Why should my insurance be higher whilst cigarette companies are benefiting off their shit marketing

      • Ginny [they/she]@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        4 hours ago

        One reason why people have historically had trouble suing tobacco companies is that non-smokers also get lung cancer. While we can say for sure that smoking makes it more likely you will get lung cancer, it’s generally impossible to say any one person’s lung cancer was caused by smoking. This is in contrast to say, someone who injures themselves climbing, where it is definitely 100% on them.

        The real answer of course is that you’re paying for it either way. Insured people pay absurdly over the odds to offset the amount of money lost on people who accrue medical debt and can’t afford to pay it off.