Earlier quoted context omitted.
Your neighbor buying a Porsche was a choice they made. Nobody chooses to have a pre-existing condition. We're also talking about a luxury vs simple survival. I am not sure how you can compare them. What insurers in some countries do is charge higher premiums for people who engage in high-risk behaviors, like smoking, drinking, or extreme sports. Those are all choices so it seems fair to charge a sin tax for them. Hig…
> Nobody chooses to have a pre-existing condition Are you sure about that? Plenty of medical conditions are the result, at least in part, of decisions a person makes. A person with lung cancer seeking health care could very well have smokes for decades. A person with type 2 diabetes may very well have eaten poorly for decades. Obviously those aren't always directly linked to life choices, but they often can be.
Whether a past action caused a condition, sure, but where do you draw the line? If you become disabled in a car accident, despite knowing full well that accidents can happen, should you be denied insurance in future because you did something risky? What if you were a smoker for the decades when cigarette companies suppressed the research about how bad it was?
Also, how would you even prove that a condition was self-inflicted? My old dog had lung cancer despite (to my knowledge) never smoking (and nor did anyone else in the household). I lost a close family member to liver cancer despite being a lifelong teetotaller, but how would anyone even prove that? The moment you start means-testing people, you're adding a whole lot of extra cost to taxpayers and stress for patients.
Denying healthcare to the most vulnerable members of society is simply cruel. It is kicking them when they're down. Having the condition is punishment enough. We can do better than that.