This is a straw man. The point of the article is health insurance, and no one chooses to break their leg, get burned in a fire, or develop cancer.
But I'll take you up on it anyway, because it's still BS. How about the people in tornado alley? Or hurricane alley? Or everyone in California with all those earthquakes? Or mudslides or forest fires or or or... can you tell me no one in your state/province/whatever has ever had a natural disaster destroy their home?
> The point of the article is health insurance, and no one chooses to break their leg, get burned in a fire, or develop cancer.
I'm not sure if you're kidding. People do indeed choose to go rock climbing, smoke in bed, and smoke, period. These things are statistically very related to choosing to have accidents and get cancer. One would expect that removing some financial costs of these activities would cause some increase in those participating.
You might say that you'd be fine with higher rates of accidents and cancer as long as the risk is spread, but it's not a straw man.
You think that if the thought of being burned over 90% of their body isn't stopping someone from smoking in bed... that the thought a big hospital bill will do the trick?
Or that they're not afraid of breaking every bone in their body when rock climbing, but boy, that doctor bill sure would be steep, so how about a nice game of cards? Seriously?
Now one has to ask why someone who didn't make the mistake of living in a flood plain has to pay for those who choose to continue to take that risk.
This attitude is all about destroying the notion of personal responsibility. Let everyone else bail me out.