It's difficult to prove why a decision was made, though, because there are generally lots of excuses. Similarly, hiring employers can't discriminate based on a lot of things, but it's still best to avoid mentioning them because you can't prove why they didn't hire you.
It is already illegal for insurance companies to base coverage decisions on genomic information under the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act, which became law in 2008.
In the United States, the medical industry is allowed to vary prices significantly based on the method of payment, and the cost of buying care without insurance is much higher than the cost of buying care with insurance. This is true unless you can't pay, in which case you will still be treated and the taxpayer will foot the bill under EMTALA.
So the argument goes that, given that the taxpayer is already responsible for unbounded medical expenses for everyone, it would be reasonable to compel everyone to buy prepaid health plans. In order to compel people to buy these, they must be available to everyone, so the government must also prevent insurance companies from refusing to sell prepaid health plans to people who are certain to use them. I use the phrase "prepaid health plan" rather than "insurance," because insurance is purchased to protect against future risk, but a prepaid health plan will cover things that occurred in the past and things that are not risks but certainties.
It's a pretty sound argument as long as you don't ask "Why is the taxpayer responsible for unbounded medical expenses for everyone?"
This is true unless you can't pay, in which case you will still be treated and the taxpayer will foot the bill under EMTALA.
Note that this only works for emergency room care. Emergency rooms don't provide cancer treatment or dental surgery or lots of other things we consider to be medical problems. And even for problems that the ER will treat, they will only get you stable: so, if you have a heart attack, they'll stabilize you, but they won't put in stents or do any of the followup care that a good cardiologist would do in the weeks after your heart attack.
"Why is the taxpayer responsible for unbounded medical expenses for everyone?"
The answer to that is another question: do you want first responders checking to see if you can pay your bills before treating you, when literally moments can make the difference between life and death?
> do you want first responders checking to see if you can pay your bills before treating you, when literally moments can make the difference between life and death?
You know, for some people, the answer to that is "Actions have consequences. If you were more responsible, you wouldn't be in that mess in the first place. Not my problem."
"Actions have consequences. If you were more responsible, you wouldn't be in that mess in the first place. Not my problem."
"Oh, you got old and need medical assistance? Sorry, not my problem."
"You've been shot? Maybe you shouldn't have looked so suspicious to that cop. Not my problem."
"You have cancer from all the pollutants in the air and water that my company produces, but you can't afford health care because we laid you off? Not my problem."
The point isn't (just) that people should get lifesaving treatment even if they can't afford it, it's (also) that people in life-threatening situations can have a hard time proving that they're capable of paying even when they are. For example:
A man's been hit by a car. The driver calls 911. Do you send an ambulance?
An ambulance arrives. The medical team springs into action, and one of their number looks through the stricken man's wallet for proof of insurance. He doesn't find any. Do you discontinue care?
Suppose instead that he finds an insurance card, but it's stained with blood; a reasonable person couldn't use it to tell whether the injured man's insurance was up to date. Do you discontinue care?
A little imagination should supply you with many similar scenarios. One could invent a method of proving insurance (or assets) both quick and powerful enough to address them all (a universal database keyed to DNA, perhaps), but certainly nothing like that exists today.
So, assuming I'm born with genetic defect that escalates into brain tumors, I shouldn't have been conceived since the my genes gave me 15% higher chance of developing spontaneous brain tumors.
That sounds like a wonderful society.
As correct as it sounds (to quantum theorists at least), some consequences, don't have actions, other than "being born" or "happening".
Few people have the skill to translate complex emotions and ideas into words that convey them properly. Next time you might want to try a "sarcasm" tag, otherwise people might assume you're a sociopath and just covering by claiming it's not you who said it . . .
If people are denied health insurance then they are treated as second class in hospitals that know they wont be able to pay for their care and people die. No matter who you are your right to free business practice is second to people's rights to live.
Assuming the recent law changes survive coming challenges, such shenanigans will be illegal, at least in the USA.