Some of the most expensive diseases to treat are genetically-based. Do you also recommend that people exercise more responsibility in the choices of parents and/or spouse? Would you deny coverage to children who chose their parents unwisely?You're talking AFTER the fact. What about BEFORE the fact? Being proactive.There is a precedent -- we have had laws about those that are closely related not being able to marry (although it is actually procreation that is of concern, and some states will allow it for the elderly).But, let's suppose we have a couple that want to have a child, but they know there is an 80% chance that the child will probably die before the age of 5 and need millions of dollars of medical treatment. If they can afford to cover the cost, more power to 'em. But I don't think they should have the right to inflict that potential cost upon society.We do pass laws about driving while under the influence, and now driving while texting or using cell phones. Because of the potential for those behaviors to cause death, injury, and property damage.If one can freely practice irresponsible procreation, why not irresponsible driving? And, we do hold those dangerous drivers accountable for any damage they do cause. Should we do the same for predisposed parents that inflict damages on society?OTOH, the extreme case might be Germany in 1933, who went so far as to pass a forced sterilization law.
Best Of |
Favorites & Replies |
Start a New Board |
My Fool |
BATS data provided in real-time. NYSE, NASDAQ and NYSEMKT data delayed 15 minutes.
Real-Time prices provided by BATS. Market data provided by Interactive Data.
Company fundamental data provided by Morningstar. Earnings Estimates, Analyst Ra