Mo Brooks

[Djarum300]

Was diagnosed with prostate cancer....


Let the vitriol begin, from reddit:

"He will get the best treatment America can provide. Too bad he can't offer the same care to his constituents."


"
Mo Brook is the asshole who said this on national TV:

"My understanding is that (the new proposal) will allow insurance companies to require people who have higher health care costs to contribute more to the insurance pool," Brooks said. "That helps offset all these costs, thereby reducing the cost to those people who lead good lives, they're healthy, they've done the things to keep their bodies healthy. And right now, those are the people--who've done things the right way--that are seeing their costs skyrocketing."

I am sorry to hear he has cancer, I wouldn't wish it on anyone. At the same time, if Karma exists..."




Yeah......

 

[Good Times Good Times]

So his operating presumption is: "All of those who are sick have not done things to keep their bodies healthy and 'have done things the wrong way'"?

 

[Djarum300]

So his operating presumption is: "All of those who are sick have not done things to keep their bodies healthy and 'have done things the wrong way'"?

Yes. But it's not just him. In any insurance model, higher risk = higher premiums.

Many cancers are genetic and little is known about what causes them. From an insurance perspective, they have no idea when or id someone will get cancer, buy they know for fact higher risk patients cost them more. People think he's being hypocritical, and he's not. He's operating from the free market viewpoint and statistics.

Democrats believe the poorest should pay the least insurance. The poorest are usually the highest risk. So low risk individuals should pay more? That's Brooks' point. Now he has cancer, which in many cases is mutually exclusive of past risk.

How would you, an excellent driver, like to pay more car insurance just so 16 year old johhny can afford it?

 

[livespive]

So he is saying rich people shouldn't have to pay as much because they have money to stay healthy, not true.
Just like you said with cancer, it is genetic and you don't know when or if you are going to get it....

He is rich, he has cancer, his statement was hypocritical.

Insurance better to have it and not need it, then need it and not have.

Basically it is going to come down to getting a DNA scan to determine your premium.

Yes. But it's not just him. In any insurance model, higher risk = higher premiums.

Many cancers are genetic and little is known about what causes them. From an insurance perspective, they have no idea when or id someone will get cancer, buy they know for fact higher risk patients cost them more. People think he's being hypocritical, and he's not. He's operating from the free market viewpoint and statistics.

Democrats believe the poorest should pay the least insurance. The poorest are usually the highest risk. So low risk individuals should pay more? That's Brooks' point. Now he has cancer, which in many cases is mutually exclusive of past risk.

How would you, an excellent driver, like to pay more car insurance just so 16 year old johhny can afford it?

 

[9andaWiggle]

Basically it is going to come down to getting a DNA scan to determine your premium.

Don't forget the periodic REQUIRED blood tests to ensure you are not doing anything unhealthy like smoking, drinking, or eating fried foods. Oh, and the required use of fitness trackers to ensure you are exercising regularly.

 

[livespive]

That's just like that monitor that they plug into your car to monitor your driving habits to "lower" your rates.

Don't forget the periodic REQUIRED blood tests to ensure you are not doing anything unhealthy like smoking, drinking, or eating fried foods. Oh, and the required use of fitness trackers to ensure you are exercising regularly.

 

[Good Times Good Times]

DJ, you should go for a career as a big insurance lobbyist. There's a career in it! I think you'd fit in there.

 

[Good Times Good Times]

People think he's being hypocritical, and he's not. He's operating from the free market viewpoint and statistics.

I wouldn't say hypocrite is the term, I would just say he characterized illness as a personal failing type thing.

The reality is, EVERYONE gets sick at some point. Even "people who lead good lives".