*E Q U A L I T Y*

Why should you charge the guy who **ABUSES** his body the same as a guy who takes care of himself?

Thanks @Reaps

That just proves liberal college students don’t know jack shit when they open their mouths here

MUH AUSTRALIAN HEALTHCARE

I suppose the argument is "what if there's only one health company that will cover you? Then they'd have a monopoly and charge whatever they want!"

If the government is swooping in and forcing all companies to fix their prices at a set rate, how is that any better than the monopoly?

So because they can’t charge the abuser more because of his risk, they just charge everybody more right ?

Well, that would make business sense

To cover the cost n shieet

Help pay for Peter's broken body with healthy Paul's money

Christ this shit sounds very Soviet

Price fixing

Noone even bats an eyelid

Are most aussies fucking statist sheep?

Neither did I, except I knew I had to take out insurance before I was 32

And that was only because of the threat of loading

I didn't actually look into it any further than that

Jesus Christ this is unfucking believable

theoretically I could just not take out private health insurance

*e v e r*

and never have to worry about the loading fee

Kek

and just rely on medicare

But

Why is it theoretical?

I can only assume I'm missing something there, because that seems like a painfully obvious choice

I'll need to dig into it some more

Exactly

It was my insurance company telling me over the phone about this, then they sent me the gov info on it

Why work when you can get money for free

Wow

written by the gov, so not 'spun' by the insurance company

What a nice fucking insurance company

I’m compelled to like the company in this case

wow

But thanks for giving me fire to hit back with @Reaps

I just went to the page

It was 'updated' on the 7th of Dec

Yesterday ?!

wish I had archived it