[vmception]

So if the leading cause of death from the 18-45 year old group is opioid overdoses

and since abstinence only education is ineffective

and the culture could be updated to carrying naloxone to prevent said deaths, if people were actually willing to have a conversation that wasn't based on abstinence only

then.... this is a dumb and counterproductive policy? how much of the insurance pool is really affected? ... the narcan is to save your friends if you're there, this is like saying "there's a defibrillator nearby so since you might die, insurance denied" with a difference being that there was a purchase record. if an insurance pool is part of the calculation, would that difference matter? seems like you would need actual evidence instead of guesswork.

[ipnon]

Insurance only makes sense in the context of making money for insurance companies. Putting these behaviors into the context of saving and improving lives is absurd. The incentives of American healthcare are endangering our lives. "Your money and your life!"

[vmception]

Right, but since they have to pay out sometimes or the ponzi[0] stops as people stop contributing, then this could only rely on the public lack of empathy towards "drug users"

[0] replace "ponzi" with "scheme", "mechanism", or any word you coincidentally apply to financial concepts you happen to respect

[Wohlf]

This is about life insurance not health insurance, health insurance cannot deny you.