The Washington Post poses this question:
My son was denied coverage on the basis that he had been drinking before going to the ER with a broken shoulder. Is drinking a legitimate reason for denial of coverage?
Yes, it is. Why should those of us who pay insurance premiums (and they’re sky high!) have to pay for your drunken son’s injuries? Heartless? Hardly. What’s really heartless is the notion rampant among so many that the entire public owes them help when they act stupidly and foolishly. That’s real heartlessness, real selfishness.
If he had been injured in an accident sure, he should be covered. Insurance is for accidents or conditions over which we have little or no control. Drunks, on the other hand, bring disaster upon themselves knowingly and willingly. They should bear the financial cost for their actions themselves. The insurance paying public shouldn’t be saddled with the high cost of stupidity.