OK, for the record, I agree with you.
The entire premise of a for-profit health insurance system makes no sense to me. Based upon the vitriolic response, I guess I didn't make that clear enough in the previous post -- sorry about that. *waves socialist peace flag*
What I'm wondering about, is how the American system will function. As a non-American (Canadian living in France), I really don't have any idea.
In only one of my examples (the drunk driver) do I place any blame on the insured. In all other cases, I'm trying to represent how the insurer - someone that is trying to maximize their own profit (again, something I disagree with) - would view the situation.
They need to mitigate their own financial risk somehow if they are to make a profit, presumably this will take the form of charging low risk clients (young healthy people) less than high risk clients (old, sick, or old sick people).
There is a really common complaint that I've seen a lot about the new provisions. And that is that it is financially a better choice to remain uninsured and pay the financial penalty until such time that you are sick. When you become really sick, then you should apply for insurance. This whole argument is based on the idea that taking out insurance only when you will use it will cost you the same as if you took out insurance years before.
I have to believe that this is not the way it works, but I don't honestly know. This is why I'm asking.
As for your question "Should you really pay less because you've been lucky enough to enjoy good health?"
I don't think so, and that's why I support socialized, state-run medical coverage for all. But, if you were a for-profit, publicly traded health insurance company, then you'd financially foolish to think otherwise. Or, at least, I don't understand the economics behind any other decision.