> This directly leads to discrimination against disabled people among other groups. Yes, of course if someone has a disability that puts them at a higher risk

> This directly leads to discrimination against disabled people among other groups. Yes, of course if someone has a disability that puts them at a higher risk of some event, and they want to insure themselves against that event, they'd pay higher insurance premiums. That's like, the entire point of insurance. If you live in an area that is prone to flooding, then you either can't insure yourself against flood damage or the insurance premiums are a lot more expensive than someone living in a desert. If you smoke, your health insurance and life insurance premiums are higher. If you have type 1 diabetes, you will probably struggle to get any meaningful amount of life insurance. What alternative are you proposing? That anyone purchasing insurance will automatically be expected to subsidise the insurance premiums of people that are at higher risk? That's not what insurance is for. If you want to redistribute wealth from people without disabilities to people with disabilities, then you can do that using taxes. But not by pretending there's anything wrong with honest risk assessment in insurance. >The answer to that is: Not spreading such risks evenly among everyone is morally reprehensible. Imagine your reward for living in constant pain and having a higher chance of dying early is society kicking you in the balls for the crime of being born like that. Nobody is being 'kicked in the balls'. Stop using such emotionally manipulative tactics and such charged language. Insurance is about spreading random risk. It is not for spreading systemic risk. I don't think you understand the purpose of insurance at all.