Quite the opposite. Looking after your own interests (i.e. not expecting others to take care of your interests) is extremely ethical and not tyrannical at all. What is tyrannical and unethical is using the strong arm of government to play fake Robin Hood by taking from those who have earned through risk & effort (be it recent or inheritance) and giving it to those who have chosen not to leverage the absolutely free education (and in many, many cases housing, food, and basic health care) that is already provided. The great myth is that there are millions living in abject poverty without the opportunity to work themselves up out of their situation. It's all ridiculously wrong. People live with the consequences of the choices they make. I'm happy to fund a government that protects these people from starvation and abject poverty if they are willing to leverage the help. I am not happy to hand out money to a permanent underclass that teaches it's offspring how to remain a permanent underclass. As I've said before - I'm speaking from first-hand and very personal experience - not some political talking points.
And it's the Government that put them there. There is an entire generation of people who know nothing but federal assistance. People who, from birth, have seen the check come in once a month and have no concept of going out and earning money. They are dependent upon government to provide their food, transportation & medical needs. This is why they sat and watched water rise to their ankles but made no effort to get out. They waited for the government to come and get them. It's not their fault, but it's reality.
So . . . if your insurance dropped you tomorrow and you couldn't get coverage because of cancer or heart disease or diabetes or something . . . then you would be fine with that and its just your tough luck? It's not a responsible us and an irresponsible them situation. Any of us could become one of them under circumstances that are all too common in this country. Loss of job and its group coverage, unexpected illness, no insurance company willing to cover you or personal coverage so expensive that it is effectively unaffordable.
Look at it from the Insurance company's perspective. "Hi, Mr. Agent. I have lung cancer and need a health insurance policy." There may be solutions, but making insurance cover pre-existing conditions isn't one of them.
Get real. It's not their fault that the levees failed. If that hadn't happened there would have been 6 deaths in Katrina. People living in the projects or in Section 8 housing don't have vehicles or money for bus fare to places that they have no money to stay at. You would object loudly to any expensive government plan to evacuate them for every tropical storm that enters the Gulf of Mexico every year. We have to be pragmatic about these things.
Perhaps one solution would be to "grandfather" pre-existing conditions. Say you are undergoing chemo and lose your coverage for something beyond your control. The company must continue to cover that particular condition.
