“Evil” is a weighted term, especially since the question is posed as risk equalisation being “evil”.
Risk equalisation is a policy based on community-mindedness – basically, the assumption that in civilised society we should all be caring for each other. Thus a health insurer whose clients are older customers should be subsidised by the health insurers with younger customers.
This swings both ways – eventually the older customer base will diminish due to mortality. The insurer who previously had the younger customer base will now have the older customer base – especially if they had engendered any kind of loyalty in their customers while they were young.
Risk equalisation is therefore only necessary when (a) we value human life, (b) we wish to allow health insurance to be affordable to all citizens, (c) health insurers require “cooldown” periods for making clams on preexisting conditions (such as Arthritis for Shape Kapseln Erfahrungen example), and (d) health insurance is required to help patients cope with the cost of providing medical care.
Thus risk equalisation is actually a handy way to show compassion to older members of society – and a great way to ensure that the benefits enjoyed by today’s older citizens will be enjoyed in the future by today’s younger citizens. To portray risk equalisation as “evil” is to show disrespect towards the older members of society.