An interesting problem

While making no admissions or denials, it has come to my attention over the past few months that there is a downside to kicking an addiction. I was somewhat appalled to learn that society is prepared to accept alcoholism (and probably drug addiction as well to a lesser extent) so long as you keep quiet about it. Apparently, the founders of Alcoholics Anonymous were thinking ahead when they created the organization, particularly the requirement of anonymity.

The benefits of recovering from addiction are numerous, and strongly outweigh the detriments, but I have still been surprised at the detriments. So far, I am aware of three, two of which are significant, and one of which is merely interesting. They are as follows:

First, if you have sought treatment in a facility other than an anonymous group, it is (seemingly) impossible to obtain health insurance if you are not covered by a employers' group policy. As a consequence, if you are self-employed, or work for an employer who does not provide a group health plan, you will be denied coverage for health insurance. What would appear to be a question of premium adjustment is a total bar to coverage. If you think lying will get you around the denial of coverage, it will not. Not only is lying morally undesirable, the health insurance companies have access to a database that lists every prescription drug ever prescribed for you, even if the doctor or facility who prescribed anti-addiction drugs keeps the treatment otherwise private.

Second, it appears to be very difficult to obtain life insurance if you are a recovering alcoholic, or have gone through treatment for alcoholism or addiction. This is entirely logical in light of the difficulty of obtaining health insurance, but again, what should be a question of premium adjustment is another apparent bar to coverage. Again, perhaps lying is a solution, but surely it is not the best solution. It appears to be more of an option as it pertains to life insurance than health insurance.

Third, and this is a bit more appropriate, but still interesting when taken to its logical conclusion. Georgia is a "shall issue" state for obtaining a concealed carry permit for a handgun. That means that you automatically qualify for a license if you are not a felon, do not use illegal drugs, have never been institutionalized against your will, or have voluntarily entered a treatment facility for alcohol or drug dependency. Apparently, it is fine to be a falling down drunk and obtain a conceal carry permit...however, if you fix the problem, you are out of luck (for five years, anyway.)

While I understand that a past addiction can have potential health consequences down the road, these potential consequences are not nearly as bad as the consequences of continuing to live with an untreated addicition. As a libertarian leaning attorney, I understand the private underwriter's decision to deny coverage to certain categories of people. The problem, as I see it, is this: how is it good public policy to disincentivize recovery from addiction? The good to society of a recovered alcoholic or addict has to outweigh the detriment to society from untreated and ongoing alcoholism and drug addiction. As such, this problem should be addressed by private insurers, but it probably will not be. Understanding government as I do, if this problem is not handled by the private sector, it is likely to be handled by the public sector. That will not be good for anybody.