It is perfectly fair.
I saw your argument that you think it is a good thing, but none of that made it sound fair. Take the smoker who's lung cancer we'd be subsidizing. Why should I pay for something he knowingly did to himself? If you want to smoke that's your business but deal with the consequences yourself. I like to spend my money on useful things and some old codger with lung cancer because he was too stupid to quit smoking doesn't sound like a good investment to me.
Ah, so you don't smoke, don't drink, don't overeat, don't drive, don't do sports, don't work in a long list of risky occupations, don't have sex, don't have a medical history, don't have parents with a medical history. In short don't have a life. Well in that case medical insurance is perfect for you because you don't need it
The old codger may have lung cancer but he may have got it from asbestos not smoking and either way being old he has probably paid a fair bit in tax and probably will not last long.
A newborn with a congential defect may be a far worse "investment" as you put it.
It is not a case of betting on or investing in individuals. What you should be doing is looking at the mass statistics and saying what is the most economical way of ensuring that I and the people important to me get a good level of care when they need medical attention - because you and they will need it.
....That's the rub. Each man gets to calculate his own risk. The guy with the Corvette gets to have the thrill of driving the 'Vette, but he also pays the additional cost of the risk. That's fair. He got the benefit AND paid the cost. If I am going to nationalize his risk and say that we all have to pay extra for the Corvette guys, then are they going to let me take a spin in it whenever I want? If I share the risk, do they also share the benefit?....
Sorry but you have a very naive view of how insurance works. You are not calculating your own risk. You are paying a premium to ensure that statistically the insurance company makes a profit. You are paying a premium that includes paying for people who do not have insurance.
I pay insurance on my car because I know it is a risk.
I think your failure isn't in the allocation of this medical resource, but in your thinking it a necessity. Mankind has always quested for immortality, and he has always paid the ultimate price for it. All this new-fangled medicine is just setting you people up for failure. Sure you can cure a few things that would have at one time been fatal. You've saved a few people. But you've also created the anti-depressants and the statins and all the wonderful side effects coming from those. If you want to know what I think makes this world as a whole better then I think all that needs to go. This Earth only really has one big problem and that's that there are WAY too many people on it. And all this *stuff* that we think is making our lives *better* is only killing the lot of us faster. And a whole lot of other species with us. No, the answer to making this Earth a better place for the people living on it is not for more people to live here, the answer is for about 80% of those people to stop living on it.
we certainly have sufficient intelligence to do so
No, we don't. And thinking we do is what brought us here in the first place. Evolution has been working its magic for a few billion years
I disagree. The problem is that we are not using our perfectly adequate intelligence to recognise and overcome our destructive evolutionary urges.That may include the urge to live forever - which is certainly not one of my own goals....R
The problem is that we think we can out-think it.
But we were talking about fairness. How is this fair to the person who has no children? Or worse yet, the one who can't? He or she has to pay extra in taxes to subsidize years off for their neighbor who has 6.