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 :)
Where did I say any of that? I never said that there was no risk in my life. Only that I take my own responsibility for the risks I create.
I pay insurance on my car because I know it is a risk. I have a friend who doesn't drive and never will (he's blind) and he doesn't have to pay car insurance because he doesn't need it. We still use a risk pool, we just have the contributions set a little more fairly. We charge a little more for the guy who drives the fiberglass sports car because he's a lot more likely to get hurt in that thing. We were all smart enough to not drive something like that. But in his calculation it is worth 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?
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.
That's a lot of may haves and probablys. I'd rather take that on an individual basis than to just pass a law that says everybody gets one.
A newborn with a congential defect may be a far worse "investment" as you put it.
May be. I know that feels bad emotionally, but what is the real cost-benefit to society? Since that and not fairness seems to be where the metric has shifted. Those kind of decisions need to be made logically.
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.
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. The good answer isn't better medical care. The good answer is pandemic.
From a more global point of view I mean. That might suck really bad as an individual. But if you want to take a what's good for society kind of line...