But isn't the point of non-socialized healthcare, like in the US, that you pay for care out of pocket? Or maybe via your insurance, which will probably increase your premium if you repeatedly engage in stupid actions that need expensive fixing?
There's a line to draw somewhere, but even the most ra-ra-individualist heavily depends on society, and has/should have obligations in turn.
Vaccines are a good example of this, herd immunity is needed for many of them to work. Antibiotic stewardship is another, unregulated usage of antibiotics risks breeding superbugs.
More generally, "private" ideas are rarely private. Kids born to idiots practicing alternative medicine often die. This scales to societal effects if you have enough idiots. Even though capitalism makes this very fuzzy, many resources in medicine are in fact finite, meaning that time and money spent on one person might mean that another dies. Sometimes that other person is in another, usually poorer country. COVID vaccine availability illustrated that effect nicely.
Essentially what you are advocating is widespread natural selection, with potential consequences affecting anywhere from small local communities to the entire planet in rare cases (COVID is a good one, look up Trichophyton Indotineae for a recent example). And even if you actually do want that, unless you truly follow through, this also comes a huge amount of waste of very limited resources. That is unless you are willing to go the distance and advocate that unvaccinated kids with pneumonia from a measles infection should just go ahead and die because of their parents or neighbors stupid choices.
If you take Kants approach to ethics, that you should only act on principles that you would want to become a universal law, then the principle of healthcare being a private matter is a bit of a non-starter, at least by most ethical systems.
Against my will!
> There's a line to draw somewhere, but even the most ra-ra-individualist heavily depends on society, and has/should have obligations in turn.
That's why I pay for stuff, and other people pay me. That's how money is supposed to work. It coordinates communities.
Insurance should insure your risk, and that's fairly independent of what other people are doing. (Of course, other people driving dangerously can endanger your health, and thus drive up your health insurance costs.)
What you have in mind is probably a consequence of forbidding insurance companies from charging people according to risk, and forcing them to charge people some average of a pool they are placed in?
We can all debate and discuss the best way to get there, but mathematically it's a pool that includes most everyone.
If many people started doing stupid things though then yes it would raise premiums for all.
But I guess that might be the debate line of which you spoke.
There are many studies a quick google away that show a much more nuanced take ie [0] and [1]. But the strongest evidence is our most successful societies and civilizations have been intentionally drinking alcohol for ~10000 years [2]. If it was only detrimental then I'm pretty sure it would have worked its way out by now. I acknowledge there are negative issues.
[0]: https://www.webmd.com/diet/ss/slideshow-skinny-cocktails [1]: https://nutritionsource.hsph.harvard.edu/healthy-drinks/drin... [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_alcoholic_beverages
https://www.who.int/europe/news/item/04-01-2023-no-level-of-...
While it is true that any amount of alcohol is technically bad for you, 'the dose makes the poison'. Drinking in moderation is relatively harmless. For example, 2 drinks / day raises one's risk of colon cancer by 6%, but that's a relative increase on top of one's ~ 4.4% lifetime risk (which also includes drinkers, so we could be double counting). So you're increasing lifetime risk to 4.7%. Do it for all cancers and you're likely increasing your total risk of death by ~ 1%. Things really only go exponential beyond ~ 20d/wk
So you have to ask yourself, is your enjoyment of the occasional beer worth the very low increased risk? For myself, the answer is yes, but I would not dream of making that decision for someone else, and I object to the government doing it for me.
It's entertaining for some people.
I don't have stats on hand, but I seem to remember that smoking costs much more than alcohol, despite a sizeable (1/3? not sure) proportion of car accidents being caused by the latter. Alcohol and drug use is already considered an aggravating circumstance in some situations (car crashes, assault, etc).
But yeah, I think there are activities that are clearly extremely risky and some that are clearly not. I guess alcohol lies somewhere in the middle: I never felt compelled to drive after drinking; I usually just zone out on my couch or go to bed.
There's also the fact that alcohol seems pretty much unstoppable. See how well prohibition worked in the US. Ditto for drugs and smoking, where, despite our local flavor of "war on drugs", cannabis consumption has exploded in recent years. Taxes on tobacco are extremely high here, yet many people still smoke. I understand smoking is relatively less popular than before, but people do still smoke. Alcohol consumption has also gone down, but people do still drink. Despite the communication campaigns that they're not healthy.
So I think that since there are some activities in which people tend to engage in anyway, even if they're outlawed (cannabis comes to mind), we, as a society, should figure out ways to mitigate that. Have people be accountable. Wanna do stupid shit? Knock yourself out, but don't have society bear the burden.
I don't know, as someone who mostly rides motorbikes, I wouldn't be shocked if I had to pay a premium at the hospital if I left half my face on the pavement in a crash because I figured wearing a helmet, or even serious equipment, was somehow not cool, or whatever people tell themselves to justify riding next to naked. Yes, I wear all my gear even under 40ºC. Even in the US desert, where I understand helmet wear is not mandatory. Yes, I sweat. I've only ever had a minor crash despite riding a big-ass "dangerous" crotch rocket, but I enjoy having my skin attached to my body more than not sweating. Should I pay a (lower?) premium anyway, since motorbikes are statistically more dangerous than walking? Maybe?
Obviously there are downsides too, but booze is popular for very good reasons.
US insurers can only discriminate by age and smoking status.
