Sure, people can't be the same, but I see paying for major healthcare problems as just one of the basic "civilized society" baselines. I mean, in most of those other cases you have other choices: can't be an air force pilot, do something else. And we do make some baseline effort to ensure that you have some ability to choose a career, by providing free public education. But if you have a heart that doesn't work without medical treatment, you don't have an alternative to "get medical treatment".
I guess I don't at all mind paying an equal share of those kinds of expenses, either. To me, not having heart defects, leukemia, down syndrome, or any of a number of things I might've had is its own reward, because my quality of life is better and I don't have to get surgeries and whatnot. I don't see a need to also come out financially ahead of those who had the misfortune to need the surgeries, so I win the health lottery twice and they lose it twice.
The moral-hazard problem also seems pretty weak, at least when it comes to major things like surgeries; I doubt there are many people who would've avoided getting cancer if they had to pay for it, but if it was free decided hey what the heck (that is, the suckiness of major illnesses is already a bigger disincentive than the expense of treatment). Moral hazard might come into it more with things like overprescription of antibiotics for routine/minor illnesses.
Sorry, deleted not realizing you had replied. For reference:
It's not Kosher, but the thing that always pops into my mind is- you've got the body you were given. Are we now also in the business of equity across our mortal coils?
Plenty of people can never be air force pilots; they need glasses, or are too tall/short, etc. The same goes for athletes, and so on.
I guess I don't at all mind paying an equal share of those kinds of expenses, either. To me, not having heart defects, leukemia, down syndrome, or any of a number of things I might've had is its own reward, because my quality of life is better and I don't have to get surgeries and whatnot. I don't see a need to also come out financially ahead of those who had the misfortune to need the surgeries, so I win the health lottery twice and they lose it twice.
The moral-hazard problem also seems pretty weak, at least when it comes to major things like surgeries; I doubt there are many people who would've avoided getting cancer if they had to pay for it, but if it was free decided hey what the heck (that is, the suckiness of major illnesses is already a bigger disincentive than the expense of treatment). Moral hazard might come into it more with things like overprescription of antibiotics for routine/minor illnesses.