Right, but right now, you lack the ability to push me to the back of the line for healthcare because of my love for extreme sports and motorcycling. You may want to do that because you believe it is "fair and equitable" but you can't, because you're just another third party in this relationship between me, my provider, and my insurer.
You may want everyone to only ride the lowest risk means of public transit, only eat the right food, only perform the right activities because you arrogate to yourself the right to police behaviour in pursuit of equity.
You are welcome to want this, of course, and I do celebrate your openness in stating your objectives. But that's why we're opposed. I don't share your objectives. I am willing to accept some degree of inequity in the pursuit of some degree of individual freedom.
For the record, I don't smoke. I do speed, like so many other people in California. But fortunately, my auto insurer adjusts me up for that.
EDIT: I cannot reply to you, jay_kyburz, but I do not anticipate mere societal pressure. I anticipate legal rules placing me in a different line that only gets treatment after 'conventional risk' people. i.e. at some point I believe someone will say "Rich software engineers get treated for pulling their shoulder jumping off bridges while this brave firefighter had to wait (unstated that he had to wait to have a wart removed or something)" and then the outrage will roll up until anyone jumping off bridges for fun is now placed permanently behind everyone else.
I have no objective to control your activities. I just think that a society inherently restricts freedom. That's the covenant we make for having a "civil" society. Isn't your insurer impinging on your freedom by charging you more for what they deem reckless or risky behavior? We require people to wear seatbelts, to drive sober, to have a license when operating most vehicles. We restrict people from a large amount of BASE jumping. We prohibit many drugs for recreational use. Society is full of restrictions.
And if you don't have insurance? You sure are pushed to the back of the line for healthcare. Get laid off? COBRA only covers you so long, so you'll have to get on the ACA. That's why maintaining the existing healthcare system is a non-starter. It's why traditional Medicare is so popular. Once my generation dies off, it's a no-brainer that the younger generation will do away with the nonsensical system we have.
Right, society does restrict my freedom. It doesn't seem particularly outlandish that I already chafe at the fetters and object to any further expansion of that control.
Essentially, you seem to be arguing that since society already controls me it should have further power to control me. Well, I think the control it already exercises on me is too much, and I desire a reduction in said control, or at worst a stalling at where it stands right now.
There's nothing strange about this disagreement. It's fairly garden variety, except for the argument in favour of the slippery slope, which I must confess to never having heard before.
EDIT: I cannot reply to you, jay_kyburz, but I am content to retain the status quo, which would seem acceptable to both so we have no quarrel.
I'm more concerned about the slippery slop sliding the other way, people thinking they can do what they want with no regard to how it might impact their community.
Where’s the evidence that that kind of pressure ever makes a difference to anyone's behaviour?
Surely the pressure to avoid debilitating illness/injury or slow/painful premature death is far more profound, and for anyone who doesn't care about that, there are much bigger issues at play than the cost of healthcare.
You may want everyone to only ride the lowest risk means of public transit, only eat the right food, only perform the right activities because you arrogate to yourself the right to police behaviour in pursuit of equity.
You are welcome to want this, of course, and I do celebrate your openness in stating your objectives. But that's why we're opposed. I don't share your objectives. I am willing to accept some degree of inequity in the pursuit of some degree of individual freedom.
For the record, I don't smoke. I do speed, like so many other people in California. But fortunately, my auto insurer adjusts me up for that.
EDIT: I cannot reply to you, jay_kyburz, but I do not anticipate mere societal pressure. I anticipate legal rules placing me in a different line that only gets treatment after 'conventional risk' people. i.e. at some point I believe someone will say "Rich software engineers get treated for pulling their shoulder jumping off bridges while this brave firefighter had to wait (unstated that he had to wait to have a wart removed or something)" and then the outrage will roll up until anyone jumping off bridges for fun is now placed permanently behind everyone else.