Sounds like you want to apply value calculation to people - is this person's life worth the same or more than this other person's? Then they can get healthcare.
And we can see that because you're complaining about, for example, parkour stunts, but not the much more common sports that cause significant injuries.
I get that it's a common desire to say "this person does not deserve to live because I don't like their choices", but like so many other things it turns out that the cost of trying to do this is always more significant than just not assigning value to people's lives, and those policies have a tendency to capture people you don't think it should apply to. Take the various conservative anti-women laws that suddenly became a problem when they interfered with IVF for middle aged white women, despite that being a completely consistent application of the claimed rationale for the law (if an embryo is a live human, then IVF requires murder, but everyone knows an embryo is not a person, the goal of these laws, much like your desire to restrict access to healthcare, is about punishing people for perceived slights).
I might have thought you could also see how the costs associated with many illnesses might contribute to the proportionally higher tax rates on things like alcohol and tobacco in countries with public health services.
But there's more to it than that, you're arguing against a Public Health Service as though your claimed concern about unreasonable costs from bad life choices does not apply to private healthcare+insurance, but that's simply not true. Your insurance premiums are priced to cover the YouTube stunters, the alcoholics, the people playing sports, the people driving, etc just like a Public Health Service. The only difference is that your insurance companies and hospitals are making a profit as well so definitionally cost more as applied to the total economy (a statistic that has been repeatedly shown is that the US spends more on healthcare than countries with PHS, but has lower coverage and worse outcomes). Because the metric for success in a public health service is treatment, the system is optimized to treat the most people. For private health care the metric is income, which means hospitals charge more, and optimize their billing to maximize the amount that can extract from insurance companies (that's why your anesthesia for a surgery is inexplicably billed as a separate procedure), and insurance companies optimize to deny or delay coverage as much as possible.
> Sounds like you want to apply value calculation to people
To behavior. If you buy a sports car, you pay higher car insurance. If you buy a motorcycle, you should pay higher health insurance. If you live riskily or unhealthily, your coverage should cost more and not be averaged out over the less risky.
Risk calculus should be considered with everything. It's essential to extending a home loan, but not when granting a college loan. Decoupling risk leads to bad outcomes.
> but not the much more common sports that cause significant injuries.
I think sports players should pay more for injury insurance. And roofers, loggers, etc. Those costs will be absorbed by their respective industries where the costs are generated.
> this person does not deserve to live because I don't like their choices
I'm not saying that at all, and that's such a cartoon way of looking at this. You walk into a hospital in America and you get treatment. That doesn't mean you don't have to pay for it.
> I might have thought you could also see how the costs associated with many illnesses might contribute to the proportionally higher tax rates on things like alcohol and tobacco in countries with public health services.
I never said do not tax negative externalities. By all means, please do. We should tax drugs too.
> Your insurance premiums are priced to cover the YouTube stunters, the alcoholics, the people playing sports, the people driving, etc just like a Public Health Service.
I would like them to not. I would like to cover my risk profile.
Everyone should cover their own risk profile. That's fair and equitable.
> Because the metric for success in a public health service is treatment, the system is optimized to treat the most people.
It already does this. This is simply about who gets the bill.
And we can see that because you're complaining about, for example, parkour stunts, but not the much more common sports that cause significant injuries.
I get that it's a common desire to say "this person does not deserve to live because I don't like their choices", but like so many other things it turns out that the cost of trying to do this is always more significant than just not assigning value to people's lives, and those policies have a tendency to capture people you don't think it should apply to. Take the various conservative anti-women laws that suddenly became a problem when they interfered with IVF for middle aged white women, despite that being a completely consistent application of the claimed rationale for the law (if an embryo is a live human, then IVF requires murder, but everyone knows an embryo is not a person, the goal of these laws, much like your desire to restrict access to healthcare, is about punishing people for perceived slights).
I might have thought you could also see how the costs associated with many illnesses might contribute to the proportionally higher tax rates on things like alcohol and tobacco in countries with public health services.
But there's more to it than that, you're arguing against a Public Health Service as though your claimed concern about unreasonable costs from bad life choices does not apply to private healthcare+insurance, but that's simply not true. Your insurance premiums are priced to cover the YouTube stunters, the alcoholics, the people playing sports, the people driving, etc just like a Public Health Service. The only difference is that your insurance companies and hospitals are making a profit as well so definitionally cost more as applied to the total economy (a statistic that has been repeatedly shown is that the US spends more on healthcare than countries with PHS, but has lower coverage and worse outcomes). Because the metric for success in a public health service is treatment, the system is optimized to treat the most people. For private health care the metric is income, which means hospitals charge more, and optimize their billing to maximize the amount that can extract from insurance companies (that's why your anesthesia for a surgery is inexplicably billed as a separate procedure), and insurance companies optimize to deny or delay coverage as much as possible.