Comment by crazygringo

> It is a pretty interesting thought experiment to wonder whether people shouldn't be allowed to engage in organized sports that are risky, without paying an additional health insurance premium? E.g. if you play professional football, then your league has to pay extra money into the health insurance fund to compensate for all the extra health care treatment their players need and will need.

Isn't this already in use in multiple countries? I.e. if you want to play football (european) in a league, you have to have a license and also insurance that covers playing it in an organized way - for example in a league.

So team sports are already covered by such things, but individual sports like mountain biking or skiing aren't at the moment.

We draw the lines in different places.

e.g. amateur MMA is illegal in Norway and I think a couple of other places too.

> The first is that a drain on individuals is a drain on society.

Citation needed. I don't outright disagree, but I do think you state this as if it's a much simpler fact of life then it really is.

> That's why we outlaw risky behavior like lethal recreactional drugs,

Outlawing drugs is a perfect example, that's something we've done in the US that has gone flawlessly. No one has any notes, complete unambiguous success.... oh wait!

You even elude to this, I assume, by restricting it to just lethal drugs. That's misleading at best. There is plenty of space to say this is more likely to harm the community, than it is to support the individual. PCP is a popular example where the misapplication directly causes said individual to become a direct danger to the community.

> driving without seatbelts, driving without a driver's license, etc. We try to protect people from themselves in some of the worst aspects that we can.

It's legal to drive a car without a license. You need a license to prove you're able to do it safely on public property. It's very different to say, you can't do X ever, and you can't do [something unsafe for other people], around other people who are being safe.

> Second, of course, is health care costs. Activities that constantly result in injury wind up raising the health care costs for everyone, since that's how insurance works.

> You already have to have car insurance, yes. And yes lots of kinds of guns are banned in lots of places.

> We draw the lines in different places.

Right, I'm aware, but prove that's actually a bad thing? That's what I'm asking. Is it sane to go "AHHHHH THAT'S RISK! All risk is bad for society! Quick, ban it!". Again, using "Non-lethal" drug, seem to suggest that the risks of banning something out weight the risks of that thing. We already learned that banning alcohol was a net-negative, and we seem to be figuring that out for marijuana now too.

> It is a pretty interesting thought experiment to wonder whether people shouldn't be allowed to engage in organized sports that are risky, without paying an additional health insurance premium? E.g. if you play professional football, then your league has to pay extra money into the health insurance fund to compensate for all the extra health care treatment their players need and will need.

Is this a good idea? Car insurance protects others from your carelessness. Sports insurance protects you from... you? Is it reasonable for society to subdivide itself like that? Should old people have to pay more money for insurance? Should people with diabetes pay more? Should women of childbearing age pay more? Or should we as a society, look down from a higher level view, acknowledge that healthy individuals are better for society, and decide that we're not going to treat individuals differently, that because everyone is in this game of life together, where nobody gets out alive, that we're all going to make it as easy as we can for everybody to be their best, while refusing to define best for any individual.