undefined | Better HN

0 pointsanarchotroll14y ago0 comments

Individuals can opt into an insurance plan. That's sharing risk.

What "society" (government) can do is force everyone to share THE SAME risks

single-payer insurance == monopoly

0 comments

Part of the notion that suggests people should be forced into sharing those risks is that nobody can rationally rule out future unbounded medical expenses; you can't predict the future, and virtually nobody has enough money to cover every plausible medical expense they might face.

So the freedom we're really talking about is --- notionally --- the freedom to make what basically must be an irresponsible choice.

It's true; single payer systems do create a monopoly for health care funding; that monopoly takes its place alongside the monopoly for military force, for air traffic control, for fire prevention, for oceanic weather surveillance, &c.

anonymoushn14y ago

It is entirely possible for a person to rationally rule out future unbounded medical expenses if he or she has no desire to live in agony and spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to prolong his or her life by weeks or months. Such people are forced to subsidize people who want to live in agony at high cost for small periods of time.

I don't think this is a significant problem, because the people who receive this subsidy vastly outnumber the people who provide it.

Edit: A liver transplant is a procedure with a very high expected value in terms of QALY/USD. Americans in aggregate spend a great deal of money and effort on procedures with very low expected QALY/USD. Some people, myself included, would prefer not to purchase a procedure with very low expected QALY/USD.

There was a good discussion on a similar subject earlier: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3313570

tptacek14y ago

This argument basically says that people can avoid the expense of, say, a liver transplant by opting to die instead.

That's true, but it's not a winning argument.

1 more reply

anarchotrollOP14y ago

I am sorry but the logic above could be applied to anything.

"Part of the notion that suggests people should be forced into sharing those risks is that nobody can rationally rule out future unbounded <whatever> expenses; you can't predict the future, and virtually nobody has enough money to cover every plausible <whatever> expense they might face."

Meet socialism.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 comments

tptacek14y ago

So the freedom we're really talking about is --- notionally --- the freedom to make what basically must be an irresponsible choice.

anonymoushn14y ago

I don't think this is a significant problem, because the people who receive this subsidy vastly outnumber the people who provide it.

There was a good discussion on a similar subject earlier: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3313570

tptacek14y ago

This argument basically says that people can avoid the expense of, say, a liver transplant by opting to die instead.

That's true, but it's not a winning argument.

1 more reply

anarchotrollOP14y ago

I am sorry but the logic above could be applied to anything.

Meet socialism.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse