undefined | Better HN

0 pointstptacek14y ago0 comments

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.

0 comments

He's not arguing against liver transplants so you've just thrown a redherring into the discussion.

I believe his argument is that expensive end-of-life care is unnecessary because death at that point is inevitable in the immediate future. You can gain months on average, but those months aren't economically invaluable.

With limited resources, its better to spend on treatments with the greatest quality of life to cost ratio.

tptacekOP14y ago

And I'm not arguing about expensive end-of-life care. I don't have a strong opinion about end-of-life care. There could be a lot of value in changing the way we finance end-of-life care. That doesn't change the fundamental problems we have with health insurance now: either it chains you to your current employer, or threatens you with an intolerable risk of bankruptcy.

anarchotroll14y ago

In other words: you have no _freedom_ to pick insurance yourself. The current system gives benefits to employers and not to individuals.

I sincerely don't understand why people call it "free market".

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse