In response to:

In Praise of Discrimination

bad cuf Wrote: Jun 27, 2012 5:59 AM
You are going into one of my favorite concerns of attempting to keep the cost of health care affordable: just because we might/can save someone does the cost justify the attempt? Any serious attempt to rein in runaway healthcare cost must somehow weight the cost of the treatment versus the benefit. Does it make sense to spend hundreds of thousands to millions of dollars on someone who was severely injured or would that money be better spend for well baby (or other such things)? If its your own money, fine, spend what you want, but if its "societies" money, is one person worth it? May sound harsh, but all I am pointing out is basic Economics 101, "allocation of scare resources that have alternate uses"
P.26 Wrote: Jun 27, 2012 11:36 AM
Bad cuf,
It’s so good to see somebody is really, really ‘caring’ about ‘societies[sic]’ money. A question arises: how does ‘societies[sic]’ get/make its money? Make something saleable? Worthwhile? ANS: No! ‘Societies’ gets its money at the hands of ‘officials’ who, with the absolute influence of ‘force’ (e.g. police, lawyers, jail, loss of freedom, etc.) come to citizens and relieve them of the burden. I.e. they take it! To the innately tiny minds of politico-bureaucrats, most other persons are not worth expenditures of any size/kind. They only waste the money the bureaucrat could better use. The money (econ 101 or not) is the individual’s to use as he chooses. Sorry, politicians are proven to be too stupid to spend anyone else's money.
Joseph64 Wrote: Jun 27, 2012 7:04 AM
What you are referring to is rationing and it is the basis of all publicly funded healthcare systems around the world and one reason why most reasonable people do not want it here because they know that everyone gets old one day and the government will decide they are not worth the cost of keeping alive any longer and simply stop paying for their medical treatments.
c5c5c5 Wrote: Jun 27, 2012 6:18 AM
bad cuf,

Why argue this? You do know that most all people without health insurance are still given health care. Don't fall prey to the "No health insurance = no health care" strawman.

I'm scared.

I fear that even if the Supreme Court overrules most of Obamacare (or did already, by the time you read this), Republicans will join Democrats in restoring "good" parts of the law, like the requirement that insurance companies cover kids up to age 26 and every American with a pre-existing condition.

Those parts of Obamacare are popular. People like getting what they think is free stuff. But requiring coverage to age 26 makes policies cost more.

Even Bill O'Reilly lectures me that government should ban discrimination against those with pre-existing conditions. Most Americans agree with him. Who likes...