Y'know, I'm all for reform. And I think that insurance is a big part of the problem. AND...I'm one of the guys who could greatly benefit if I could make everyone else pay for my health insurance. It's back-breaking to pay for what is essentially catastophic insurance.

But the more I think about it, the "fire insurance" analogy breaks down. For one, we have fire departments that are not paid for by fire insurance, Right? That's what was said upthread to make the point -- why should doctors be paid my health insurance (as system that seems not to be working) when firefighters are paid by taxes?

But we have fire departments. And they aren't paid for my fire insurance. Right?

But we still have fire insurance. Have to, even.

Why?

Because the biggest, most meaningful share of cost in the incident of fire is the damage done. The firefighter puts out fires. He doesn't come back the next day and rebuild your house or your business building.

And we'd never consider changing that arrangement. Why? ...because on top of a whole boatload of possibilities and probabilities sits the inequity of payout. That is: why should I, on my poverty-level income, be forced to pay for Bill Gate's house, should it catch fire?

When we think of health care, we demand our right to it -- no matter what it costs anyone because it holds the possibility of life-threatening consequences should we not be given it as a human right. (never mind the side discussion of whether we have a right to the doctor's time and labor).

But most healthcare expenditures are NOT life-threatening. And who gets to be the arbitor over what the public is obligated to pay for? Botox injections? Breast implants? Penil implants?

And do you think that the cost of a hip implant is arbitrarily high? Do you think it is not expensive? What does society owe you? How expensive does a non-life saving medical procedure have to be before you finally say...."hmmm. maybe I'm taxing my neighbor just a little more than is fair"?