Which would, of course, lead to a completely calcified health care system with no incentive to improve or innovate.

I'm sorry for your $41k bill. I really am. But the problem isn't that we need more control by central authorities. They are what lead to that bill in the first place. No one can seriously contend that the actual cost of the services you received could be anywhere near $41k. Clearly there is a significant distortion of pricing occurring. My GP physician charges $70 for a visit, which lasts maybe 30 to 45 minutes, and that of course covers his overhead as well. Extrapolate that out how you will to your situation, but it's clear that your situation is a failure of the system as it is.

So, socialized healthcare, despite its flaws, despite that its quality indeed does "not blow anyone's mind", at least has simplicity going for it.

But what you're asking to be "understandable", is that someone else should pick up the tab because you like to play wild in the snow and couldn't be bothered to get properly insured first. Now that is a poor argument for socialized anything.

You're making a few incorrect assumptions here. First of all, I am insured and most of the bill will be paid by Humana (after hours and hours of painful phone calls which nobody is paying me to waste my time on).

Secondly, I find it very typical that you've ignored the insane and mind blowing amount. Too many healthcare discussions are focused on "who" should be paying, instead of asking "why so much"?

There is no way in hell they should be charging $250 for a "recovery kit" containing a can of apple juice, 5 crackers and 4 pills of ibuprofen. My Humana policy is STAGGERINGLY expensive.

And finally, I paid more taxes (state+fed) here in California this year than most EU residents did. In my view, I already paid for my healthcare, they're just not delivering it to me, spending my money somewhere else.

> You're making a few incorrect assumptions here.

> "at this very moment I am sitting on $41K in medical bills"

Uh-Uh. I think you're playing very fast and loose with the language here. I doubt anyone would read that as "my insurance company is settling a bill for $41k for me". Especially when your anecdote does nothing more than confirm what is mentioned in the article: That healthcare in CA is stupidly expensive.

With an high deductible plan, which many have, or for those with less money to afford good insurance, they very well COULD be stuck with a bill like that, or a large portion of it.

For a broken arm. I think we had a lower bill for my kid's childbirth costs.

Child birth costs my parents paid for me: ~$30

Child birth costs some friends paid for their kid: ~$60

Child birth costs I paid for my kid (poor insurance plan): ~$3300

I think that the total bill for the child birth (in my instance) was around $18K. I'll note that if you were uninsured, that would probably be significantly more. That $18K cost is negotiated between the hospital and the health plan I had at the time.

This whole entitled "why should I have to pay for you?" attitude is the exact reason why universal health care won't happen in the US, and it needs to stop.

Universal health care, along with fixed prices, will cause everyone's rates to decrease, and will also lower the anxiety level of the general population. No more "oh shit, something's wrong with me, but I can't go to the doctor because it'll cost X" or "I need this medicine, but it's expensive". I've experienced first hand how great universal health care is in Canada. I don't worry that I need to pay a thousand dollar bill for visiting the doctor, and the waits have never been horrible.

Being forced to choose between getting the treatment that you need or eating is the worst decision, and nobody should have to take it.

  | someone else should pick up the tab because
  | you like to play wild in the snow

Do you believe that broken arms are 100% avoidable, and only result from people taking unnecessary risks? It's not like he got some injury that was very specific to skiing or 'extreme' sports.

Of course they are not unavoidable, they are just a lot likely to happen when you go skiing than when you don't.

The problem with socializing risk is that you get the tragedy of the commons when some people choose to take high risks (skiing is definitely in the moderate end of "extreme sports") and pass off the risk to the "commons".

In Denmark, where health care is socialized, the argument that "society is justified in regulating activity X because we will pay for your hospital stay if/when it goes wrong" is absolutely a part of political discourse. Unhealthy foods, not exercising enough, smoking, mandatory bicycle helmets etc., it's pretty universal.

I don't see mandatory bicycle helmets as a good example of 'government overreach.'

What, it's bad they're actively campaigning against smoking and unhealthy foods and for having regular exercise?

Are you kidding me?!

I think that 'bad' part is that these things may be mandated by law, which limits freedom.

Partly that, partly that the motivation is that the government justifies the law by the expected savings in other places (healthcare). This boils down to the fact that, because the government has promised to "repair" you if you "break", it also has a right to "perform maintenance" on you as it sees fit.

Even less palatable is the argument that healthy long living citizens spend more time on the labour market, generating more tax revenue.

There are plenty of people who CANNOT AFFORD insurance, because it is HIDEOUSLY expensive. And even if they can afford it, the companies can drop the policy or refuse payment for a huge amount of reasons.

What, do you think you'll be going bankrupt if your taxes contribute to the health of all people with a few cents, heck, even a few dollars?