[lend000]

> How long is that period of protection? Anything less than infinity seems deeply problematic.

Our current system of infinity is clearly problematic. But I really don't want to get into an argument of defending any implementation of health insurance (even one which I think would be better than the current) because I don't think there's a good way to do it period, as per my first comment.

> Why outlaw murder? Sure, it sucks to get murdered, but life is unfair.

Two completely separate things, not even on the same spectrum. Outlawing murder is preventing a violation of a person's rights, i.e. aggression. You maximize society's net freedom by outlawing it. Forcing society to try to make life "equal" for someone who was born with some terrible condition inherently violates freedoms through mandates, taxes, etc. And of course there's the whole thing about it not being practical. Everyone dies, and almost everyone would benefit from an extremely expensive heart transplant/frequent blood transfusions late in their life. But unfortunately, we can't give it to them (yet). However, there will always be some new and great medicine that is too scarce for everyone to have. Fortunately, private individuals are very charitable without the government and create institutions to treat and study chronic diseases.

[mikeash]

A lot of people consider health care to be a basic human right. Taxing people to provide health care is, from that perspective, not fundamentally different from taxing people to prosecute murder.

I get that you probably don't think health care is a human right, but "not even on the same spectrum" is not a simple statement of fact.

If your preferred outcome involves screwing these people and various others because you think overall it's a worthwhile tradeoff, then so be it, but I want to make sure we're clear on that consequence.

[lend000]

> I get that you probably don't think health care is a human right

Correct, I consider human rights to be more fundamental than a new product/service -- health care didn't even exist a century ago. It is expensive, scarce, and difficult to define, as it is constantly changing. The only thing that is guaranteed is that there will be a point where a patient cannot be given any more healthcare, because of the diminishing returns (measured in hours of added lifespan per dollar).

> If your preferred outcome involves screwing these people and various others because you think overall it's a worthwhile tradeoff, then so be it, but I want to make sure we're clear on that consequence.

Yes you've mentioned that point before and I addressed it. To recapitulate: there is definitely an interesting argument to be made for the tradeoffs involved, and I think it would be worthwhile if measured in terms of average lifespan. However, as I said, I am not as convinced as you are that people with pre-existing conditions are going to be "screwed" in a more free-market, insurance-free system. Their costs of treatment goes down, and by the nature of insurance, they would typically be paying more than the cost of their treatment anyway (over time) to the insurance company, so....

[mikeash]

Costs might come down in a free market system, but many chronic conditions will remain unaffordable to treat even after, say, an order of magnitude reduction in costs.

As for paying more in insurance premiums than you'd pay for treatment, that's only if insurance companies are allowed to account for your chronic condition when determining premiums. If you forbid insurance companies from charging more for existing conditions (as the ACA does) then that doesn't apply, and healthy people subsidize the costs.