[rdtsc]

> If I break my leg, there is no increased chance that my neighbor will break his leg. So it's a personal issue.

But is not a just personal issue. If you break your leg and don't have insurance, you could lose your house over medical bills. The bank will reposes and will write down losses over your mortgage. If your lot starts to look like crap the value of his house will be affected as well. If you have a wife and kids, your kids might end up having to go to school in a crappy part of town. So it might affect their education.

Just by breaking your leg could affect a lot more people than you first suspect. Of course if you had government provided insurance you would not have the risk of spreading this as much.

This idea that we are so independent and individualistic works perhaps in some kind of a romanticized world where you live in a compound in the woods that is self sufficient and you don't have to to worry or care about the outside world either bothering your or owing them anything.

[cgmorton]

This argues equally well for completely supporting the family indefinitely for any reason. The only difference between paying medical bills and paying for the whole lifestyle is a matter of cost, and medical bills can be really expensive.

Doesn't it bother you that an even-handed application of this principle leads to absurdity?

[rdtsc]

I see it as a continuum.

But actually it maybe be true that in some cases it is more beneficial overall to the society to just support the family for a while if say the breadwinner breaks a leg. That is better than a bankruptcy, loss of house, loss of job.

> Doesn't it bother you that an even-handed application of this principle leads to absurdity?

It doesn't because this has to be applied to a certain degree. Absolutely no safety net is not good, but it is not possible of feasible to just hand out money either.