[seanflyon]

I don't have the data, but I would be quite surprised if it were not the case. Having your appendix taken out cost on average $33,000 (and up to $180,000) in California. http://www.cbsnews.com/news/study-appendix-surgery-costs-dif...

One expensive procedure, a few days stay in a hospital or some expensive drugs and you are way past the average yearly expenditure.

[innguest]

Always this argument.

It is only that expensive right now because of the way credit, loans, and debt work and are tied together with guarantees provided by the government (same reason why college tuition goes up when the government guarantees student loans).

Removing an appendix does not inherently cost $33k. Competition is there to lower prices, but when the government provides ulterior incentives, then it trips up the normal flow of the market.

[seanflyon]

I am certainly not suggesting that removing an appendix inherently costs $33k. Could you perhaps explain the argument you are refuting so that I can understand the context of your post?

[innguest]

> while 95% of people could use an extra 10k, the real cost of welfare comes from those few who have major medical needs, and that 10k would do nothing for them

> Are large per-person medical expenses a significant portion of total US welfare spending?

> I don't have the data, but I would be quite surprised if it were not the case. Having your appendix taken out cost on average $33,000 (and up to $180,000) in California.

And then I said:

We can't say "10k wouldn't cover costs for the 5% of people that will incur huge medical bills" because those huge medical bills only happen today, in a time where the government has the health system set up in such a way as to make all their proceedings exceedingly expensive.

In a free market, goods are cheaper than in a heavily regulated market.

So what I am refuting is the anachronism of considering the current costs of health care in a future where health care would operate in a free market. And I'm refuting it by saying, it's expensive now because of regulation that wouldn't exist in a free market.

[seanflyon]

I can't find where you said:

'We can't say "10k wouldn't cover costs for the 5% of people that will incur huge medical bills" because those huge medical bills only happen today, in a time where the government has the health system set up in such a way as to make all their proceedings exceedingly expensive.'

But now that I know what you are talking about it seems reasonable that removing government subsidies might reduce the total cost of health care. I am however, not as optimistic as you are. We have a free, but regulated market and in that market things are extremely expensive even when government money is not involved. It seems unrealistic that prices would drop by a factor of 2 simply by removing government payments and even a factor of 2 would not fix the problem that we are talking about.