[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.