Originally Posted by Willravel

Rahl, why is it cheaper to have universal healthcare?

Originally Posted by filtherton

Rahl, you assume the worst with respect to the distribution of healthcare needs of the uninsured population and then use this as a basis for implying that forcing insurance companies to insure the uninsured will result in industry-wide bankruptcy. But you insist that your assumption is unimportant, when in fact it is the crucial part of your argument.

If you assume a different distribution of health needs for the uninsured, one which is less pessimistic (and according to dc dux, more rooted in reality), then it becomes quite possible that forcing the uninsured to become insured could actually have a net positive affect on insurance industry reserves. Shit, even if you assume a completely normal distribution of healthcare need for the uninsured population (the most "objective" assumption given that we are all basically talking out of our asses here) the insurance industry would still come out on top

I agree with you that this bill doesn't to anything to reign in the costs of healthcare and that this is unfortunate.

As for socioeconomic status and nutrition, I will say that it is a lot cheaper to eat a calorie dense diet than it is to eat a nutrient dense diet, and that depending on the smallness of one's income, one can get stuck on the wrong side of that basic fact.