Websites like http://www.enetinsurance.com are the solution to easy research on health insurance options. eNetInsurance is a free health insurance agency providing medical quote comparison and affordable health insurance plans for individual, families, small business groups and senior citizens from the nations top carriers. Find a health insurance policy that fits you and your family without hassle.

Websites like http://www.enetinsurance.com are the solution to easy research on health insurance options. eNetInsurance is a free health insurance agency providing medical quote comparison and affordable health insurance plans for individual, families, small business groups and senior citizens from the nations top carriers. Find a health insurance policy that fits you and your family without hassle.

I would venture to guess that there would be overwhelming political support for government subsidization of catastrophic medical illness insurance for private insurers, the likes of which my future cancer would fall into. But what we are discussing here is a system to provide everyone with funds so they can use as many healthcare resources as they wish, sick or not. The fact that you cannot see this is why you don't understand cost-benefit. I would only need to point you to the incredible damage Type II diabetes – a high-cost, primarily self-inflicted disease – is doing to Medicare to prove my point.

Unemployment is a perfectly good example to support my case, because it is another similar system that people inevitably abuse to the detriment of the macroeconomy. Unemployment insurance actually incentivises people to remain unemployed, rather then bridging the gap between employment. Healthcare in general suffers from overconsumption, and we are on the verge of fattening the pig.

As to the point about how you can't eat or pay the rent with healthcare coverage – see my orginal point. In the eyes of US employers, healthcare is another form of compensation, just like my salary, which buys me beer and Subway. And my point still stands – the marginal benefits we may see in reduced healthcare costs will not exceed the future tax increases, nor will we see any wage growth form reduced employer-funded healthcare costs.

If am wrong about that last point – and employers suddenly start giving everyone raises…well, then I'll be wrong.

As it is, you'd likely have to choose between keeping up your COBRA payments or eating. (I don't know many working folks that could save enough for all three, or even two, and still maintain a modicum of a “normal” life. It would require a level of frugality bordering on the eccentric.) Likely you'd choose eating, lose your insurance, and be in a poor bargaining position when facing a new potential employer, ready to take whatever terms were offered.

But yes, food and housing, the other two necessities, are important and should be considered a right as well. Any decent society wouldn't force people to trade their life energy to others in exchange for basic necessities which are plentiful. And this idea, currently marginal in the US but considered common sense elsewhere, would become more prevalent in a society with socialized medicine. So yes, we'd probably start thinking and thus acting more like Canadians.

@matt – I'm not saying that's why, or at least the main or only reason why, we should have single-payer, I'm saying that would be a strong benefit for working people and would substantially change the culture (which was Will's original query). Again, the unemployment analogy, even if it were accurate, is inapt. You can't eat healthcare or pay rent with it.

An administration and legislators will always attempt to sell whatever they're selling as beneficial to the average worker even when it isn't, which is most cases. Their plan sucks, but that doesn't mean that there isn't a good plan.

What we've got is this terrible middling-plan which doesn't solve the problem and has enough “government interference” and enough “free-market solutions” in it to keep people arguing on either side of this fake dichotomy about the reform's efficacy long after its passed and fails to solve the problem. So its basically a great recipe for more of the same with the appearance of change. Kicking the real problem down the road to the next bought off pol.

Your cost/benefit argument isn't very good either. You may be someone who does not consume a lot of healthcare resources and is thus not proportionally benefiting, until you get cancer. Not to mention all the other harder to quantify, but still quite real benefits you get when other people around you are healthy. It's not just a consumer good, but a form of insurance as well. A form that would be much cheaper for all involved than what we've got or what we're likely to get.

This is a hollow argument for supporting a government-run healthcare program. We don't want it to model unemployment insurance, which has been shown to actually increase unemployment. The last thing we need is another incentive for people not to work.

The point I made still stands – the administration and legislators are attempting to sell this plan as beneficial to the average worker. Additionally, if you are someone who does not consume a lot of healthcare resources you can expect the costs to exceed the benefits of reform legislation with a public plan.

Which has led to our current, rather anomalous situation. All other first world countries provide some system of nationalized medicine. Some have more (Great Britain, Canada) some less (Australia, Japan) and some even less (Taiwan). My guess is that the structure of a nation's health care reflects it's (changing) character. And it's a chicken-and-egg question to ask whether the Canadian national character preceded or was molded by it's health care.

1. She had a response rate of 900 bankruptcies on 2600 attempts. This is very low, and on an issue as touchy as failures of personal finance, self-selection is a huge problem. People who can blame a disease are probably much more comfortable talking about it than people who spent themselves into a hole of their own accord.

2. She counted any bankruptcy with healthcare debt as a “healthcare related bankruptcy” regardless of how large that debt was. $700 in unpaid checkups for the kids on your credit card when you file? Healthcare related bankruptcy.

Of course healthcare costs do push a good number of people into bankruptcy, but divorce and job loss are, and have been for quite some time, the main culprits. Splitting incomes and adding new households does terrible things to finances.

Additionally, if you knew that some unforseen illness wasn't going to bankrupt you, it would also change your relationship with your employer. (most personal bankruptcies are due to healthcare costs)

If you know you're getting Social Security in x years it doesn't substantially change the risks to you (for or against) if you push management for more wages or benefits. Its not a bargaining chip because its not within a certain time frame. If you went to the mat because you had Social Security, you'd lose because you'd have to manage in the intervening time between now and when you start collecting SS.

Removing catastrophic risk for some players in a workplace environment would substantially alter the bargaining positions and outcomes for all players. In this case, favorably for workers. . Which is precisely why it's “off the table”.