Why do we need to repeal the ACA at all costs?

[caracarn]

I've seen this brought up a few times, including the requests for a topic of its own to discuss.  I certainly feel the ACA is not the best it can be and needs changes, but there are provisions that are extremely valuable, in my opinion, such as pre-existing conditions, removal of cap limits and lengthened insurance eligibility for children.  I am curious to see what the discussion will reveal.

[nereo]

you may want to join the discussion here:
http://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/welcome-to-the-forum/what-comes-after-the-aca/

[jim555]

"Why do we need to repeal the ACA at all costs?"  WE DON"T.

[GuitarStv]

It's actually part of the republican green initiative.  People are the leading cause of climate problems and pollution.  Less health care means more people die (but mostly just the poors) AND less taxes.  It's win-win.

[Greenback Reproduction Specialist]

It's actually part of the republican green initiative.  People are the leading cause of climate problems and pollution.  Less health care means more people die (but mostly just the poors) AND less taxes.  It's win-win.

+1 yep, I don't understand why democrats are against climate change all of a sudden.

[nereo]

It's actually part of the republican green initiative.  People are the leading cause of climate problems and pollution.  Less health care means more people die (but mostly just the poors) AND less taxes.  It's win-win.

...wait, less people = higher tax burden on those that survive to maintain similar or improved infrasturcure and military.

[NoStacheOhio]

It's actually part of the republican green initiative.  People are the leading cause of climate problems and pollution.  Less health care means more people die (but mostly just the poors) AND less taxes.  It's win-win.

...wait, less people = higher tax burden on those that survive to maintain similar or improved infrasturcure and military.

No, the economy will be more productive with fewer people receiving less healthcare. We'll pay for it with tax cuts.

[caracarn]

I'm hoping Quidnon provides us with his/her answer, as this was the source of my question.  It was not directly answered in the thread in the first reply, since that went off in another direction of what comes after, not why it needs to go "at all costs".

[sol]

Republicans need to repeal the ACA at all costs because the ACA benefits people who do not support their party.  That's the simple answer. 

The ACA provides health insurance to poor people, who generally don't vote for Republicans.  And people under 26, who generally don't vote for Republicans.  And the unemployed, who generally don't vote for Republicans.  Basically all of the groups that don't vote for the party of capitalist affluence. 

Reason number two is that the ACA includes a 3.8% surtax on investment income above $200k/year.  It's literally a tax on rich people, who ARE the party's core constituents.  They're just looking out for their own.

So you see the problem.  The ACA is perceived to be, on average, bad for Republicans and good for Democrats.  That can't be allowed to stand.

That's it.  There is no great mystery here. 

All of the philosophical objections they have raised, such as "the individual mandate infringes my freedom" were previously addressed by the neocon Heritage Foundation when they proposed it in the first place, as a free-market solution to controlling healthcare costs.  They rightfully pointed out that everyone uses healthcare, and anybody who avoids paying for it by refusing to buy insurance is a slimy freeloader and probably a closet liberal.  It's that whole bootstrap mentality, self sufficiency and personal responsibility and all that.  They said freeloaders shouldn't be welcome in America.  They hate welfare queens and they hate people who don't pay for medical coverage, for the exact same reasons.

Now the law isn't perfect, by any stretch.  The subsidies are implemented clunkily.  Insurers aren't regulated enough.  They delayed implementation of some important provisions for too long, and they allowed some states to opt out of a plan that really works best when everyone opts in.  So I agree there is room for improvement, but it also got tens of millions of previously uninsured Americans into preventative care plans, it was 100% paid for with new taxes and spending cuts, and it reduced projected future deficits by controlling long term costs.  It made health insurance incrementally better.  It got a lot of things right, and I think we should be having a discussion about which parts we as a nation liked and which parts still need improvement, instead of a conversation about whether to repeal it on January 27th or March 14th of this year.

[KBecks]

Some very creative explanations here. 

Here is Paul Ryan's health care page, which explains some of the concerns
http://paulryan.house.gov/issues/issue/?IssueID=9978

Here is an interesting article about the changing restaurant industry, and it covers some of the effects of increased minimum wage and insurance requirements on waitstaff -- the effect is, more waitstaff losing jobs.

https://www.thrillist.com/eat/nation/american-restaurant-industry-bubble-burst?curator=thereformedbroker

Then there's health care. For the better part of its history, the restaurant business was a health care-free zone, which is ironic, given this Bureau of Labor Statistics' description of the back-of-house work environment: "Kitchens are usually crowded and filled with potential dangers." With the introduction of Obamacare, most restaurant workers finally got the coverage they've needed for years through the employer mandate, but critics often talk about the strain it puts on small-business owners due to a puzzling and controversial element that defines "full time" as 30 hours per week, and not the 40-hour workweek used almost everywhere else (the Save American Workers Act proposes to move this back to 40 hours).

Though this mainly affects bigger restaurants with staffs of 50 or more full-time workers, independent sit-down restaurants still need to provide suitable coverage (meaning it has to be affordable, less than 9.5% of the employee's income) or face fees of $2K per employee. Consider AQ. Semmelhack told me that in 2012 they paid $14,400 for health care costs. In 2015, they paid $86,400. That's an increase of $72K MORE per year than 2012, or 29% of their best year's profit.

This was a very interesting article.  The point is, more restaurants are closing.  The new concept will be counter-service with fewer workers.  There are multiple reasons affecting this change, but health care is a part of it. 

[NoStacheOhio]

Some very creative explanations here. 

Here is Paul Ryan's health care page, which explains some of the concerns
http://paulryan.house.gov/issues/issue/?IssueID=9978

Here is an interesting article about the changing restaurant industry, and it covers some of the effects of increased minimum wage and insurance requirements on waitstaff -- the effect is, more waitstaff losing jobs.

https://www.thrillist.com/eat/nation/american-restaurant-industry-bubble-burst?curator=thereformedbroker

Then there's health care. For the better part of its history, the restaurant business was a health care-free zone, which is ironic, given this Bureau of Labor Statistics' description of the back-of-house work environment: "Kitchens are usually crowded and filled with potential dangers." With the introduction of Obamacare, most restaurant workers finally got the coverage they've needed for years through the employer mandate, but critics often talk about the strain it puts on small-business owners due to a puzzling and controversial element that defines "full time" as 30 hours per week, and not the 40-hour workweek used almost everywhere else (the Save American Workers Act proposes to move this back to 40 hours).

Though this mainly affects bigger restaurants with staffs of 50 or more full-time workers, independent sit-down restaurants still need to provide suitable coverage (meaning it has to be affordable, less than 9.5% of the employee's income) or face fees of $2K per employee. Consider AQ. Semmelhack told me that in 2012 they paid $14,400 for health care costs. In 2015, they paid $86,400. That's an increase of $72K MORE per year than 2012, or 29% of their best year's profit.

This was a very interesting article.  The point is, more restaurants are closing.  The new concept will be counter-service with fewer workers.  There are multiple reasons affecting this change, but health care is a part of it.

Sounds like a strong argument for separating healthcare and employment.

[Norioch]

It's the only significant piece of legislation Obama managed to pass, and Republicans who were hell bent on denying Obama any legislative victories whatsoever therefore decided it had to be repealed and spent the next six years vilifying it, undermining it, and openly sabotaging it. After spending so much time obsessing over it, they can't back down now that they actually have the political power to repeal it.

[KBecks]

Sounds like a strong argument for separating healthcare and employment.

That's OK but who's going to pay for it?   It's all in the details.

[iris lily]

Sounds like a strong argument for separating healthcare and employment.

That's OK but who's going to pay for it?   It's all in the details.

Killjoy. Stop with the practical consideration, already. I hate grownups.  :)

[Kris]

Sounds like a strong argument for separating healthcare and employment.

That's OK but who's going to pay for it?   It's all in the details.

Many, many other countries have figured this out. There are plenty of examples to look at for ideas.

[NoStacheOhio]

Sounds like a strong argument for separating healthcare and employment.

That's OK but who's going to pay for it?   It's all in the details.

Organic increases in taxes paid on higher wages because companies shift compensation to cash instead of non-cash?

Or they'll just use the money for buybacks and C-level bonuses instead.

I don't mind paying for my healthcare/insurance. I already do. It's really just a matter of who's receiving the premiums, and how much they're spending on actual care. Somehow when the premiums are going to a government-affiliated entity, and they magically become a "tax," everything suddenly becomes evil.

This isn't rocket surgery.

[KBecks]

Sounds like a strong argument for separating healthcare and employment.

That's OK but who's going to pay for it?   It's all in the details.

Many, many other countries have figured this out. There are plenty of examples to look at for ideas.

Great, let's get specific then.

[KBecks]

Organic increases in taxes paid on higher wages because companies shift compensation to cash instead of non-cash?

Or they'll just use the money for buybacks and C-level bonuses instead.

I don't mind paying for my healthcare/insurance. I already do. It's really just a matter of who's receiving the premiums, and how much they're spending on actual care. Somehow when the premiums are going to a government-affiliated entity, and they magically become a "tax," everything suddenly becomes evil.

This isn't rocket surgery.

Well I think you should consider your insurance costs before you decide whether you mind what you pay or not.   I mean, what is it costing you and what are the benefits you receive?  That's smart shopping, right?   Part of the problem with the ACA is that many people were getting large increases this year, right at election time.   

You should care about how much you will pay! 

I am fine if insurance is separate from employment, and I am also fine taking care of my health, going self-pay for a lot of things, and having only a catastrophic type plan.   

How much will it cost? 

Why should the government run it?


I am intrigued by these mutual aid societies, the Christian groups that do cost sharing memberships. I may end up doing that type of thing in retirement. 

There are no free lunches!

[KBecks]

The nice thing about the market is that companies can compete to give lower prices.

Maybe I can just pay my doctor direct most of the time.

I just had a breast infection a couple weeks ago, and it could also have been inflammatory breast cancer (rare and very deadly).  So I had the experience of thinking what it would be like to have what I imagine are pretty massive bills for treatment.  We have savings.  I don't know how it would have gone, to be honest.

[NoStacheOhio]

Organic increases in taxes paid on higher wages because companies shift compensation to cash instead of non-cash?

Or they'll just use the money for buybacks and C-level bonuses instead.

I don't mind paying for my healthcare/insurance. I already do. It's really just a matter of who's receiving the premiums, and how much they're spending on actual care. Somehow when the premiums are going to a government-affiliated entity, and they magically become a "tax," everything suddenly becomes evil.

This isn't rocket surgery.

Well I think you should consider your insurance costs before you decide whether you mind what you pay or not.   I mean, what is it costing you and what are the benefits you receive?  That's smart shopping, right?   Part of the problem with the ACA is that many people were getting large increases this year, right at election time.   

You should care about how much you will pay! 

I am fine if insurance is separate from employment, and I am also fine taking care of my health, going self-pay for a lot of things, and having only a catastrophic type plan.   

How much will it cost? 

Why should the government run it?


I am intrigued by these mutual aid societies, the Christian groups that do cost sharing memberships. I may end up doing that type of thing in retirement. 

There are no free lunches!

I work at a hospital. We're (basically) self-insured. The cost for my "Family I" plan (3-4 people incl. me) is less than what one of our friends pays for an employee-only plan. I understand that my costs are insanely low, and my coverage insanely good.

I personally think we should put everyone on Medicare (and tweak the structure), but that's not going to happen.

I'm fine with the basic structure of ACA, and premiums would probably come down if we ended employer-sponsored health insurance, because there would be more people in the pool. The basic structure is just vanilla health insurance. ACA needs some modifications to be better, but scrapping it is petty and vindictive.

Government didn't raise premiums this year, for-profit insurance companies did. You can say it's because of big bad regulations, but the simple fact is, prior to ACA, the insurance companies were doing all sorts of unethical, but legal, nonsense to maximize profits at the expense of their policyholders' health. If you don't think that's a problem, then it's kind of an impasse.

[GetSmart]

Sounds like a strong argument for separating healthcare and employment.

That's OK but who's going to pay for it?   It's all in the details.

Many, many other countries have figured this out. There are plenty of examples to look at for ideas.

Great, let's get specific then.

One of the biggest issues in this country is tying health insurance to jobs.  (Another big issue is tying school funding to real estate taxes - that will never work out for the poor communities) 

Everyone should be insured (for peace of mind, but also because cancer doesn't check you bank account before it decides to invade); not everyone has a job or even a good job or a full-time job or a job with benefits.  There are many businesses hiring people for 29 hours / week just to avoid paying benefits.  People ending up working 2 to 3 jobs just to make ends meet and still don't have insurance.  OR they are on their own in the ridiculous 'pool of one' - a boon for insurance companies.

If there was just one pool (single payer) that issue could be eliminated, but insurance cos. will never go for it because ... profits.

Rarely does anyone in power talk about controlling insurance costs and if this could be done (but again...profits) many of the so-called problems could be fixed.

It could be possible to pay for a single payer option if we went to a transaction tax system like this:
http://www.apttax.com . It's a solution that I haven't seen discussed here on MMM.


 

[shenlong55]

Why should the government run it?

I don't think anyone is saying that the government 'has to' run it.  If you started up a private company tomorrow that provided healthcare to all Americans then I think liberals would stop asking the government to take care of it.  The problem is, conservatives are not proposing anything like that.  They're just proposing to do nothing and hope that a private entity will take care of it eventually.  I really don't understand why conservative go into government in the first place.  If the private sector has a better solution to every problem, why aren't they in the private sector working on those solutions instead of in government trying to stop those working on government solutions?

On the other hand, why shouldn't government run it?

[golden1]

Politics. 

Giving people access to health care has the potential to win a party a lot of voters.  The Republicans said it years ago, their main mission in life was to make Obama a failed president, and part and parcel to that was to frame the Affordable Care Act as "Obamacare" (which was the brainchild of Romney and works fairly well in MA today) and begin the propaganda tarnishing it.  They were against it before they heard any details and they made no real efforts to provide any workable plan or alternative.  If they had opposed the ACA and provided alternatives, that would be one thing, but the truth is, they have no good alternatives because there aren't any that significantly differs from the ACA in any measurable way.

[Kris]

Sounds like a strong argument for separating healthcare and employment.

That's OK but who's going to pay for it?   It's all in the details.

Many, many other countries have figured this out. There are plenty of examples to look at for ideas.

Great, let's get specific then.

Sure. A good place for you to start is to google "universal healthcare" and look for countries that have it. Then you can start comparing and contrasting how they do it.

[Metric Mouse]

It's actually part of the republican green initiative.  People are the leading cause of climate problems and pollution.  Less health care means more people die (but mostly just the poors) AND less taxes.  It's win-win.

...wait, less people = higher tax burden on those that survive to maintain similar or improved infrasturcure and military.

No, the economy will be more productive with fewer people receiving less healthcare. We'll pay for it with tax cuts.

I don't know, but this exchange is gold!

[disconneked]

I've seen this brought up a few times, including the requests for a topic of its own to discuss.  I certainly feel the ACA is not the best it can be and needs changes, but there are provisions that are extremely valuable, in my opinion, such as pre-existing conditions, removal of cap limits and lengthened insurance eligibility for children.  I am curious to see what the discussion will reveal.

well 26 is not a child.. its a dude that started drinking 5 years ago

also, I believe for me with a family of 4 it would be about $700 a month with a $12,000 deductible I would need to pay before it did anything. If I had to sum it up in a word... Arizona.

Certain provisions I find valuable such as the pre-existing conditions clause, however, if it makes you broke and you can't afford to use it pre-existing clauses don't mean a damn thing.

[realDonaldTrump]

We need to repeal so that wealthy people can pay less taxes, so that difference between rich and poor is even wider.

[Abe]

Too many people sucking up all the oxygen. Once we've switched over to a CO2-based biology it should be ok. Until then, got to have the extra people kick the bucket faster.

[scottish]

It would take a populist strongman to ram single payer health care through as legislation.

Wait...

[nereo]

well 26 is not a child.. its a dude that started drinking 5 years ago

I don't think anyone is claiming that a 26 year old isn't an adult, but in our modern society it's reasonable for a such a person to still have little/no earned income.
Doctors, lawyers, any occupation requiring an advanced degree means the indivudual probably won't be finished with school until on/around age 25.  That of course is assuming that they don't take any breaks, switch majors or take a gap year.
Hence why the provision to keep your child on your health care until age 26.

[iris lily]

It would take a populist strongman to ram single payer health care through as legislation.

Wait...

see, I have actually wondered about that.

If the The Donald  could commission an economic study that convincingly demonstrates single payer system would be now, and for the next 12 years, cheaper for the country in all aspects than the current clusterfck, convincingly mind you, I would be on board. It would be funny if he was the man to do it.

[nereo]

If the The Donald  could commission an economic study that convincingly demonstrates single payer system would be now, and for the next 12 years, cheaper for the country in all aspects than the current clusterfck, convincingly mind you, I would be on board. It would be funny if he was the man to do it.

Well it's pretty easy to commission a study these days that will conclude whatever you want it to.  That's why Trump's tax plans are both debt-neutral and the greatest adder to the national debt in history (depending on who's study you read).  The source of the study matters as much as anything.

[iris lily]

If the The Donald  could commission an economic study that convincingly demonstrates single payer system would be now, and for the next 12 years, cheaper for the country in all aspects than the current clusterfck, convincingly mind you, I would be on board. It would be funny if he was the man to do it.

Well it's pretty easy to commission a study these days that will conclude whatever you want it to.  That's why Trump's tax plans are both debt-neutral and the greatest adder to the national debt in history (depending on who's study you read).  The source of the study matters as much as anything.

Sigh. i know. If only we could all get together to agree on facts, but you are right, there doesnt seem to be any conclusive economic facts about much of anything. This of large scale, anyway.

[Norioch]

If Donald Trump proposes single-payer healthcare, then I will call my Democratic senators and tell them to support Donald Trump. I really don't see that happening any time soon, though.

[iris lily]

If Donald Trump proposes single-payer healthcare, then I will call my Democratic senators and tell them to support Donald Trump. I really don't see that happening any time soon, though.

You know he has made noises friendly to the concept, right?
Doesnt mean he will "propose" it or cause it to be enacted, of course.

[Norioch]

If Donald Trump proposes single-payer healthcare, then I will call my Democratic senators and tell them to support Donald Trump. I really don't see that happening any time soon, though.

You know he has made noises friendly to the concept, right?
Doesnt mean he will "propose" it or cause it to be enacted, of course.

He's expressed every possible position on every possible issue at one point or another, except for his suspiciously consistent praise for Putin. I mean a real proposal, backed by his republican colleagues in Congress.

[Metric Mouse]

If Donald Trump proposes single-payer healthcare, then I will call my Democratic senators and tell them to support Donald Trump. I really don't see that happening any time soon, though.

You know he has made noises friendly to the concept, right?
Doesnt mean he will "propose" it or cause it to be enacted, of course.

This would be amazing. Maybe in 2018 after the ACA repeal issue flops, someone can swoop in to propose this and President Trump can ram it through... Call it 'gutting medicare' for those that wish to do that and call it "Trumpcare for all" for those that want to view it that way. I mean, we can always hope.

[fa]

Sounds like a strong argument for separating healthcare and employment.

That's OK but who's going to pay for it?   It's all in the details.

Many, many other countries have figured this out. There are plenty of examples to look at for ideas.

a
Great, let's get specific then.

Sure. A good place for you to start is to google "universal healthcare" and look for countries that have it. Then you can start comparing and contrasting how they do it.

No country with similar health care costs as the US has ever enacted universal health care.  Tort reform, cheaper medical education, cheaper medications and at least some rationing of care are all requirements for affordable universal health care.  There would be a huge public outcry and opposition from some very powerful lobbies.  Having to appease the pharmaceutical and medical insurance lobbies has been one of the big causes for the problems with Obamacare.  Unaffordable health care is by definition not universal.

[scottish]

So, in other words, it's just TOO DAMN HARD to change it.

Not exactly a can do attitude from the people in power.

[fa]

The 800 lb gorilla is the cost of health care in the US.  There are many special interest groups that benefit from the cost of health care.  That makes lowering the cost of care so challenging.  These powerful lobbies are not going to just sit and wait for someone to stop the flow of honey.  They are going to do whatever they need to do in order to stop cost control reforms.  But these reforms are needed to make health care universal and affordable.

When obamacare was enacted, the insurance industry and pharmaceutical companies were super excited.  The reason was simple:  being able to charge the same and having many more customers guaranteed.  The problem is now showing up in the cost of health insurance.  If you get subsidies for your obamacare plan, good for you.  It just means your neighbors are helping to pay your health care bills.  But the medical bills are growing and someone is paying those bills.

In many countries, doctors have an incentive to prescribe less drugs or cheaper drugs.  Not doing so may even get them audited.  In the US, doctors have an incentive to prescribe drugs and tests.  For one, the threat of lawsuits is always there, so better order that extra test.  In other countries health care professionals are protected from frivolous lawsuits and have an incentive to prescribe less medications and order less tests.  The prices of many drugs are simply set by the government, not by a monopoly of a drug company with a patent.  Those are the type of countries that have universal affordable health care.

[MoonLiteNite]

i find it kinda funny.
Obama helps get it into law, then trump will remove it then put something else just as bad in itself place.
Two people, 2 sides, 1 coin.

Anything that takes money from someone and gives it to another is morally wrong. Just that simple in my book.

[sol]

Anything that takes money from someone and gives it to another is morally wrong. Just that simple in my book.

Is it also morally wrong for a doctor to look someone in the eye and say "You are going to die because you don't have enough money to pay me to make you better"?

Or is that morally acceptable, but insurance isn't?

Do you also think social security is immoral?

[bacchi]

Anything that takes money from someone and gives it to another is morally wrong. Just that simple in my book.

Yes, it is simple.

[sokoloff]

Reason number two is that the ACA includes a 3.8% surtax on investment income above $200k/year.  It's literally a tax on rich people, who ARE the party's core constituents.  They're just looking out for their own.

I wonder if this was a requirement of the law, or it was a free choice on the part of the drafter of the legislation.

If it was the latter, I think it was a strategic blunder to give every rich taxpayer a specific line and every business another specific line to point to and know precisely how much Obamacare was costing them, personally. Nothing will raise the ire like seeing a large five or six figure sum being specifically labelled as "Obamacare surtax".

If instead they could have rolled into the brackets, the sum might have been the same, but it wouldn't be itemized for every CPA interaction.

[Metric Mouse]

Anything that takes money from someone and gives it to another is morally wrong. Just that simple in my book.

Is it also morally wrong for a doctor to look someone in the eye and say "You are going to die because you don't have enough money to pay me to make you better"?

Sometimes more money isn't the answer. Even very rich people die.

[sol]

Sometimes more money isn't the answer. Even very rich people die.

I'm not sure I understand your argument.  Are you saying that since everyone dies anyway, it's okay to let poor people die of easily treatable conditions just because they are poor? 

[Metric Mouse]

I'm not sure I understand your argument.  Are you saying that since everyone dies anyway, it's okay to let poor people die of easily treatable conditions just because they are poor?

That is different than saying that it's never ok to say "it costs too much to treat you." At some point it is unsustainable, and probably unreasonable, to keep everyone alive for as long as might be medically possible.

[sol]

At some point it is unsustainable, and probably unreasonable, to keep everyone alive for as long as might be medically possible.

I see.  I agree that infinite money will not keep you alive forever, but I don't think that has any bearing at all on whether or not zero money should keep you alive for no time at all.  You cannot prove something by disproving the converse. 

I think people with no money, who have easily treatable conditions, should get treatment despite their inability to pay.  I find it barbaric that the most advanced and supposedly virtuous society on the planet would let its own citizens die, when they could be easily saved, just because they are poor. 

Like orphans are poor, right?  Should we let her die in the street with a broken leg, just because she's a five year old girl with no parents who doesn't have any money?  We've had like ten people in these very threads argue that YES SHE SHOULD DIE IN THE STREET because it's just so "immoral" to pay for her medical care by "taking" money from other people and "giving" it to that five year old with the broken leg.  These posters need to have their heads examined, IMO.  Their concept of morality escapes me.

[Metric Mouse]

At some point it is unsustainable, and probably unreasonable, to keep everyone alive for as long as might be medically possible.

I see.  I agree that infinite money will not keep you alive forever, but I don't think that has any bearing at all on whether or not zero money should keep you alive for no time at all.  You cannot prove something by disproving the converse. 

I think people with no money, who have easily treatable conditions, should get treatment despite their inability to pay.  I find it barbaric that the most advanced and supposedly virtuous society on the planet would let its own citizens die, when they could be easily saved, just because they are poor. 

Like orphans are poor, right?  Should we let her die in the street with a broken leg, just because she's a five year old girl with no parents who doesn't have any money?  We've had like ten people in these very threads argue that YES SHE SHOULD DIE IN THE STREET because it's just so "immoral" to pay for her medical care by "taking" money from other people and "giving" it to that five year old with the broken leg.  These posters need to have their heads examined, IMO.  Their concept of morality escapes me.

I think the difficulty is drawing the line of 'easily treatable.'  Heroin overdose? Here's $.50 worth of naloxone, go away. Anaphylaxis? Here's $10 worth of epinephrine, stay away from peanuts.  Aggressive brain tumor? Here's $100,000 of experimental medication. I mean, why not, it could work.

There's a line somewhere, perhaps; hard to draw it though.

As for the orphan with the broken leg, I'm sure it would be preferable if she had been terminated in utero; quality of life and all that.

[marty998]

Post deleted, as I realised I didn't really follow the argument correctly the first time around.