> Here's a case of a death that cost $250k for want of a $80 tooth extraction It didn't "cost" $250,000. That's the sticker price of what they billed for the

> Here's a case of a death that cost $250k for want of a $80 tooth extraction It didn't "cost" $250,000. That's the sticker price of what they billed for the services, but that's not what they expected to be paid by insurance. That's a crucial distinction. Just as you don't pay sticker price for a new car, the insurance company doesn't pay what the provider bills them for; they pay some agreed-upon rate, which is specified as a multiple of what Medicare pays. > We were already paying for uninsured folks via bankruptcies etc. Not exactly. Contrary to public misconception, it's well known in the medical world that preventive care is not cheaper in the long-run. (It generally results in better care, but not always, and it always results in greater utilization either way, so the end result is more expensive). You can make the argument in favor of routine and preventive care on the grounds that it's the right thing to do, medically or morally. But it does result in greater costs overall, and that still has to be paid for.