> This is called insurance. Historically some deeply religious groups were opposed to insurance, because they felt it was gambling. No. I'm saying it's a subsi

> This is called insurance. Historically some deeply religious groups were opposed to insurance, because they felt it was gambling. No. I'm saying it's a subsidy NOT because randomly you roll the dice of risk and you get lucky; but because the expected value or utility of health risks is less than the cost of insurance (for example, you wouldn't buy health insurance for 1 billion dollars a month). I'm not saying it's a subsidy because some people don't end up "using" their insurance plan; I'm saying if you repeat the scenario a billion time healthy people will be on average worse off so it's a subsidy. They wouldn't take the insurance unless government forces them. > I'm not sure i understand what you're advocating. Perhaps you mean each person should set aside some portion of their cash for whatever expenses they might have, and the odd 20 year old with leukemia should take on a few hundred thousand dollars of debt. of course if you're unlucky enough to have one of those 10% survival variations, the cost will of course be multiplied out by 10. I didn't advocate anything; I'm just saying the issue is a normative question; it doesn't have an absolutely objective answer. Sidenote: maybe the 20 year old should be in debt. If we want to save as many lives as possible, it's cheaper to put money into clean water, stopping open defecation, vaccines, etc (depends on whether you value someone outside your country as much as someone inside). The leukemia case is convenient for your viewpoint but what about nonsmokers subsidizing smokers? Should I have to pay for the treatment of the cancer of a smoker or the AIDS of someone who injected drugs or the measles of someone didn't take vaccines? It's a normative question on altruism.