> A person ought not face financial ruin. The logical consequence of this is that any cost must be paid. And if the person cant pay it someone else does. So if

> A person ought not face financial ruin. The logical consequence of this is that any cost must be paid. And if the person cant pay it someone else does. So if someone gets a rare cancer whose treatment has 1% effectiveness and costs millions, it should be paid by someone else. The principle is wishful thinking, not economics. We as people every day make trades of our life for money. We pick a means of transportation riskier than other to save some money, we choose to use a bike to be physically healthier in the long run but expose to short term risks. We eat those cheese french friends with a beer, or smoke. Etc etc. We are no strangers to paying our pleasures with our life. - It is the tendency of all men to magnify their own services and to disparage services rendered them, and private matters would be poorly regulated if there was not some standard of value. This guarantee we have not (or we hardly have it), in public affairs. Americans often believe that universal healthcare is this pristine ideal that will solve everything, but thats because you haven't analyzed the consequences of it and its real life consequences. The problem of healthcare in the us is not public-vs-private, its the extreme regulatory environment.