> while 95% of people could use an extra 10k, the real cost of welfare comes from those few who have major medical needs, and that 10k would do nothing for them

> while 95% of people could use an extra 10k, the real cost of welfare comes from those few who have major medical needs, and that 10k would do nothing for them > Are large per-person medical expenses a significant portion of total US welfare spending? > I don't have the data, but I would be quite surprised if it were not the case. Having your appendix taken out cost on average $33,000 (and up to $180,000) in California. And then I said: We can't say "10k wouldn't cover costs for the 5% of people that will incur huge medical bills" because those huge medical bills only happen today, in a time where the government has the health system set up in such a way as to make all their proceedings exceedingly expensive. In a free market, goods are cheaper than in a heavily regulated market. So what I am refuting is the anachronism of considering the current costs of health care in a future where health care would operate in a free market. And I'm refuting it by saying, it's expensive now because of regulation that wouldn't exist in a free market.