Quote Originally Posted by Vuld Edone View Post
So, now that I've read the transcript for the tenth time, I still do understand why some people bark. Here is the logic :
- Redstate trusts the AHRQ.
- AHRQ says that health care expenses are between $255 billions (1980) and $1.9 trillion (2004). Must be around $2.4 trillion now but who cares.
- "Neighbors, friends and churches" will have to gather that money.
Okay, let's suppose that competition and charity can bring health care costs down... like it's already done. What's the expected cost then ? Let's say that through a miracle, costs are cut by 90% and it's only $255 billions per year... who will pay for it ? That's a lot of faith in charity to me. And now, let's suppose that it didn't bring costs down (that much). $2.4 trillions paid by charity. That's not faith anymore, that's a notion that has yet to be explained to me.

So yeah, I admire that guy and I'm actually enclined to defend his position, but I've no hard time understanding why people jump to the conclusion that he advocates to let people die. I hope I've given a hint why.
Well, 2 hypotheticals:

1. If you return trillions in govt healthcare costs back to tax payers, will their charitable giving go up?
2. if you remove healthcare welfare from people and give them their tax money back, will they choose to buy insurance instead of relying on the govt and charity?

Also, according to this, charities already recieve near 300bn - Charity Navigator - Giving Statistics