# Uninsured people who oppose healthcare reform **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [December 11, 2009, 1:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/uninsured-people-who-oppose-healthcare-reform/520855 "2009-12-11T13:37:51Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 1\ **Showing post:** 37
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2009, 7:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/uninsured-people-who-oppose-healthcare-reform/520855/37 "2009-12-11T19:12:02Z")
> [@Larry\_Mudd](#): > > The only _rational_ answer to this question is “Yes, it is.” Any other answer is ideological, not rational. > > When you compare your current system of private insurance with government-run health insurance programs, it becomes clear that Americans pay twice as much per capita for a comparable standard of care, while leaving 15% of the population entirely uninsured a many more without adequate coverage. > > Any objection to “subsidizing the other guy” is irrational because an intelligent system is _bound_ to cost much, much less - even if coverage is extended to everyone. Did you miss my analogy to the Fourth Amendment? The only rational answer is to gut the Fourth Amendment, and put an end to more criminal activity thereby. But that “rational” answer fails to account for the intangible costs associated with living in a society where the government has unfettered pwer to search your home, and the intangible benefits of allowing a zone of privacy for individuals. But we as a society weigh those intangibles, and decide that the increased “cost” that the Fourth Amendment imposes on us is worth paying. “Millions for defense, but not one cent for tribute,” is, by your lights, also “irrational,” I imagine. That’s another calculus in which more than simply the dollars expended at the moment are considered. So it’s not convincing to say, “Any objection to ‘subsidizing the other guy’ is irrational because an intelligent system is _bound_ to cost much, much less…” when the objection is to forced subsidization of the other guy, regardless of cost. Someone may rationally say, in other words, that it’s not the cost, it’s the objection to being forced to pay for someone else, period. --- _[View the full topic](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/uninsured-people-who-oppose-healthcare-reform/520855)._