# universal healthcare will bankrupt this country, I call BS. **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [November 24, 2009, 6:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/universal-healthcare-will-bankrupt-this-country-i-call-bs/518806 "2009-11-24T18:29:30Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 3\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [November 28, 2009, 9:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/universal-healthcare-will-bankrupt-this-country-i-call-bs/518806/41 "2009-11-28T21:40:37Z")
> [@gonzomax](#): > > [http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/02/10/ap/politics/main4790299.shtml](http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/02/10/ap/politics/main4790299.shtml) Congressional budget office vs Fox news. First, the 45 million number they used is from February 2009. Since then, the number is acknowledged to be wrong. Even Obama has had to back away from it (actually, he had claimed 47 million). Second, your cite looks at what would happen if NOTHING was done. I don’t know of anyone advocating that. As far as the bankruptcies, that’s a real but different problem. One that could be addressed by affordable catastrophic medical insurance. That would be really cheap and would prevent people from having to absorb that really big medical costs associated with cancer and other grave illnesses. Face it, the reason you don’t want “play the numbers game” is that it greatly hurts that moral/common sense calculation. It sounds much better to take on a trillion dollars is expenditures when your “saving” 45 million people then when your “saving” half that number. ---
**Author:** ![independentminded](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/ed8c4c/32.png) [@independentminded](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/independentminded)\ **Post date:** [November 28, 2009, 11:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/universal-healthcare-will-bankrupt-this-country-i-call-bs/518806/42 "2009-11-28T23:32:27Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > First, the 45 million number they used is from February 2009. Since then, the number is acknowledged to be wrong. Even Obama has had to back away from it (actually, he had claimed 47 million). > > Second, your cite looks at what would happen if NOTHING was done. I don’t know of anyone advocating that. > > As far as the bankruptcies, that’s a real but different problem. One that could be addressed by affordable catastrophic medical insurance. That would be really cheap and would prevent people from having to absorb that really big medical costs associated with cancer and other grave illnesses. > > Face it, the reason you don’t want “play the numbers game” is that it greatly hurts that moral/common sense calculation. It sounds much better to take on a trillion dollars is expenditures when your “saving” 45 million people then when your “saving” half that number. Catastrophic health insurance, imho, isn’t enough. The trick is to get preventive healthcare insurance as well, so that one will at least minimize the chances of him/her ending up with a serious enough illness to hospitalize him or her. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2009, 12:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/universal-healthcare-will-bankrupt-this-country-i-call-bs/518806/43 "2009-11-29T00:23:14Z")
> [@independentminded](#): > > Catastrophic health insurance, imho, isn’t enough. The trick is to get preventive healthcare insurance as well, so that one will at least minimize the chances of him/her ending up with a serious enough illness to hospitalize him or her. I don’t think I implied that it was enough. In fact, I pointed out that it worked to solve a tangential problem, not the main one. Sorry if I was unclear. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/universal-healthcare-will-bankrupt-this-country-i-call-bs/518806.md?page=2)