Health Care’s Bipartisan Problem: The Sick Are Expensive and Someone Has to Pay – WSJ

Protections for people with pre-existing conditions are well-liked. Democrats included them in the health law. Since the November elections, Republicans including President-elect Donald Trump have said they want to preserve a pathway to insurance for people with health conditions—a population that includes as many as 133 million non-elderly Americans, according to a recent estimate by President Barack Obama’s administration.Senate Republicans took the first step toward repealing the ACA early Thursday. The party faces tricky strategic decisions about how to fashion a replacement, and the discussions remain fluid.

Source: Health Care’s Bipartisan Problem: The Sick Are Expensive and Someone Has to Pay – WSJ

Which reminds me about a mathematically impeccable argument against Rawls given in Parfit’s Reasons and Persons:

Suppose I am a doctor. Depending on what I do, the outcomes might be:

  1. Jack, Bill and John are completely paralysed.
  2. Jack and John are cured. Bill is completely paralysed.
  3. Jack and Bill are cured. John is completely paralysed.

John would be harder to cure than Bill, who would be harder to cure than Jack. This is why I cannot do more to cure these people than I do in outcomes (2) and (3)…

(3) is the outcome where the worst-off person is best off. But this is not the outcome that is best for this person. (3) is worse for this person than (2) would have been…

To avoid injustice I must either cure no one, or partly cure all three people.

And so on, and on, and on.