Subject:
|
Re: A question for my Canadian pals
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 6 Oct 2004 18:50:58 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1221 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler wrote:
> Hmm... If routine costs are (relatively) small but unavoidable, but a
> catastrophic cost is huge but only (insert percentage here) likely to occur,
> then circumstances might incline a person of limited resources to wager that
> he'd be better off in getting help
"getting help"? Do you mean having someone other than yourself pay for things
that are routine(1)? Isn't that just rent seeking because you don't want to pay
and think you can stick someone else with it? What are we really talking about
here?
The single payer system advocates typically sell it by saying that you'll get
better health care under that system, not that it's a better income transfer
program than any other program that might be devised.
To me these questions (who should pay for health care, vs. how should health
care be structured to provide care most efficiently) seem seperable questions.
Which one are we talking about?
> with his small but unavoidable costs than in
> waiting for help with a cost that might never come. I expect that this kind of
> gamble goes on all the time, in healthcare as well as in other arenas.
It's not a gamble I don't think. It's rent seeking.
1 - I'm talking about routine here, not catastrophic... everyone gets warts, but
the catastrophic insurance model is a smoothing/wagering system, not an income
transfer system, because you're betting you don't need it, and paying what the
odds are (plus vig to cover admin costs, minus float benefits) in case you're
wrong. For heart transplants it's smoothing across populations, while for car
smashup insurance, in many cases, it's smoothing across years (most people get
in some number of wrecks in their lifetime) at least in part.
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: A question for my Canadian pals
|
| (...) At what point do you put your libertarian ideals aside? I mean you do pay taxes, and those taxes are used for infrastructure and for protection. Some of your tax money goes to roads, most of which you will never use, but that's okay, 'cause (...) (20 years ago, 6-Oct-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: A question for my Canadian pals
|
| (...) Maybe the nature of "routine things" is the issue. Is a small but stitch-worthy laceration routine? How about a broken leg? Anyway, we *all* require that someone else pay for things that we consider routine, present company included. Why (...) (20 years ago, 6-Oct-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: A question for my Canadian pals
|
| (...) Sure, but today my access to certain procedures is limited by my income and my insurance, so I don't know that it's any better in practice. (...) Well, then we're back to the brain surgeon vs. hole-digger, aren't we? (...) Yeah, I'm not sure (...) (20 years ago, 6-Oct-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
24 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
