Subject:
|
Re: A question for my Canadian pals
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 6 Oct 2004 19:25:51 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1205 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek wrote:
> 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.
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 that all balances out with people who will never
use your roads but are paying into the same tax system.
What about parks? Your taxes go towards maintaining local/state/federal parks,
again, most of which you will never use.
Other infrastructures not listed here are maintained by your tax dollars, most
of which you will probably never use, or use very infrequently.
So where's the issue with health care? If we consider ourselves to be a
civilized society, then 'what happens to the least of us affects all of us', in
my opionon. To deny people access to proper health care due to personal lack of
finances is deplorable, and is not a sign of a truly civilized culture, in my
opinion. Sure we can bring Darwinesque idealism into the mix--those that can't
survive are not worthy to survive, but again, imo, that's not truly civilized
either--bringing the rationale down to the lowest common natural denominator.
There is a 'flip-side' to be sure--why should I pay for health expenses for
those that smoke or who are otherwise partaking in activities that are
detrimental to their personal health? Then again, why am I paying into the road
infrastructure when I use it far less than most (seeing as how I live <10 min
from work, don't drive when I don't have to, etc.) I still pay the gov'ts idea
of a proper share into the system, but don't get as much out of it. Is that
fair? Life, inherently, isn't fair.
People getting cancer after trying to live a healthy lifestyle isn't fair,
either, but I would not deny them access to health care because I was selfish
enought to state "'cause I don't use it, I don't have to pay into it"
Sometimes that's what I'm led to believe about libertarians--selfish idealists
who don't like outside forces interfering with their money. Life's not like
that. Society, by nature, means that we are beholden to one another. We must
look after one another or society crumbles. It's something that history has
shown again and again--if we don't look after our fellow man, and 'we're all in
it for wourselves', then the situation deteriorates. Pooling resources and
knowledge has, again and again, led to the betterment of not only those around
us, but ourselves as well.
We can debate the line of where gov't should stop interfering--like market
economies and such--communism doesn't work, imho--but I beleive the line
shouldn't be drawn to preclude health care.
Anyway, stray thoughts coursing thru my head this beautiful Wednesday afternoon.
Dave K
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: A question for my Canadian pals
|
| (...) What follows is all plowed ground... The above presents a false dichotomy in my view. It suggests that either those that are unlucky suffer, or else government has to transfer income (fundamentally, at the point of a gun, since taxation is not (...) (20 years ago, 6-Oct-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: A question for my Canadian pals
|
| (...) "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? (...) (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
|
|
|
|
