Subject:
|
Re: A question for my Canadian pals
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 6 Oct 2004 19:35:36 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1279 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?
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 should healthcare be held to a different
standard?
> 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?
Why not both, separately?
In my view, everyone in a society should pay into the healthcare system of that
society, unless someone forfeits his right to receive any direct or indirect
benefit from that system. This includes, for example, unexpected medical costs
that exceed his ability to pay. It also includes any costs resulting from
injury he inflicts upon another person in that society. It also includes the
cost of medical care received by his employees and incidental service providers,
such as mechanics, delivery persons, etc.
Naturally, the system itself should be structured to provide care in the most
efficient means possible.
By the way, I do not subscribe to the notion that we are "healthcare consumers,"
so I expect that this influences my opinion on the matter.
> > 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.
I think it *is* a gamble, in the same way that companies gamble that the
government will bail them out when the companies cheney their pension plans, for
example. They gamble that, even though they've mismanaged their finances, a
collective benefactor will aid them when pay-out time comes.
I know that you object to this sort of corporate hucksterism, but that's the
system we have in place today. It seems only consistent to allow real people to
benefit from the same system that's so beneficial to so-called artificial
people.
Dave!
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: A question for my Canadian pals
|
| (...) How so? Can you elaborate? What routine things do I expect others to pay for on my behalf? I buy my own stuff. (...) Or the ability of his insurance to pay? (...) You wouldn't hold that person responsible for those costs to the maximum extent (...) (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
|
|
|
|
