Subject:
|
Re: A question for my Canadian pals
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 6 Oct 2004 19:50:14 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1306 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler wrote:
> Anyway, we *all* require that someone else pay for things that we consider
> routine, present company included.
How so? Can you elaborate? What routine things do I expect others to pay for on
my behalf? I buy my own stuff.
> 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.
Or the ability of his insurance to pay?
> It also includes any costs resulting from
> injury he inflicts upon another person in that society.
You wouldn't hold that person responsible for those costs to the maximum extent
possible? Wouldn't that encourage people to go around beating others up?
> It also includes the
> cost of medical care received by his employees and incidental service providers,
> such as mechanics, delivery persons, etc.
He should pay for the health care (explicitly) of the UPS driver that delivered
his package? I am not following you very clearly here (through this entire
section)
> Naturally, the system itself should be structured to provide care in the most
> efficient means possible.
How do you do that?
> By the way, I do not subscribe to the notion that we are "healthcare consumers,"
What are we, then? We are users of the service aren't we?
> 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.
That's a gamble in that these corps are counting on successful rent seeking to
bail them out from their bogus decisions, but it's still rent seeking.
Your example is that you'd rather shift costs to someone else in the hope that
your taxes aren't as much as the costs you shift, right?
> 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.
Two wrongs don't make a right but three rights make a left (except in Boston
where it may take either 2, 3, 4, or 5 depending) ??
More seriously, why? Why not address the corporate lawbreakers directly instead
of enabling other slackers?
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: A question for my Canadian pals
|
| (...) Sure! Here's one example, but there are many: The computer you're using is descended from publicly funded technology for which you have not paid but from which you are reaping the benefit; this is income redistribution that favors you. The (...) (20 years ago, 6-Oct-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | 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)
|
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
|
|
|
|
