Subject:
|
Re: A question for my Canadian pals
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 6 Oct 2004 20:23:21 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1358 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek wrote:
> 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.
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 roads over which that computer was delivered prior to arriving at the place
from whence you purchased it in all likelihood were funded at least in part with
public money to which you may or may not have contributed. If, for example,
your computer was trucked over non-toll, non-federal highways in the next state,
then you are benefiting from roadways for which you did not pay; this is also
income redistribution that favors you.
The restaurant at which you dined when you were most recently traveling out of
state was subject to health codes that are enforced in part by local and state
taxes to which you did not contribute, and you reaped the benefit of the
restaurant's compliance with those codes; this is income redistribution that
favors you.
You might argue that these uses of public funds are inappropriate, but you still
enjoyed (and continue to enjoy) the benefits of them. Therefore you are
benefiting from income redistribution.
> > 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?
If he can afford to have it. Do you accept that some people, through no fault
of their own, truly and literally cannot afford health insurance?
> > 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?
If he himself is destitute and can't pay, then sure. But if the costs of the
victim's care greatly exceed the aggressor's ability to reimburse, then what?
> Wouldn't that encourage people to go around beating others up?
Maybe, if the requirement of financial restitution were the only deterrent. It
seems to me that other preventative measures exist, though.
> > 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)
Yeah, that was a bit muddled. Let me try again.
If a person declares himself "off" of a society's public healthcare system, then
he forfeits the right to benefit directly or indirectly from that system. That
means that if Person X receives a beneficial service from someone who in turn
has benefited from public healthcare, then Person X has benefited from public
healthcare. Person X is therefore beholden to the public healthcare system.
One can argue that this is an infinite regress, but that's how it goes. Members
of a society are bound into that society as long as they receive benefits from
it. As long as you continue to use your computer, for instance, you are part of
the society of beneficiaries of US public funding.
> > Naturally, the system itself should be structured to provide care in the most
> > efficient means possible.
>
> How do you do that?
Do you mean in practical terms? I'm afraid that I'm not equal to the task of
time/resource management on that scale.
> > 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?
Are all users of any system automatically "consumers?"
I suggest instead that we are beneficiaries of the system. In your view, is the
beneficiary of a trust fund a consumer of that trust fund?
> > 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'd rather require that people more readily able to pay are required to do so.
In reaping a greater financial benefit from a society, IMO a person is more
financially beholden to that society.
> 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) ??
Holy moley. I was in Boston on business back in June. I think I might still be
stuck in traffic outside of Logan Airport.
> More seriously, why? Why not address the corporate lawbreakers directly instead
> of enabling other slackers?
Hey, one windmill at a time, please!
Dave!
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: A question for my Canadian pals
|
| (...) I could argue the point that in fact I (and my parents) paid more into the system than we have benefited from it, and I could do so for every example you cite, I think, if I chose to do so. (as a sketch, for the first one, the computer's (...) (20 years ago, 6-Oct-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: A question for my Canadian pals
|
| (...) Ok, here's a question on this one. If we truly believe that society owes everyone healthcare, do we include global society? Do we owe the billions of people in India and China the same standard of healthcare that is being demanded for (...) (20 years ago, 6-Oct-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | 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)
|
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
|
|
|
|
