On Sun, 22 Oct 2000, Nathan Saper wrote:
Yes, it does. And I think we as Americans, as well as our government, should do everything in our power to help. However, the first concern of any government is its own population.
No, the first concern of any and every government is its own survival. This is true whether or not it is achieved by allowing individual citizens to survive. Caucescu (sp?) and Duvalier the Elder were willing to execute half their respective populations to stay in power, remember? Extreme examples, but.... *sigh.* This is probably the last time I'm going to respond in this thread -- its clear that our opinions are too different, and held too firmly on both sides, for a useful discourse to emerge. However, I'm going to just mention something here. It is not terribly unreasonable to expect health care to be paid for by someone other than the recipient of said care, even in a free society. But in a free society, you don't do it by forcing hospitals to treat people they aren't getting paid to treat, and you don't do it by forcing insurers to insure any group of people at rates that won't cover the cost of treatment for that group. Those methods are an "unconstitutional taking" -- which is what you call theft when the government does it. In a free society, if you intend to have the government pay for health care, it pretty much has to be paying for *everybody's* health care, and it has to be doing it out of taxes rather than by forcing hospitals or insurance companies to engage in an unprofitable business practices. Picking on hospitals or insurance companies is robbing the few to pay for the needs of the many; the many may like it, but it's a very fundamental infringement. Taxation, on the other hand, is robbing the many to pay for the needs of the many -- inefficient and compulsory, but at least it operates without picking on particular people. Now, I've used the words, "free society" above. However, every coin paid in taxes is an erosion of freedom, and we have to recognize that. When taxation reaches 90%, the people are serfs and nothing more, even if technically free. However, I'd support government health care, even with the attendent taxation, if it were required to prevent a scheme like the one you propose. If it could be shown that it resulted in the whole population being substantially healthier for longer, at a lower cost, I'd support it anyway -- to paraphrase Mao, I don't care whether the cat is white or black, as long as it catches mice (not that I think it would, by the way). But, we have to recognize that even if it did result in better cheaper health care in the short run, it would mean changes detrimental to health care in the long run. For the last 20 years or so, theUS with its private health care system has also been the country that has fueled almost all research into new drugs and treatment techniques. Basically, everybody who's developed anything has done so because they have their eye on the lucrative American market for health care. Sure, you have to get past the FDA -- but it still happens. If we shifted to government-operated health care, the US market wouldn't be a moneymaker anymore, and you'd see a lot less private R&D. Finally, as much as we like talking about what *should* happen or *should not* happen, reality is about what *will* happen, which has only an incidental relationship to either. What *will* happen, nobody knows for sure. If Crypto Anarchy becomes the norm, then government involvement in medicine, like government involvement in almost everything, is on the way out and we are left to be prepared and deal with it. The alternative is pretty horrible to contemplate, because the only way to *prevent* Crypto Anarchy from becoming the norm is probably with an invasive and totalitarian worldwide police state. And of course, that could also happen. Bear