RE: Risk v. Charity (was: RE: Workers Paradise. /Politica...
Black Unicorn <unicorn@schloss.li> wrote:
On Tue, 17 Sep 1996 jbugden@smtplink.alis.ca wrote:
Black Unicorn <unicorn@schloss.li>
You are saying that everyone on the planet has a right to health insurance and disability insurance whether they can afford it or not. This is folly. The result is serious moral hazard problems.
Almost, but not quite. I'm saying that within our two countries at least (Canada, U.S.) everyone could have access to medically necessary procedures because the *society as a whole* can afford it.
The decisions about what is or is not medically necessary must by design be made by government in a socialized medicine regime.
People do make decisions that affect other people. If you feel safer in the good hands of Allstate than at the government trough, good for you. Personally, I trust in Allah, but I still tie up my camel.
This evades an important point as well. Namely, who cares if society can afford it?
Some things are seen as investments in the future of a society. I view both Education and Health through this lens.
But there is a balance between accurately pricing the risk and minimizing the cost of the bureacracy that polices this pricing.
Oh, I see. Let's give the program to the government then. Good idea. That will reduce the cost of the bureacracy.
The point is still valid. Are we not trying to minimize this cost?
There are also many ways to modify behaviour, not all of them direct.
And all of them buy into the notion that people are not to be made personally responsible for their high risk behavior.
There it is again. Blame the sick for their lack of moral fibre. Not every victim of lung cancer smokes. Besides, people are notoriously poor at evaluating the probability of unlikely events (see reference below). A "punishment" that happens 30 years after the "crime" is no deterrent. Prevention is usually cheaper than treatment.
I prefer market solutions.
I prefer solutions. James
On Tue, 17 Sep 1996 jbugden@smtplink.alis.ca wrote:
Black Unicorn <unicorn@schloss.li> wrote:
On Tue, 17 Sep 1996 jbugden@smtplink.alis.ca wrote:
Black Unicorn <unicorn@schloss.li>
You are saying that everyone on the planet has a right to health insurance and disability insurance whether they can afford it or not. This is folly. The result is serious moral hazard problems.
Almost, but not quite. I'm saying that within our two countries at least (Canada, U.S.) everyone could have access to medically necessary procedures because the *society as a whole* can afford it.
The decisions about what is or is not medically necessary must by design be made by government in a socialized medicine regime.
People do make decisions that affect other people. If you feel safer in the good hands of Allstate than at the government trough, good for you.
I feel safer in the hands of the market where Allstate is but one insurance carrier.
Personally, I trust in Allah, but I still tie up my camel.
This evades an important point as well. Namely, who cares if society can afford it?
Some things are seen as investments in the future of a society. I view both Education and Health through this lens.
I'd like to hear the argument for Health. I'd like to hear the argument for Education- particularly one which makes socialized education systems the only, or even a good answer.
But there is a balance between accurately pricing the risk and minimizing the cost of the bureacracy that polices this pricing.
Oh, I see. Let's give the program to the government then. Good idea. That will reduce the cost of the bureacracy.
The point is still valid. Are we not trying to minimize this cost?
Now explain how government will reduce bureacracy and minimize cost please. Cite, if you will, a few examples.
There are also many ways to modify behaviour, not all of them direct.
And all of them buy into the notion that people are not to be made personally responsible for their high risk behavior.
There it is again. Blame the sick for their lack of moral fibre.
Blame the rich for their condition.
Not every victim of lung cancer smokes.
I'll tell you what. I will give you a dollar for every non-smoking related lung cancer case, if you give me one for every smoking related case.
Besides, people are notoriously poor at evaluating the probability of unlikely events (see reference below). A "punishment" that happens 30 years after the "crime" is no deterrent. Prevention is usually cheaper than treatment.
And now please describe how government and socialized medicine are better at preventing lung cancer.
I prefer market solutions.
I prefer solutions.
Now please explain how government provides a superior solution.
James
-- I hate lightning - finger for public key - Vote Monarchist unicorn@schloss.li
participants (2)
-
Black Unicorn -
jbugden＠smtplink.alis.ca