CDR: Re: why should it be trusted?
Ray Dillinger
bear at sonic.net
Mon Oct 23 10:53:11 PDT 2000
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
More information about the cypherpunks-legacy
mailing list