CDR: RE: why should it be trusted?

[Trei, Peter]

> ----------
> Nathan Saper[SMTP:natedog at well.com] wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 23, 2000 at 08:37:42PM -0700, James A.. Donald wrote:
> > You cannot provide cheap insurance by punishing insurers, any more than
> you 
> > can provide cheap housing by punishing landlords.  It has been tried.  A
> 
> > law compelling insurance companies to insure the unhealthy will merely 
> > raise costs for the healthy, resulting in more people going uninsured.
> > 
> > If you want to guarantee insurance for the unhealthy without ill effects
> 
> > the TAXPAYER has to pay, and I suspect that if this proposition was put
> to 
> > the public, enthusiasm would be considerably less.  Indeed the Clintons
> did 
> > put something very like that proposition to the public, and there was 
> > little enthusiasm.
> > 
> 
> Having socialized healthcare would be ideal.  However, I think that
> the political atmosphere in this country pretty much removes that
> possibility.
> 
[...]

Nathan, have you ever actually looked at socialized medicine? It's 
fine for some things, but not for others. Illnessess which can be 
cured and which curing will return a person to productive labour 
get treated - after a while. Illnessess which strike late in life and/or
require expensive treatment get much shorter shrift. Britain's NHS 
record on cancer treatment is a national disgrace. Why do you 
think Austin Power's teeth were a running joke? The 
state of British (ie, socialized NHS) dentistry  lags *far* behind 
the US, especially in the area of orthodontics.

Canadians like their socialized system, but any Canadian who 
gets sick knows that (for a price) they can get faster, better 
treatment in the US. There are more MRI machines in single 
US cities than in all of Canada, and the waiting lists up there 
can outlast an Albertan winter.

The sad truth is that cost of the best medical care has exceeded 
the ability of the average person to afford it. (When I say 'average' 
I mean the arithmetic mean of incomes, so robbing the rich to treat 
the poor still won't get everyone the best possible care). Regardless 
of how we choose to finance it, there will remain many people whose 
lives could have been improved by treatments which were not performed 
due to reasons of cost.

Once you recognize that medical care *must* be rationed, the question
is how, and by who. The majority of the subscribers to this list are
anarcho-capitalists and/or libertarians, and abhor any taking by force.
Your socialist outlook is very much a minority viewpoint, and I don't
think you're going to change anyones mind.

The solution to this problem is not to propose different ways to 
slice up the too-small pie - it's to expand the pie. The greater the
wealth, the more people who can afford good care. People who are
responsible for their own welfare (and enslaved to the welfare of 
others) have the best chance of acheiving wealth.

Peter Trei