Re: Health insurance

The Trucker wrote:

"Les Cargill" <lNOcargill@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:S7YCf.4610$Fw6.3322@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Just Cocky wrote:


On Fri, 27 Jan 2006 14:01:28 -0500, "tonyp" <tonyp@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:


"Just Cocky" <just@xxxxxxxxx> wrote



Michael Scheltgen<mjs818@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


Taxes are marginally higher but out of pocket expenses are a lot lower.
All the evidence suggests that national health insurance would
be good for business and the population at large.


Even if you are right, it would still be immoral. Morality trumps
utility.


One seldom encounters an absolutely, positively, totally wrong statement on
usenet. So, the above is a rare and precious find.

Hey, ***: it's marginal utility, not marginal morality, that economics
deals with. You want to run society on "morality"? Fine -- as long as it's
MY morality. What? You think YOUR morality has higher utility? I get it
:-)



I don't want to run society. I also don't want anybody else to run
society. What I want is for each individual to "run" him/herself,
while respecting other individual's equal right. Society will then
emerge as a bottom-up phenomenon, not as a result of authoritarian
rule.


Yes, but outside of Icelandic tribes ( which weren't as individualistic as we
might think ), how is this possible?

Bottom-up phenomena which involve human behavior is messy.
Rule by mob is generally Bad.


And that is why our nation is designed to prevent such
mob rule. The Seanate represents the rich and powerful
and the Supremes prevent confisaction of property. The
problem we have right now is that the common people
have been screwed by the TwoParty by limiting the
representation of the people to 435 votes in the House
of Representatives. Big money is very able to control
435 members; especially through party politics.




A room big enough for 435 is already a problem. NObody
could have anticipated the population growth.

And the two-party thing is, again, one compromise
of many. We seem to do well by it.


Tony's exactly right - politics is ugly because
we all *do* have our own version of what is right, and
it's a difficult thing to balance out a good
solution.


Politics is currently ugly becase it is a sham. We really
only have one party; the party that represents the
wealthy interesrs.

http://GreaterVoice.org/econ/quotes/Madison.php


Yet, there's significant evicence that money doesn't really
buy elections:

http://www.fairvote.org/reports/monopoly/richie2.html


If you think your ethic is better than mine, then you have to explain
why you think that a group of individuals should have the right to
enslave others.

While it is fun to pretend that taxation is slavery,
fact is, it ain't.


Our current government has made it illegal for unions to
provide benefits. Our current government has made it
tax deuctible for employers to provide health insurance
What
is needed is to move that to the unions (same deductibility)
and to insist that the employers pay the same that they are
paying right now. That costs the employers nothing but
it creates a HUGE self insured set of people that can control
costs according to the desires of the members. People
outside the union could be allowed to join the cooperative
without actually being a union member (no strikes and
such) by paying some extra and some small amount of
union dues. That program would be totally voluntary and
the Libertarians would not have a leg to stand on. That
would not be NHI but it would dramatically reduce
health care costs in the USA.



I'd say that a three-tiered system:

1) Basic, catastrophic care ( with subsidy for people of
low income )
2) "Retail" care ( which could become a pay-as-you-go
thing ).
3) Specialty care, which is financed by discretionary
insurance or subsidized financing.

should work well. Whether employers offer coverage is
a seperate thing.

--
Les Cargill

.

Quantcast