Universal Health Insurance (2)

[Oscarthecat]

Would it be OK to ask what the total amount of giving amounts to, and how much is given to people in need of health care?

I’m sure you can find that information through the author’s website…

And Oscar, do you personally believe that private donations can cover the needs for health care of uninsured people in this country?

Respectfully,

Tor

Under the current system, when the tag team system of insurance companies and government interference has inflated healthcare costs beyond the ability of an average person to afford minor healthcare out of their own pocket, I don’t think there is any financial structure on this planet that could cover the needs of uninsured people in this country.

On the other hand, if the government did not interfere and the insurance companies did not exist, the healthcare system would have no choice but to deal directly with the ability of individuals to pay for their own treatment. Consequently, healthcare providers would have to adjust their costs to sustainable market levels, or face going out of business completely. Obviously, this would not be an overnight process- it would take time, and it would be uncomfortable for all of us in the short term. In the long term, however, it would result in a more affordable, more sustainable system that was more accessible to all of us without being at the mercy of two separate bureaucracies.

Under these conditions, I do believe that individual charity would be more than sufficient to provide healthcare to those who cannot afford it.

Under the current conditions, as I said before, I don’t believe that any organization-government, insurance, or charitable-on the planet will be able to afford the cost of healthcare as it continues to rise at the current rate.

 

[SFTor]

Under the current system, when the tag team system of insurance companies and government interference has inflated healthcare costs beyond the ability of an average person to afford minor healthcare out of their own pocket, I don’t think there is any financial structure on this planet that could cover the needs of uninsured people in this country.

On the other hand, if the government did not interfere and the insurance companies did not exist, the healthcare system would have no choice but to deal directly with the ability of individuals to pay for their own treatment. Consequently, healthcare providers would have to adjust their costs to sustainable market levels, or face going out of business completely. Obviously, this would not be an overnight process- it would take time, and it would be uncomfortable for all of us in the short term. In the long term, however, it would result in a more affordable, more sustainable system that was more accessible to all of us without being at the mercy of two separate bureaucracies.

Under these conditions, I do believe that individual charity would be more than sufficient to provide healthcare to those who cannot afford it.

Under the current conditions, as I said before, I don’t believe that any organization-government, insurance, or charitable-on the planet will be able to afford the cost of healthcare as it continues to rise at the current rate.

Hello Oscar:

I would agree with your analysis if it wasn’t for the fact that there is nothing to compel private health care companies to lower their rates to include people without coverage. All they need is a profitable business. They only need to find the population with the lowest risk, and to continue to cater to them, as they do today. As I think we agree that leaves large numbers of people with a need for health care uncovered, and unable to pay for it out of their own pockets.

I notice that you say “[if] the insurance companies didn’t exist.” Are you suggesting a system where we do away with health insurance companies and HMOs?

I’m also embarrassed to bring this up again, but you are aware that there are many countries that have arranged their affairs so that these needs can be met?

And lastly, do you ever consider that it is in the national interest of the United States to have an efficient and economical health care system? Competitiveness, stability, etc?

One very last thing: how do we remove insurance companies and HMOs from the marketplace? Through legislation?

Finally, the absolutely last thought: if we ask people to pay directly for their health care, we are back to the problem of having families go bankrupt over a child with cancer. The job of the insurance companies is to pool the risk, which is the same for public health care, only that public health care does the pooling over the entire population. How are American families and individuals supposed to manage their financial affairs if they at all times have to be ready to meet even the most challenging health emergencies they could encounter?

 

[Oscarthecat]

Oscarthecat;3948522:

Am I saying that your views are irresponsible? No, that would be unnecessary. I am saying that you are free to promote your views while others have to roll up their sleeves and sort out the very real problems that affect real people.

You say you’re sorting out very real problems, I say you’re causing them.

P.S. If it’s OK to allow financial institutions to fail, is it “socialism” to protect consumers through FDIC insurance?

No. The government does not need to be involved. Consumers can choose to patronize banks that provide private deposit insurance, or they can choose to take a risk with bank that do not provide this insurance.

If you support the government insuring bank accounts, why shouldn’t they insure retirement investment accounts? or private investment accounts? or for that matter, why shouldn’t they automatically insure anything that individuals have a financial stake in? How far can the “too big to fail” policy go?

It doesn’t end. that is the problem with socialism- people come to believe that there is no problem the government shouldn’t be made to solve.

 

[Oscarthecat]

Hello Oscar:

I would agree with your analysis if it wasn’t for the fact that there is nothing to compel private health care companies to lower their rates to include people without coverage. All they need is a profitable business. They only need to find the population with the lowest risk, and to continue to cater to them, as they do today. As I think we agree that leaves large numbers of people with a need for health care uncovered, and unable to pay for it out of their own pockets.

I notice that you say “[if] the insurance companies didn’t exist.” Are you suggesting a system where we do away with health insurance companies and HMOs?

If insurance companies did not exist, and healthcare markets were forced to work within the limits of what consumers could actually afford, then there would be no such thing as a person being denied coverage. There would be people who might be denied services due to inability to pay, but in a more affordable market environment, these people could more reasonably turn to charitable organizations to help with their costs.

I’m also embarrassed to bring this up again, but you are aware that there are many countries that have arranged their affairs so that these needs can be met?

Didn’t you apologize for your condescending tone earlier? Might have been better applied here.

Numerous articles and sources have been posted regarding the failures of both the present US system and the numerous socialize medicine programs. The fact remains that no system is ideal. Some, like yourself, are happy to embrace a failed system, whether it be UHC or the various insurance/government/provider models.

Others, however, see that both models are inherently flawed, and realize, as you put it so politely just a few moments ago, that “you are free to promote your views while others have to roll up their sleeves and sort out the very real problems that affect real people.”

 

[Oscarthecat]

Hello Oscar:

(…)

And lastly, do you ever consider that it is in the national interest of the United States to have an efficient and economical health care system? Competitiveness, stability, etc?

Yes, which is precisely why the government should get out of the way whenever possible so that individuals can go about their business.

One very last thing: how do we remove insurance companies and HMOs from the marketplace? Through legislation?

Pay attention to the market. Insurance companies are doing this to themselves. They are denying coverage to more and more people- over time, more people will be denied coverage than provided coverage. Insurance companies will become an unsustainable business. Some believe that have already. The market will develop to adapt as more people seek healthcare without insurance coverage. For example, as others in this forum have mentioned, the market advances of Lasik surgery demonstrate that medical services become cheaper, more reliable, and widely utilized when they are subject to market forces and are not covered by insurance providers.

Finally, the absolutely last thought: if we ask people to pay directly for their health care, we are back to the problem of having families go bankrupt over a child with cancer. The job of the insurance companies is to pool the risk, which is the same for public health care, only that public health care does the pooling over the entire population. How are we supposed to manage our financial affairs if we at all times have to be ready to meet even the most challenging health emergencies we could encounter?

Insurance companies used to be small, community oriented investment programs, rather than the unsustainable market monstrosities they have become.

If individuals choose to pool their resources privately, they are free to do so- it is a free market, after all. Hopefully, however, when doing this again, they will take note of the failures of the present system, and adjust accordingly so as not to repeat history.

 

[SFTor]

Didn’t you apologize for your condescending tone earlier? Might have been better applied here.

Numerous articles and sources have been posted regarding the failures of both the present US system and the numerous socialize medicine programs. The fact remains that no system is ideal. Some, like yourself, are happy to embrace a failed system, whether it be UHC or the various insurance/government/provider models.

Others, however, see that both models are inherently flawed, and realize, as you put it so politely just a few moments ago, that “you are free to promote your views while others have to roll up their sleeves and sort out the very real problems that affect real people.”

Oscar,

That is regrettably the fact. You are stating plainly that access should be governed by ability to pay. If you take a number of families living in a row of houses down a street, some will never experience a major medical need, others on that street will for instance have a child come down with cancer or another serious and very expensive illness. You are saying that society is better off having that family go bankrupt in its efforts to provide care for their child, as they surely will if they are in the mainstream of financial means. (The alternative is of course to determine how much health care you can afford for your kid, and cut it off when you reach your limit. Sounds reasonable?)

You are further observing that the two systems that are in existence today, private and public health care, are flawed. Yet you cannot fail to see that they work on the principle of pooling risk. Do you think this might be an acknowledgment that there is a community interest in providing care even for serious illnesses in spite of the impossibility of a typical family to pay for it out of pocket? Let’s say that the pawn shop owner never has a health issue, but the police officer, teacher, doctor or fireman on the same block go broke because of their families’ health problems.

No problem? Maybe you don’t see one, but I think most people do.

So these problematic systems that pool risk may in the end be better than a system where you pay out of pocket, as they find a way to distribute an unknowable exposure in a way that preserves the functioning of our communities, and ultimately our society.

Unless capitalism is sacred, and self-correcting, and always leads to the most efficient use of resources. Or is there some room for discussion of that, now that the capitalistically created credit crisis is upon us? And now that Wall Street is screaming for government intervention?

Respectfully,

Tor

P.S. And please let us not fall into a discussion about whether the credit crisis was caused by very capitalistic institutions running amok. It was.

P.P.S I have nothing against capitalism. I am a capitalitst. I work for a start-up, and expect to do very well for myself.

 

[SFTor]

Don’t take it personally. Remember, it is clinging to ideology over reality. We’re pretty much it among industrialized nations and it is a massive drain on our economy and puts us at a huge competitive disadvantage in the world market. It isn’t just about asking you to die, it is about clinging to a quasi free market to the point where his own descendants can expect to live shorter lives in greater poverty.

You do have my prayers.

SoCalRC,

I was warmed and encouraged by your words.

Thank you.

Respectfully,

Tor

 

[SFTor]

Yes, which is precisely why the government should get out of the way whenever possible so that individuals can go about their business.

Pay attention to the market. Insurance companies are doing this to themselves. They are denying coverage to more and more people- over time, more people will be denied coverage than provided coverage. Insurance companies will become an unsustainable business. Some believe that have already. The market will develop to adapt as more people seek healthcare without insurance coverage. For example, as others in this forum have mentioned, the market advances of Lasik surgery demonstrate that medical services become cheaper, more reliable, and widely utilized when they are subject to market forces and are not covered by insurance providers.

Insurance companies used to be small, community oriented investment programs, rather than the unsustainable market monstrosities they have become.

If individuals choose to pool their resources privately, they are free to do so- it is a free market, after all. Hopefully, however, when doing this again, they will take note of the failures of the present system, and adjust accordingly so as not to repeat history.

It seems to me that you are overlooking the simple fact that the private health care industry is very profitable, and is using its financial power to keep our elected officials firmly in its pocket.

Do you suggest that we change our electoral finance laws, or even abolish lobbying, to get rid of their undue influence?

Respectfully,

Tor

P.S. Don’t give me Lasik. It does not even come close to exemplify the health issues that people are facing.

 

[SFTor]

Pathia, there is no short answer to the problem you are posing in regard to how our choices affect our freedoms. So, I’ll try to be as brief as possible, but will probably fail.

Our freedom is conditioned by our choices and the choices of others, and our choices are conditioned by our innate ability, our past choices, and the choices of others that affect the choices at our disposal. Some of our choices open new choices to us, and other choices limit our future choices. With that in mind, we must always have the freedom to make the choices that are available to us, and must learn to live within the limits of the choices that are actually available to us.

Every decision we make is the result of our attempt to secure what we believe is the greatest good. That doesn’t mean that all of the choices we have at our disposal always seem fair, or that they are easy to make, or, and I want to emphasize this one, that the choices we have at our disposal don’t effectively force us to choose to limit ourselves in ways that we don’t want to be limited.

Therefore, in life, we will all find ourselves, at one time or another, trying to balance out what freedoms we wish we had against the choices we have at our disposal.

That doesn’t change the fact that people have to make their choices freely, and that in order for people to be completely free, we have to allow them to freely make those choices that they are faced with.

When a person wants to make a choice that does not fall within their freedom to choose, they depend on support from others to make that choice possible for them. The choice to be charitable toward another person is a free exercise of one’s freedom that increases both their freedom and the freedom of the person they are acting charitably toward.

When this comes from God, we call it Grace. When it comes from human beings, we call it Charity.

That being said, my whole point all along has been that it is fundamentally wrong to impinge upon one person’s freedom for the benefit of another.

The only ethical and moral ways to transcend the choices that are available to you within the limits of your own freedom are to either make choices that will increase your freedom by opening greater choices to you, OR, when that is not possible, to rely on the free choice of others to help you make those choices that are outside of your innate ability.

If you force people to enable you to make choices beyond your ability, then you are violating their freedom, and ultimately you are limiting both your freedom and their because you have hardened them against making the free choice to help you in the first place.

Oscar,

I hereby refuse to pay a cent to the military budget until we have provided adequate care to sick people in this country.

That is my choice, right? You don’t want to force me to participate in funding something if it impinges on my freedom?

Correct?

Respectfully,

Tor

P.S. Please answer how paying taxes for anything is less coercive than paying into a national health care system. Thank you.

 

[jman507]

It seems to me that you are overlooking the simple fact that the private health care industry is very profitable, and is using its financial power to keep our elected officials firmly in its pocket.

Do you suggest that we change our electoral finance laws, or even abolish lobbying, to get rid of their undue influence?

Respectfully,

Tor

P.S. Don’t give me Lasik. It does not even come close to exemplify the health issues that people are facing.

Approximately how much are they profiting percentage wise? And what are the projects for the future, given the inflation in the medical industry?

 

[jman507]

Don’t take it personally. Remember, it is clinging to ideology over reality. We’re pretty much it among industrialized nations and it is a massive drain on our economy and puts us at a huge competitive disadvantage in the world market. It isn’t just about asking you to die, it is about clinging to a quasi free market to the point where his own descendants can expect to live shorter lives in greater poverty.

The good news is that the ideology isn’t really even what is at stake, it is more akin to cultism. Yes, he will shout the merits of the free market and scream about personal responsibility in, say, the mortagage crisis, but you almost certainly won’t hear a bit about the utter hypocrisy of a massive bailout for Fannie Mae or Indy. You see, it isn’t really heartfelt, it is just noise to justify an agenda. I’m not the only big business owner to see that rising health care costs are a huge problem and effect my competitiveness in the world market. As we shift, the agenda will shift (since our money is the key to power), and the ideology of the ‘faithful’ will magically follow.

Modern US conservatism is more about a cultural identify than any actual belief system. How else would you support a deficit spending, government expanding, nation building president? At the end of the day, the ‘cult’ is more important than any of the supposed ideals. The hypocrisy is rationalized by demonizing the alternatives.

You do have my prayers.

Spare me. UHC and socialism is as much as cult and ideology itself. If there is some hypocrisy that is because it isn’t idealism in practice, maybe in this thead there is more theory than reality.

The reality is that there is inflation in the health system. Regardless of UHC, third party insurer health care, or a MSA, catastrophic insurance, plus some supplamental payments on a sliding scale for the poor plan the case is there is too much damand for the supply. It doesn’t matter the system.

Take your pick for any give amount of money your more or less have to pick some degree of axcess, options, and quality. The more you want to constrain a system to keep it’s cost down, your going to have to give up some aspects of the three. If people in the US who have insurance are too used to too much health care, and UHC will fix that, your going to have a lot of people who feel the transition as if they are worse off. All the industrilized nations are more or less graying and that is going to affect everyone regardless of their system. In the end live by the policy that is set up, you can die by it too.

Of course health care is a drain on the economy, in gerenal it always is. It would be a nonissue as far as social justice if it was not.

 

[Oscarthecat]

Oscar,

That is regrettably the fact. You are stating plainly that access should be governed by ability to pay.

No, I didn’t say that. What I said was that when someone is unable to pay, there should be charitable organizations in place to help them.

Once the cost of healthcare is returned to a reasonable, sustainable market level, then this will be possible.

Soon, under current UHC and insurance/government/provider systems, no one will have the ability to pay- not the individual, not the government, not the insurance companies…is that really what you want?

You are further observing that the two systems that are in existence today, private and public health care, are flawed. Yet you cannot fail to see that they work on the principle of pooling risk. Do you think this might be an acknowledgment that there is a community interest in providing care even for serious illnesses in spite of the impossibility of a typical family to pay for it out of pocket?

Odd that you seem to miss the connection between the flaws of the current systems, and the fact that both are based almost entirely on the concept of pooling resources.

Pooling resources in the manner of the current models is inherently flawed because the healthcare providers, and those who provide goods and services to the healthcare providers, are aware that our resources have been pooled. They know that as a result, we have greater resources, and are able to afford artificially inflated prices.

Pooling resources may appear to help the “little guy” in the market, but in reality, it only makes it possible for companies to charge the “little guy” prices that only the “big guy” could afford- consequently, while systems based on pooling resources may last for a short period, they will inevitably grow beyond the capacity of even those pooled resources.

If you keep the market tied to the reality of what people can afford, then prices will remain within reach. This is why MacDonald’s doesn’t charge $400 for a $1 hamburger, but diabetic supply companies can get away with charging $140 for a month’s supply of needles that cost 14 cents to produce.

No problem? Maybe you don’t see one, but I think most people do.

Oh, I see the problem. What you’re doing is trying to fix the symptom of that problem.

Good luck with that, but don’t involve me in it- I’m busy addressing the real issues at hand.

So these problematic systems that pool risk may in the end be better than a system where you pay out of pocket, as they find a way to distribute an unknowable exposure in a way that preserves the functioning of our communities, and ultimately our society.

Hmm, state your premise, and then state that you’re correct- nice rhetoric. This whole debate has been about the divergent opinions over what you just said.

Unless capitalism is sacred, and self-correcting, and always leads to the most efficient use of resources. Or is there some room for discussion of that, now that the capitalistically created credit crisis is upon us? And now that Wall Street is screaming for government intervention?

No, capitalism is not sacred. It is impossible to say that it leads to the most efficient use of resources, because everyone has a different opinion about what that means. However, it IS always self-correcting.

The credit crisis was not created by capitalism- this crisis was created by bad lenders engaging in unwise lending practices because on the one hand, the government was trying to force lenders to be “politically correct” rather than “economically sound,” and on the other hand because the lenders knew the government would bail them out.

The credit crisis was not a result of capitalism- if the lenders were operating with their own best interests in mind, without a government safety net, they never would have leant money to people who had no business borrowing money.

P.S. And please let us not fall into a discussion about whether the credit crisis was caused by very capitalistic institutions running amok. It was.

Too late.

P.P.S I have nothing against capitalism. I am a capitalitst.

Don’t kid yourself.

 

[Oscarthecat]

Oscar,

I hereby refuse to pay a cent to the military budget until we have provided adequate care to sick people in this country.

That is my choice, right? You don’t want to force me to participate in funding something if it impinges on my freedom?

That is absolutely correct. I completely agree with you, and I respect your right to refuse to pay taxes for those programs which conflict with your values.

It appears that we agree on something…

P.S. Please answer how paying taxes for anything is less coercive than paying into a national health care system. Thank you.

I don’t think you have been reading my posts. I have said on numerous occasions that ALL taxes are the exercise of coercive force by the government.

 

[Oscarthecat]

It seems to me that you are overlooking the simple fact that the private health care industry is very profitable, and is using its financial power to keep our elected officials firmly in its pocket.

No, I am very aware of that, and it has been at the crux of my position all along.

I have said numerous times that government officials are at the whim of their leash-holders. These would include insurance lobbyists, medical lobbyists, etc.

Do you suggest that we change our electoral finance laws, or even abolish lobbying, to get rid of their undue influence?

Yes…but only if we can’t just rid ourselves of the politicians.

Respectfully

Tor

Respectfully? Really?

P.S. Don’t give me Lasik. It does not even come close to exemplify the health issues that people are facing.

It is the perfect example of how medical procedures operate in the free market. Sorry if you don’t see that. You should look into the issue.

 

[LCMS_No_More]

That is absolutely correct. I completely agree with you, and I respect your right to refuse to pay taxes for those programs which conflict with your values.

It appears that we agree on something…

I don’t think you have been reading my posts. I have said on numerous occasions that ALL taxes are the exercise of coercive force by the government.

Actually, no they’re not. Taxes are part of the cost of living in our society. If you don’t like them, you’re not forced to live in our society. You, or anyone else, can leave anytime you want to.

 

[soma]

Yes, which is precisely why the government should get out of the way whenever possible so that individuals can go about their business.

,

Australia - Pope Benedict XVI urged young people Sunday to reject what he said was the “spiritual desert” spreading throughout the world and to embrace Christianity to build a new age free from greed and materialism.

The 81-year-old pope said it was up to a new generation of Christians to build a world in “which God’s gift of life is welcomed, respected and cherished — not rejected, feared as a threat and destroyed.”

The aim was “a new age in which hope liberates us from the shallowness, apathy and self-absorption which deadens our souls and poisons our relationships,” he said.

Get out of the spiritual desert and let’s care for everyone. Forget the few dollars in taxes you will save.

 

[warriorofpeace]

i got an account deleted for talking positively about the pope your threading on blasphamy you should consider reporting your self from this website

 

[SFTor]

No, I didn’t say that. What I said was that when someone is unable to pay, there should be charitable organizations in place to help them.

Once the cost of healthcare is returned to a reasonable, sustainable market level, then this will be possible.

Soon, under current UHC and insurance/government/provider systems, no one will have the ability to pay- not the individual, not the government, not the insurance companies…is that really what you want?

Odd that you seem to miss the connection between the flaws of the current systems, and the fact that both are based almost entirely on the concept of pooling resources.

Pooling resources in the manner of the current models is inherently flawed because the healthcare providers, and those who provide goods and services to the healthcare providers, are aware that our resources have been pooled. They know that as a result, we have greater resources, and are able to afford artificially inflated prices.

Pooling resources may appear to help the “little guy” in the market, but in reality, it only makes it possible for companies to charge the “little guy” prices that only the “big guy” could afford- consequently, while systems based on pooling resources may last for a short period, they will inevitably grow beyond the capacity of even those pooled resources.

If you keep the market tied to the reality of what people can afford, then prices will remain within reach. This is why MacDonald’s doesn’t charge $400 for a $1 hamburger, but diabetic supply companies can get away with charging $140 for a month’s supply of needles that cost 14 cents to produce.

Oh, I see the problem. What you’re doing is trying to fix the symptom of that problem.

Good luck with that, but don’t involve me in it- I’m busy addressing the real issues at hand.

Hmm, state your premise, and then state that you’re correct- nice rhetoric. This whole debate has been about the divergent opinions over what you just said.

No, capitalism is not sacred. It is impossible to say that it leads to the most efficient use of resources, because everyone has a different opinion about what that means. However, it IS always self-correcting.

The credit crisis was not created by capitalism- this crisis was created by bad lenders engaging in unwise lending practices because on the one hand, the government was trying to force lenders to be “politically correct” rather than “economically sound,” and on the other hand because the lenders knew the government would bail them out.

The credit crisis was not a result of capitalism- if the lenders were operating with their own best interests in mind, without a government safety net, they never would have leant money to people who had no business borrowing money.

Too late.

Don’t kid yourself.

OscartheCat:

Sorry to be so slow in the uptake, but it has taken me this long to realize that you are a dyed-in-the-wool Utopian.

You are one of those people who believe we should not pay a cent in taxes, and then everything will be fine.

No wonder this discussion has been so frustrating. You are discussing the issues of this country as pure theory. There are no people in this world you are describing. Well, sure there is, they are reasonable actors in a free market who behave predictably based on perfect and imperfect knowledge, and so on and so forth.

And based on this predictable and reasonable behavior we will not have to pay taxes, as we will obtain Pareto-optimal effects through the hidden hand of the free market etcetera etcetera etcetera.

But Oscar:

The social model you are describing has never existed anywhere in historical time. Ever.

The social model you are promoting will never exist in the future. Ever.

(Where do you have this world of yours? Is it a board game? Maybe a spreadsheet?)

So when you are talking about “discussing the real issues at hand” you have to know that you are being flatly dishonest. You are a fringe element in the discussion, Oscar. Nobody even considers your solution as being remotely possible or practical. And it certainly has nothing to do with reality, because we have never seen a world like the one that’s inside your head.

And it is so far from the reality in the streets and in the living rooms of real Americans that what you have to say about it is frankly irrelevant.

You drive cars made safe by public agencies, on roads built with public funds, eat your hamburger that was made safe by another public agency, and have your wallet and home property being held safe in the meantime by public agencies such as police departments, fire departments, and public courts.

Your health is benefiting from a large number of discoveries made by the National Institutes of Health and other public health institutions. You are communicating on the Internet, the precursors of which were FIDONet and ARPAnet, publicly funded technological developments. Your very culture is being maintained and cared for by public libraries and at least partly publicly funded institutions. Your kids, should you have any, are guaranteed a basic education to make them functional members of this society by government. When you get on a plane, your trip is made safe by a public agency. Maybe your trip even takes you to a national or state park so you can recharge your batteries.

And you are not the only one using these services, Oscar. All American companies are using these services to compete in the marketplace. They benefit from a well designed and comprehensive infrastructure, and a workforce that is healthy, educated, and reliable. And all of it is protected by a military that is funded by taxpayer dollars.

And in the middle of this, you are living in a fantasy world where you will only believe in the hidden hand of the free market. And every time that hidden hand of the free market puts us in the ditch, as it just has in this credit crisis, it’s someone else’s fault, preferrably the government’s. Always. When private health care demonstrates that is not up to the task, you want more of it, not less.

You use all these services every day, which for brevity’s sake is called a modern, industrial country, and you are so accustomed to it that you don’t even see it anymore. You certainly don’t see that it’s functioning is based on a combination of public services and private enterprise. If another country should dare to arrange their affairs so that health care is included in the basket of services, you call it “socialism,” although I can’t imagine that you don’t know that Japan, Korea, West Germany and Great Britain are no more “socialist” than we are, and that the United States is no less “socialist” than they.

When a problem that is not yours, at least not yet, is discussed, you insist that the individual should pay, and if he or she can’t they should give themselves up to charity. As I hope the above observations have shown, no other other important social issue is ever discussed in those terms. It’s just not how this country works.

Please join us in the real world, Oscar. You are certainly smart enough to do that.

Respectfully,

Tor

 

[cynic]

Brilliant.

There are no libertarian countries. Never happened. It’s a theoretical position that ignores history and assumes that people have unlimited knowledge and choice, and adequate purchasing power.

 

[jman507]

Now you want to say that Oscar isn’t facing reality, otherwise just “poisoning the pot”, and that capitalism has been shown to have had all kinds of problems when left to run amok. On the other hand, I find that his point about when you pool resources to also be important, that when the individual doesn’t feel the real cost of it then it “may last for a short period, they will inevitably grow beyond the capacity of even those pooled resources.” If you remove the feeling of the actual cost, there is a risk of demanding too much. Then you have either people having to feel hyperinflation, or the same problems as those institutions that fell.

You go pool everyone together to create a really big deficit, doesn’t take away the deficit. If it isn’t properly managed either way your in for a fall. The difference is that the one carrying the bigger capacity may buy some time, but the fall will be much worse. That is a fall the government is not able to bail out. As a business employer pick your poison, directly dealing with rising insurance costs or indirectly consumers losing their disposable income.