[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: Risk v. Charity (was: RE: Workers Paradise. /Politica.
>Black Unicorn <[email protected]> wrote:
>> [email protected] wrote:
>> But I did site one example of a government
>> funded system that *is* less expensive than a market driven one.
>I believe this cite was refuted by another poster, that is if you mean the
>Canadian health system.
I did not respond to the other poster because it seemed clear that he was not
informed on the subject. While people debate the precise reasons for it, the
Canadian health system spends about two thirds as much as the U.S. system as a
percent of GNP while covering more people as a percent of population. This is a
>> >> 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.
>> Agreed, with one condition. I get to create a tax on tobacco products
>> and keep this additional revenue.
>Uh, what's your point here?
This is another way to create risk pool seperation as well as reduce health
costs. Some people will not be able to afford tobacco, reducing the potential
candidates for tobacco related illness. The additonal revenue can be used as a
"risk premium" to fund the related long term medical expenses.
>Markets, however, fail far less often then the left would have us believe.
>They also have the rather potent effect of reducing government
>involvement in everyday life.
I don't speak for the left, nor for the right. I don't think that there is a
unified voice on either side of the political spectrum. However I do find it
ironic that market driven health insurance has the potential to be more
intrusive into personal life than many government systems (cf. genetic
If all you do is replace Big Brother with Big Business, then all that has
changed is the name.
"what are cast as one-sided ... guidelines can be recast beneficially as
two-sided trade-offs" - Webb Stacy