PMS
Ah, the balance. That is the question. Do you want 1/8, 1/4 or 1/2 of your economic decisions taken out of your hands?
I don't mind paying, say, 10% of my income to support the less fortunate. I do mind paying more than half, especially since 95% of my life was spent in the 'less fortunate' category and I sure didn't get my share of government spending!
I believe we agree on all the points you mentioned except the following:
>I, for one, don't see much difference in paying $10,000 in tax plus $5,000 in health insurance and paying $15,000 in tax which covers 'free' health insurance.
I see lots of difference. To begin with, the amount and type of coverage I might want or need might be different than the coverage you want or need. I might prefer a $5,000 trauma deductible in order to pay a lower premium, for example. (I don't think that is even available in the already over-regulated U.S. market.)
Furthermore, the premiums I pay in taxes do not reflect my risks. For example, if I race cars, skydive, or smoke, I am taking risks that you subsidize. The fact that I don't have to pay higher premiums encourages me to take risks. "Why not, the state will pay."
Lastly, and most significantly, there is simply no way a public system can provide services as efficiently as a private system. Granted, there are many definitions of efficiency and there are other considerations aside from efficiency, which is why I support some degree of public health care. I simply believe it is my right to pay for extra, better or faster services if I wish. I am currently denied that right (unless I go to the U.S., of course). And yes, I am aware of all the arguments surrounding universality, etc.
Anyhow, this is a tax thread, and I've taken it into the public policy arena. My apologies, thread.
-g
P.S. You rant most eloquently. |
