No, it is the reality of the human species that the big get bigger.
To an extent yes, but in the private sector their are limits, imposed by the nature of the market, and by the competition (and when there isn't competition for an extended length of time, its almost always because of government action). With the government there is a limit as well, nothing can grow at a very high rate forever if for no other reason that the universe is finite, but the limits for government are at a much higher level. Government doesn't face competition. If you don't like an Intel or Microsoft, you can get a computer with an AMD cpu and run Linux on it. If you don't like the IRS, you still have to pay.
So obviously what you said was simply not true.
No obviously it is true, as past history shows us.
Also, welfare to work, such as it was, cut off 'entitlements' to millions.
And such changes happen rarely, and are very controversial, even when they only effect people who are poor, and may be seen by some as undeserving. If instead the program covered everyone, it would be next to impossible to get rid of, or severely curtail, unless it was so bad that it was pulling the whole country down in a noticeable way (and even than change would be very difficult)
This is largely do to the point I've already mentioned. The program creates its own constituency, who see the benefits as a positive good to them (even if they might be paying more in taxes for the benefits than they are getting back).
But also there are particular reasons while it would be harder when you are dealing with health care insurance.
One of them is addressed in this blog post
A hidden cost of moving to socialized healthcare
Submitted by Arthur B. on Sat, 2008-02-02 14:46.
* Public
When I argue with Americans about socialized healthcare, I argue we shouldn't move towards it, when I argue with French people, I argue we should get out of it. Morally the arguments are roughly the same and there is no need to go into details here, you shouldn't be forced to buy an insurance service, period.
When arguing for getting out of the system, there are legitimate practical problems that I need to deal with. Even if the moral case is rock solid, the practical issues to move there are always relevant. There is a practical issue that I've never seen raised, and it's a tough one.
Imagine a socialized healthcare where everyone is insured. Insurance is mandatory so there are no adverse selection problems, the state forecasts the costs and adapts the premium - tt's actually not that hard to balance as long as it's fairly stable. Of course there are many other problems, moral hazards, the impossibility to decide what should or should not be covered, etc.
Imagine now that the government decides to get rid of the system. They say, from next year you'll have to find yourself a private insurer, or, from next year you can get opt out and get a private insurer if you wish. You have an expensive chronic illness, next year comes, you have no risk to insure so you try to stay with the state insurance, but because of adverse selection it goes bankrupt, or your premium increase dramatically.
Ok. I was actually never opposed that argument... but I could. So I've come up with some patchy solutions. One is to decide on a cutoff date, people born after next year will not be insured. That solves the problem, but it takes a century to get out of the system. Another solution involves the state's insurance making packs of 1000 insurred drawn at random and sell the pack (without revealing its content) to insurers comitting to offer insurance for life. Your risk has become insurrable again since you're just a random person. From there, you can always arrange with your insurance to move to another insurer and you're free again. It's a bit cumbersome but I think it works.
Ok the blog title was about moving towards it, and so far I've been talking about how to get out of it... what's my point ? I've heard many people argue for socialized healthcare on the US and the ground that it hasn't been tried, that it deserves to be tried etc. When you try something, that generally implies a free option to get out of it. Well, that option is not free, it comes at a huge cost. Getting out of socialized healthcare is a terrible mess.
Once it has been argued thoroughly that socialized healthcare is simply criminal, it might be helpful to point out that, if it's implemented and it fails, it might be almost impossible to get out of it. It cannot just be "tried", it's a very pricy commitment.
distributedrepublic.net |
