Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: JohnM who wrote (39429)	7/10/2007 10:52:18 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 541479

1. The argument that if "the government pays for health care" (obviously, it's tax payers that do) then it could damage your health is deeply abstract. The argument that if the government pays for health care then it could damage you health may or may not be abstract but it wasn't the argument I made. The argument I made was that it would have more reason/incentive/justification to control more areas of your life, either by banning activities, heavily regulating them, or restricting your access to health care if you are involved with them or if that involvement causes the damage. That argument might be better expressed in an article I quoted in another thread --- The Nanny Two-Step Ben Adler at TAPped writes: This clearly expresses a fundamental tenet of conservative/libertarian thinking: that engaging in risky behavior with serious social costs is an entitlement. People who are injured by metal bats, or fall ill from smoking or fatty food, cost the rest of us money. We pay their emergency room bill, their Medicare bills or their Social Security disablity insurance. Only someone willing to forgo those benefits should have the right to also opt out of public health laws like those passed by the New York City Council, or pre-existing ones requiring that motorcyclists wear helmets and drivers wear seat belts. But Beston, like all conservatives, makes no serious suggestion about offering such an option in our society (much less explaining how it would be practically possible.) Instead he merely sneers at the New York City government's efforts to lower the costs that he, like all other taxpayers, will ultimately bear (and that, should rising health costs force the government to raise taxes, Beston and City Journal would surely bray against as well). Ah, man, you're so close: That's exactly why many of us object to having the public take on such responsibilities in the first place. Behold the weird alchemical powers of public subsidy: You start with a paradigm case of a self regarding act—choosing to engage in risk behaviors with your own body—which traditional liberal principles would place outside the sphere of state regulation as a core component of personal autonomy. But throw some public funds into the mix and—Abracadabra!—what had been the exercise of an individual right is transformed into the "imposition" of a cost on society. No behavior is so private that you can't regulate or ban it, so long as you're willing to subsidize it first!... juliansanchez.com Message 23512250 or in post in reply to that one "...Britain still subscribes to a system where health care is for the most part socialized. When the bureaucrat-priesthood of the National Health Service decides that a certain behavior is unacceptable, the consequences potentially involve more than scolding. For example, in 2005, Britain’s health service started refusing certain surgeries for fat people. An official behind the decision conceded that one of the considerations was cost. Fat people would benefit from the surgery less, and so they deserved it less. As Tony Harrison, a British health-care expert, explained to the Toronto Sun at the time, “Rationing is a reality when funding is limited.” But it’s impossible to distinguish such cost-cutting judgments from moral ones. The reasoning is obvious: Fat people, smokers and — soon — drinkers deserve less health care because they bring their problems on themselves. In short, they deserve it. This is a perfectly logical perspective, and if I were in charge of everybody’s health care, I would probably resort to similar logic. But I’m not in charge of everybody’s health care. Nor should anyone else be. In a free-market system, bad behavior will still have high costs personally and financially, but those costs are more likely to borne by you and you alone. The more you socialize the costs of personal liberty, the more license you give others to regulate it. Universal health care, once again all the rage in the United States, is an invitation for scolds to become nannies. I think many Brits understand this all too well, which is one reason why they want to fight the scolds here and now." article.nationalreview.com --- The point Moore makes about our present system is that since the provision of health insurance is a for-profit activity, the health insurers have significant motive to deny care. Then he mounts up some reasonably serious evidence to that effect. This is true. And its also true when health care insurance is not a for-profit activity. Moore shows cases when people where denied health care by private insurers. In countries with socialized health insurance they instead get denied by government insurance programs, either directly denied, or by being put on long wait lists. 2. Your point that he gives "one sided and distorted views" is only partially true. It is certainly one-sided, meant to counter the one-sided views that are the dominant ones in the US. And he does a nice job of countering them. As for "distorted," that's a judgment call too far. It's not your view but that hardly makes it "distorted." Unfortunately, support for a free market system of health care, or even for our current mix of free market and socialized health insurance, is hardly dominant in the US. Moore wasn't the first to push socialized health care or health insurance, and he wasn't the last. "Distorted" isn't even close to being a judgment to far. Its a perfect word to describe Moore's presentation in his movies. Its not a term I would use to describe all arguments for socialized health care or other themes that Moore has pushed. My use of it is not because the fact that I disagree with his ideas (other than the fact that if I didn't disagree I might not be motivated to make any reply at all)