From: Black Unicorn <unicorn@schloss.li>
Date: Wed, 18 Sep 1996 17:14:28 +0800
To: jbugden@smtplink.alis.ca
Subject: RE: Risk v. Charity (was: RE: Workers Paradise. /Politica...
In-Reply-To: <9608178430.AA843010044@smtplink.alis.ca>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.94.960918010631.5150B-100000@polaris>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


On Tue, 17 Sep 1996 jbugden@smtplink.alis.ca wrote:

> Black Unicorn <unicorn@schloss.li> wrote:
> >On Tue, 17 Sep 1996 jbugden@smtplink.alis.ca wrote:
> >> Black Unicorn <unicorn@schloss.li>
> >> >You are saying that everyone on the planet has a right to health
> >> > insurance and disability insurance whether they can afford it or not.
> >> > This is folly.  The result is serious moral hazard problems.
> >> 
> >> Almost, but not quite. I'm saying that within our two countries at least
> >> (Canada, U.S.) everyone could have access to medically necessary
> >> procedures because the *society as a whole* can afford it.
> >
> >The decisions about what is or is not medically necessary must by
> >design be made by government in a socialized medicine regime.
> 
> People do make decisions that affect other people. If you feel safer in the good
> hands of Allstate than at the government trough, good for you.

I feel safer in the hands of the market where Allstate is but one
insurance carrier.

> Personally, I trust in Allah, but I still tie up my camel. 
> 
> > This evades an important point as well.  Namely, who cares if society
> > can afford it?
> 
> Some things are seen as investments in the future of a society. I view both
> Education and Health through this lens.

I'd like to hear the argument for Health.
I'd like to hear the argument for Education- particularly one which makes
socialized education systems the only, or even a good answer.

> >> But there is a balance between accurately pricing the risk and
> >> minimizing the cost of the bureacracy that polices this pricing. 
> >
> > Oh, I see.  Let's give the program to the government then.  Good idea.
> > That will reduce the cost of the bureacracy.
> 
> The point is still valid. Are we not trying to minimize this cost?

Now explain how government will reduce bureacracy and minimize cost
please.  Cite, if you will, a few examples.

> >> There are also many ways to modify behaviour, not all of them direct. 
> >
> > And all of them buy into the notion that people are not to be made
> > personally responsible for their high risk behavior.
> 
> There it is again. Blame the sick for their lack of moral fibre.

Blame the rich for their condition.
 
> 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.

> Besides, people are notoriously poor at
> evaluating the probability of unlikely events (see reference below). A
> "punishment" that happens 30 years after the "crime" is no deterrent.
> Prevention is usually cheaper than treatment. 

And now please describe how government and socialized medicine are better
at preventing lung cancer.

> > I prefer market solutions.
> 
> I prefer solutions.

Now please explain how government provides a superior solution.

> James

--
I hate lightning - finger for public key - Vote Monarchist
unicorn@schloss.li