|
A Usenet persona calling itself Chicago Paddling-Fishing wrote:
Scott Weiser wrote: : A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote: : Query to Scott, who claims: : ============ : the whole point of my statement in re health care is that it's wron to : COMPEL someone to pay for another's bad habits, bad genetics or bad : luck. : =========== : : Scott, why is it NOT wrong to COMPEL someone to pay for another's bad : habits, bad genetics or bad luck in areas other than heathcare? If it : is not wrong to do so in areas other than healthcare, what might those : areas be? Further, how/why do you make the distinction? : : Well, first, I said it IS wrong to compel someone to pay for another's bad : habits, bad genetics or bad luck in re health care. This does not imply that : it is otherwise acceptable to compel someone in other areas. This is the : logical fallacy of the extended analogy and is a red herring argument. Scotty; First, I'm guessing "wron" is "wrong"... right? The concept behind all insurance is some people are paying for someone elses claim... otherwise, we'd all be paying cash every time we visit the doc for anything... surgery too... same with car insurance, homeowners insurance... life insurance... The feature of private insurance that makes it morally and ethically acceptable is that it's VOLUNTARY. You get to choose your provider, and thus your risk group, and you create a voluntary contract with the members of your risk group to do precisely as you suggest. Or, you can choose not to join any risk group. Voluntary insurance is fine. Compulsory insurance is not, including compulsory "liability" insurance we have to carry on our vehicles. Typically, a person insures HIMSELF against risks posed by others or outside forces. He gets to assess his risks and also the possibility that he will do something wrong and end up at financial risk because he injured someone else, and he insures himself and his assets accordingly. If he has nothing by way of assets that would be put at risk, then he doesn't insure himself. If he miscalculates, then he pays for his lack of foresight. Mandatory "liability" insurance is the state requiring ME to pay for insuring EVERYONE ELSE. That's just wrong. It turns the entire insurance model completely on its head, and it's immoral and unethical, not to mention stupid. So is socialized medicine, as Canada and Great Britain prove. You, your company (or your trust fund) pay $'s hoping that you will pay in less than you use in services... We the taxpayers also help fund this because Uncle Sam makes it a tax deduction for companies that are paying for all or part of a employee's health insurance costs... But it shouldn't. Government should have nothing whatever to do with private health care systems or insurance, beyond regulating it to ensure it's not fraudulent. It's the same with taxes... when it comes to road taxes, smaller trucks subsidize larger trucks, smaller cars subsidize larger cars like your hummer (if you still have it) when it comes to paying for our nations roads. There is a significant difference between requiring me to pay for healing injuries or illnesses caused by your risky lifestyle and requiring me to pay along with everyone else for my use of public facilities. I can control my costs in re taxes (to some extent) and fees by reducing (or eliminating) my use of the facilities. I can ride a bike and not pay much of anything in highway taxes. I can avoid the public library and swimming pools and not have to pay those fees. I can live in the country, on a well, and not have to pay for the public water system. But I cannot control your lifestyle to reduce the economic risks I face when I'm compelled to pay for your health care. If I could, I'd ban kayaking, smoking and fatty foods right away. This is the grave danger of mandatory public health insurance, by the way. By asking me to pay for your health care, you implicitly accept some degree of restraint on your freedom to damage your health by those who pay for it. That's why private health care companies can exclude certain people, such as those with pre-existing conditions and smokers, among others, or can choose to charge them higher premiums for their higher risk exposure. Limiting the risk pool is one of the ways private insurers keep costs down. If you live a healthy lifestyle, why shouldn't you be allowed to choose a risk group of like-minded people in order to reduce your potential economic exposure for other people's bad health? When the government runs the program, it has not just an economic incentive but a political incentive to control risks and thus costs, and it will inevitably regulate what the bureaucrats consider "risky lifestyles" in order to pander to the clamoring of the public, who, like me, don't want to have to pay to fix your injuries related to kayaking...or climbing...or smoking...or any of a myriad of risky behaviors that free people choose to engage in. That camel's nose is already firmly under the tent, as demonstrated by the mandatory seat belt and airbag laws in both Canada and the US. The primary rationale (and necessary economic justification under the Commerce Clause, BTW) for imposing those restrictions on an individual's freedom is that "avoidable injuries" to car occupants cost society some purportedly egregious amount of money, which is said to justify government mandates that you use seat belts as a way to cut public costs, and to hell with individual liberty and freedom of choice. Do you really want the government auditing your lifestyle and giving you an order to "cease and desist" engaging in any activity it deems too "dangerous" and thus costly to the public health care system? Not me. Or, like me, why should you not choose to eschew the insurance racket entirely and "self-insure?" By putting away in the bank the nearly $400 a month I was paying in health insurance, I've managed to stash away a considerable sum of money for my health needs. I'm stimulated to stay as healthy as possible, given my age and medical condition, because I pay for every single doctor's visit and medication I use out of my own pocket. That means that I don't go running to the ER every time I have the sniffles, which costs everybody in an insurance pool money. If I can't afford expensive treatments for cancer or heart disease, well, I guess I will die. That's life. I would never demand that someone else, including the public, pay to keep me alive for a few more months or years. That's morally reprehensible, whether an individual does it or the government does it in the individual's stead. Everybody dies sometime, some sooner rather than later. It's unfortunate, but it's not something society has any obligation to prevent. Your health is your responsibility and nobody else's. If you fail to plan ahead to pay for your health needs, then YOU get to suffer, you don't get to shove the costs off on everyone else. That's neither fair, moral nor ethical. Nor is your statement that smaller cars are "subsidizing" my Hummer true. Smaller cars pay less in highway-related taxes than my Hummer, which pays less in taxes than a semi. I pay more for tires and fuel than the small car, and thus I pay more in taxes. So, I'm paying my "fair share" of highway fees, just as everyone else is. In fact, larger vehicles are more likely to be "subsidizing" smaller vehicles than vice versa, because of the less efficient use of highway space that single-occupant small cars cause. A bus is many times more efficient than the 60 or more "small cars" it takes to move the same number of people, even if all 60 are LEVs. Using that rationale, the bigger, the better, and small cars ought to be banned entirely, as they waste resources and clog up the highways. And then there's the massive subsidies for LEV (Low Emission Vehicles) from the government. I pay for those who, for example, own a Prius. I don't begrudge them that subsidy, though by rights I should, and as soon as they can engineer a 4 wheel drive pickup truck that will carry 4000+ pounds of payload and can tow at a maximum gross vehicle weight of 23,000 pounds at interstate highway speeds without bogging down on hills that uses the same sort of system the Prius does, I'll buy one. Hell, I'll pay to convert my Hummer if the technology becomes available. But it's not, so I'm stuck with owning what's available, and paying the higher costs because it's cheaper than buying two vehicles, one of which I couldn't use at times of the year even if I could afford it because I live at the end of a long, muddy driveway that's occasionally snowed-in. If you want to pay to pave my driveway and buy me a snowplow blade for the Hummer, I'll buy a Prius. You ought to be willing to do so, given your support for socialized medicine. The rationale is the same: Force someone else to pay more in order to gain some purported social benefit for everyone. In this case, you get to pay a lot more so that I can buy a LEV, thus saving gas and helping to prevent global warming. Sounds like a fair deal to me. Of course, I won't drive it all the time, because I may have to haul cargo and because I like driving a large truck...it makes me feel safer, but that shouldn't bother you, given your expectation that I should pay for your health risks during kayaking. When can I expect your check? It's the American way to expect someone else to foot at least part of your bill... Only in left-wing socialist Democrat America. The other (slightly more than half) of the country believes in self-sufficiency and personal responsibility. : It may well be wrong to compel someone to pay for another's bad habits, bad : genetics or bad luck in other areas...or not. However, what we are : discussing at the moment is health care. : I note that you don't dispute my statement. Do I therefore take it that you : agree with me? I would never agree with you... Sounds like a typical left-wing liberal Democrat version of rational debate... isn't there someplace else you'd rather be than R.B.P.? Sure. Down putting up concertina wire across the creek. But right now I'm having fun annoying you. -- Regards, Scott Weiser "I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM © 2005 Scott Weiser |
At this stage, I neither agree nor disagree: I ask for clarification.
Does your position apply only to healthcare? Is it otherwise acceptable to compel someone in areas other than healthcare? If so, why (or why not)? I'm looking for logical consistency in your position. |
Scotts figures:
============= Voluntary insurance is fine. Compulsory insurance is not, including compulsory "liability" insurance we have to carry on our vehicles. ============== WRONG! I need to know that when you put me out of action through an automobile accident, that you'll have enough insurance to cover my loss of income and sundry other expenses. Such insurance MUST be compulsory. If you don't like it, don't drive -- it's a fee you pay to be able to get on the road. |
A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote:
Scotts figures: ============= Voluntary insurance is fine. Compulsory insurance is not, including compulsory "liability" insurance we have to carry on our vehicles. ============== WRONG! I need to know that when you put me out of action through an automobile accident, that you'll have enough insurance to cover my loss of income and sundry other expenses. Why do you "need" to know this? What makes you believe that you have some inherent right to know this, or to demand that I have anything at all by way of insurance? Can you state any principle in the Constitution that gives you this "right" to demand such things of me? I think not. Your paranoia about being harmed by another driver is insufficient reason to impose an economic burden on me. The point is that if YOU are concerned about being "out of action" due to an automobile accident, then YOU should buy insurance against that risk, not compel ME to cover you in the incredibly unlikely event that we two should have a traffic accident together. Such insurance MUST be compulsory. Why? You're perfectly free to obtain insurance against such risks if you believe you need it. If I don't believe my chances of being harmed in an automobile accident are significant, then I donąt have to buy insurance. If I come to find that I was wrong, then thatąs my lookout, and I stand to lose everything either from tending to my own damages or as the result of a lawsuit brought by someone I harmed. That's my choice to make as a free citizen of this country. I wouldn't think of imposing the burden upon YOU of insuring ME against YOUR potential bad acts, much less the entire driving public. What is your justification for imposing such a burden on me, or anyone else? You are free to sue me if I do you harm should you decide not to buy accidental damage and injury insurance. That's the way it should be. Why "MUST" such insurance be compulsory? If you don't like it, don't drive I don't like it, and I do drive. I also argue and lobby for changes to the motor vehicle laws so that such ridiculous burdens are put where they belong--on the individual who is at risk. In Florida, you donąt have to have "liability" insurance at all, or so I hear. If you think you're at risk from other drivers, you buy insurance to cover YOUR potential loss, in an amount suited to YOUR assets and needs. It works just fine there, and should be universal. -- it's a fee you pay to be able to get on the road. Then why is it not a "fee?" Why do I have to contract with a private company and pay them for a full year's coverage, 24/7, that I don't need, as opposed to having this "fee" assessed by the government, which would then provide the insurance itself. This model is called "pay at the pump" and is based on an additional tax on motor fuel to fund a government-run compensation program for those injured by uninsured drivers. Even that system is fairer than the present one, because as it is, I have to pay for a full year's insurance even if I only drive some of my numerous vehicle as little as twice a year. At present, I pay an outrageous amount for liability insurance on my trash truck, which I use about 5 or 6 times a year to haul household garbage and trash from my farm to the waste transfer station three miles away. How is it fair that I have to pay for 365 days of coverage for YOUR benefit, not mine, for six uses and 18 miles a year? I ought to be able to pay for six days of coverage, or pay for whatever use I make of the truck on the public highways as a function of how much gasoline I use in it. And since we're on the issue of compulsory insurance, under what precept in law am I lawfully required to "show my papers" (insurance identification card) to any cop who asks, under penalty of criminal action if I refuse? What ever happened to the Fourth Amendment? That policy is a private contract between me and my insurance agent, and the police need both probable cause and a warrant to demand it of me, as the Fourth Amendment protects me from unreasonable searches and seizures of my "papers." This is an interesting fact you might want to cogitate upon. I have refused to show my insurance card to a cop for many years now because the law in Colorado does not actually require one to do so, and even to the extent it actually does, the law is unconstitutional under the SCOTUS precedent in Kolender v Lawson. I got a ticket for failing to show "immediate evidence of insurance" a while back, after a deer committed suicide by running into the side of my truck. The State Trooper had to fill out an accident report and demanded my "proof of insurance." I referred him to the statement on the back of the registration, which is an oath signed under penalty of perjury, that I had a policy that complied with the law. He wouldn't accept that as "immediate evidence of insurance," which is ALL the law requires me to provide in the field. I refused to give him any other information, exercising my right to remain silent, and he gave me a ticket. I demanded a jury trial, since driving without insurance is a misdemeanor criminal offense. When my lawyer went to the pre-trial hearing and explained my constitutional search-and-seizure objections to both the law and the manner in which it was being enforced, she said "What if I donąt have time to play constitutional games?" Excuse me? "Constitutional games?" Good thing I wasn't at the meeting, because I would have ripped her a new asshole for characterizing my defense of my fundamental Constitutional rights as a "game." When she found out I wouldn't roll over, and that I had an air-tight, Supreme Court-ratified argument that the law as written and as applied is unconstitutional, she dismissed the ticket. I donąt expect to ever show that particular "private paper" to any cop, ever, and I'm looking forward to getting more tickets for refusing to do so, in hopes of actually getting to trial, where I can have the statute overturned by the courts, thus freeing all Coloradoans from the tyranny of the police and a little, often outdated piece of meaningless paper. They made it a pain in my ass, so now I'm going to make it a pain in their ass. I'm betting I'm better at it than they are. So far I'm right. Sorry, but whether I carry insurance is none of your, or especially the government's business, and you can both go pound sand. If you don't like it, then don't drive. -- Regards, Scott Weiser "I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM © 2005 Scott Weiser |
Scott:
=========== You are free to sue me if I do you harm should you decide not to buy accidental damage and injury insurance. That's the way it should be. Why "MUST" such insurance be compulsory? =============== And if sue you, you may own nothing and then I'm SOL. That's why such insurance MUST be compulsory. Scott again: ================== Then why is it not a "fee?" Why do I have to contract with a private company and pay them for a full year's coverage, 24/7, that I don't need, as opposed to having this "fee" assessed by the government, which would then provide the insurance itself. =============== Well, in BC, you buy your insurance from a government insurance firm. Without it, you may not drive. Quite right too, IMHO. BTW, I too think it unfair that you pay 365 days insurance for only a few days use. Surely you can buy insurance for short-term use. As to Scott's assertion: "Sorry, but whether I carry insurance is none of your, or especially the government's business, and you can both go pound sand. If you don't like it, then don't drive." That may work in Colorado, but not in BC. And I'm thankful for that. |
|
Chicago Paddling-Fishing wrote:
Scott Weiser wrote: : A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote: : Query to Scott, who claims: : ============ : the whole point of my statement in re health care is that it's wron to : COMPEL someone to pay for another's bad habits, bad genetics or bad : luck. : =========== : : Scott, why is it NOT wrong to COMPEL someone to pay for another's bad : habits, bad genetics or bad luck in areas other than heathcare? If it : is not wrong to do so in areas other than healthcare, what might those : areas be? Further, how/why do you make the distinction? : : Well, first, I said it IS wrong to compel someone to pay for another's bad : habits, bad genetics or bad luck in re health care. This does not imply that : it is otherwise acceptable to compel someone in other areas. This is the : logical fallacy of the extended analogy and is a red herring argument. Scotty; First, I'm guessing "wron" is "wrong"... right? The concept behind all insurance is some people are paying for someone elses claim... otherwise, we'd all be paying cash every time we visit the doc for anything... surgery too... same with car insurance, homeowners insurance... life insurance... You, your company (or your trust fund) pay $'s hoping that you will pay in less than you use in services... We the taxpayers also help fund this because Uncle Sam makes it a tax deduction for companies that are paying for all or part of a employee's health insurance costs... It's the same with taxes... when it comes to road taxes, smaller trucks subsidize larger trucks, smaller cars subsidize larger cars like your hummer (if you still have it) when it comes to paying for our nations roads. If everybody had to pay their own way, this country wouldn't be worth defending because you would be defending someone else. If it is the Law of the Jungle, then it's the same law for EVERYTHING. |
I think that sums it up nicely! BEAUTIFUL!
|
Now, if a person WANTS to try to save someone, that's completely different. Yeah. And what I'm hearing from you is that you don't WANT to save anybody. You COULD, but you don't WANT to. |
A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote:
Scott: =========== You are free to sue me if I do you harm should you decide not to buy accidental damage and injury insurance. That's the way it should be. Why "MUST" such insurance be compulsory? =============== And if sue you, you may own nothing and then I'm SOL. True. That's an excellent reason for YOU to buy insurance to cover YOU against that risk, isn't it? In fact, that's the whole point of insurance, to insure YOU against harm caused by someone, or something else, like a fire, flood or burglar. "Liability" insurance, on the other hand, insures OTHERS against you. Screw that. I don't want to insure you against me. If you want to be insured against the wrongful acts of others, then YOU pay the bill. That's why such insurance MUST be compulsory. No, that's why YOU want to force ME to pay to insure YOU, it's not a reason why I should do so. If I don't own anything, and am therefore "judgment proof," then you need to buy insurance to protect you against people like me who might do you harm, not just in automobiles, but in any way. That's the way insurance works, you see. You decide how much risk you face and you pay a company to indemnify you for monetary losses associated with that risk. You don't demand that everyone else on the planet obtain "liability" insurance to cover you against some harm that they are statistically unlikely to cause. The fallacy of mandatory liability insurance is that it presumes that each driver is an equal risk when it comes to causing an accident, and that this means that all drivers should indemnify every other driver against loss. This means that a good driver pays far more in premiums than he should because he's not being insured based on HIS risk profile, instead he's being charged based on the aggregate risk profile of the *worst of the worst* drivers, ie: those drivers who are most likely to cause the insurance company to have to pay money. It's asinine for someone to have to pay based on the behavior of others they have no control over. Scott again: ================== Then why is it not a "fee?" Why do I have to contract with a private company and pay them for a full year's coverage, 24/7, that I don't need, as opposed to having this "fee" assessed by the government, which would then provide the insurance itself. =============== Well, in BC, you buy your insurance from a government insurance firm. Without it, you may not drive. Quite right too, IMHO. So, do you have to buy insurance as a pedestrian so that if you drunkenly step out into traffic and cause a driver to swerve and crash? No? Didn't think so. So why aren't you arguing for universal "user pays" liability insurance to protect you against any possible harm that someone else might possibly do to you...like, for example, burning down your house, or slugging you in the nose or hitting you in the head with a baseball bat? Why are those risks ones you have to pay to cover against but automobile liability insurance is coerced against someone else? Your system is somewhat better than ours, in that it's merely a compensation fund paid for by the highway users, who presumably pay about the same amount as everyone else, but it's still coercive where it should be voluntary. If I wish to take the risk of being injured by some dipwad on the highway and don't want to buy insurance to cover that risk, I should be allowed to do so. BTW, I too think it unfair that you pay 365 days insurance for only a few days use. Surely you can buy insurance for short-term use. Nope. I should be able to take the risk of driving the truck to the dump if I want, and if something bad happens and you and I collide, then no matter whose fault it is, your insurance company pays you for your damages. Then they sue me. In the mandatory liability policy model, when I cause a wreck, my liability insurer is liable for the damages, so my company will fight tooth and nail to deny the claim, defend me and my actions and place the blame on you, and you'll be lucky if you ever see a dime from my liability insurance policy. However, if YOU have insurance to protect YOU against harms caused by others, then YOUR insurance company has to pay off and then try to extract compensation from me, or my insurance company. You're much more likely to actually get a timely settlement if YOU insure yourself rather than trusting to MY insurance company's altruism. They call such insurance "uninsured motorist coverage," and it's designed precisely to compensate me if the person who harmed me is indigent or uninsured. In Colorado, in fact, it's a very good idea to have such coverage, because we just repealed the "no fault" law, in which each individual's insurer paid for their customer's loss no matter who was at fault, and then the two companies slugged it out in court. Now, even if I deliberately ram you with my car, you have to sue me anyway to get anything, and you can be sure that my insurance company will do everything in its power to prevent you from winning. And, if YOU don't have insurance against such risks, then YOUR liability insurance provider WILL NOT HELP YOU in court to win the case, as they would if it was their dime on the line. This means that you have to hire a private attorney in order to sue me, and you're up against the weight of a well-funded major insurance company's legal staff who are strongly motivated to keep from letting you win. But, if YOU had insurance against being rammed by me, then your company would have to pay you, and then your company would be the one suing me to try to recover their payout. So, the mandatory liability scam is not just a scam, it's quite dangerous to rely upon. Besides, I bet that under the BC system, you forfeit your right to sue anybody, because such forfeiture of rights is common in government-run insurance/compensation fund schemes...because the government doesn't want to be involved in litigation. As to Scott's assertion: "Sorry, but whether I carry insurance is none of your, or especially the government's business, and you can both go pound sand. If you don't like it, then don't drive." That may work in Colorado, but not in BC. And I'm thankful for that. Oh, I bet it happens in BC too. The point, however, is that your argument is specious and not logically supportable. It's quite socialistically predictable, but unsupportable nonetheless. -- Regards, Scott Weiser "I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM © 2005 Scott Weiser |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:39 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com