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