| Spanky |
08-11-2005 07:15 PM |
Quote:
Originally posted by Connect_the_Dots
So in scenario 1) the hospital eats the costs and in scenario 2) the insurance company eats the costs. You claim that in scenario 2) we might save money? DOes it not occur to you that now that someone else is picking up the tab the hospitals may have an incentive to provide more services that are non-life threatening because someone else is paying? Don't you think judgment calls about what's necessary and what isn't will now be much more likely to be in favor of providing services than they would be if the hospital were picking up the tab?
|
But isn't that the problem that is inherent with any insurance including car insurance. And it will be up to the insurance companys to make sure the hospitals don't overspend. I think we will be a lot better off when insurance companys are trying to protect their pecuniary interest instead of a government buereacy trying to contol costs (which is how it is done now).
Quote:
Originally posted by Connect_the_Dots
I pointed out (with your own examples) what would happen if government got involved. YOu don't think intruding in religion and childcare by government agents (your examples) are bad enough to warrant caution?
|
Again this is a side issue. But I consider not providing adequate healthcare to your children child abuse. So if you are beating up your kid, I think it prudent for the government to step in (I know, that you believe letting the government prevent child abuse could lead to a police state but that is a risk I am willing to take). Same goes if your kid gets sick and you don't get treatment. In my book that is abuse. If you call that freedeom of religion, what if my religion says that I need to torture my children. Freedom of religion stops where the exercise thereof inteferes with established law. And I anyway , I think child abuse is a good place to draw the line.
Quote:
Originally posted by Connect_the_Dots
Well, I don't think it's a good policy. It's not realistic because it runs counter to human nature (like most utopian social schemes).
|
Right now the system runs counter to human nature. I am trying to make the system work a little more rationally. Why don't you explain to me how the current system is so intune with human nature that the current system maximises efficiency by using incentives properly.
Quote:
Originally posted by Connect_the_Dots As I said, let people choose for themselves and live with the consequences.
|
Right now if you don't have health insurance, you get into an accident and end up bleading at the hospital I end up paying for it (see I said I instead of the government so I could make it clear that taxpayers end up paying the government tab in the end). So until people that can't pay are left bleading on the sidewalk people will not be living with the consequences of their own choices.
Quote:
Originally posted by Connect_the_Dots What is it about choice and free will that you liberals find so offensive?
|
1) I am OK with your free will until you dump toxic wastes in my back yard. Then your free will becomes a problem
2) I am not forcing anyone to do anything. If you don't want to pay for health insurance then you don't get to use the public roads.
3) I may be forcing you to pay for indigents peoples health care by taxing you but that is already happening under the current system.
PS. Ty, Sidd, SS, etc... I am a liberal. Here is a liberal that supports CAFTA, the Iraq war, and voted for Bush. Don't say Bush doesn't have broad based support. |
