Quote:
Originally posted by taxwonk
Do you really think these things through, or is your reaction automatic any time someone suggests that governmental oversight may be a necessary component of rational distribution of scarce resources?
|
Do you actually read what I say before responding? You constantly conflate questions and solutions in response to my challenges. To wit, you say insurance is necessary to prevent families from bankrupting themselves. Well, maybe. Maybe catastrophic insurance is necessary. And maybe people have access to it, or should be given it. But that doesn't call for a single-payer system. And none of that has anything to do with employer-supplied insurance. If I have an automatic reaction, it's to say "give me something more than a knee-jerk 'government solves all the problems and gives my daughters pink ponies, too'"
There are several layers of problems here, which you simplify to one: all people should have health insurance. Well, great, but you haven't made any effort to analyze whether they should have it by paying for it themselves, by getting it through their employers, by getting it through the government. Your simplistic response is "there's market failure, so of course the government should do it." Well, no. There's not market failure, there's a wealth-distribution problem (in your mind) that you think shouldn't impact whether people have accees to health insurance. Fine, we can disagree on that last point, but rather than throwing out barbs, why not make a little effort to analyze problems beyond calling everything market failure.
