How does the UK do it?
- Thread starter peilthetraveler
- Start date
VoodooMMI,
as a general rule, paying for everything yourself is reasonable.
There are some difficult areas, like if you have five kids and three of them are chronically ill or have disabilities etc.
Then we could talk health insurance policies, and if insurance was mandatory so that no child should be born without health insurance - you have some de facto type of universal health care.
So, ultimately it comes down to what kind of "rights" you think children should be born with. This is a simplification of the issue, but it's the essence.
as a general rule, paying for everything yourself is reasonable.
There are some difficult areas, like if you have five kids and three of them are chronically ill or have disabilities etc.
Then we could talk health insurance policies, and if insurance was mandatory so that no child should be born without health insurance - you have some de facto type of universal health care.
So, ultimately it comes down to what kind of "rights" you think children should be born with. This is a simplification of the issue, but it's the essence.
There is no doubt as to the astronomical growth of health care expenses, unless one is an elitest from the cradle and never works in their life. Pitooy on such people. I worked for my upper-middle-class life, thank you.
The debate is over the solution, and as a hard-line capitalist, I suggest the solution lies in the market. Recently, physicians, et al cite lawsuits as the largest expense responsible for high medical bills. Is this the krux? Should we push politricksters to enact and enforce caps on medical awards? Or should we leave awards alone and punish frivolous medical suits by sticking such plaintiffs with both sides' lawyer bills? Would such a penalty be sufficient deterrance against abuse?
Or is the krux a fiscal government responsibility? If so, responsibility and accountability of individuals is cut, families are weakened and society is confused. What good has ever come for ANY race of people by government subsidy? Sure didn't help most all blacks, indians, Mexicans, etc to turn them dependent on the government. And what did the nation get as an ROI for such redistribution of tax money?
Whichever route taken, if government ever gets off its ass and gets serious about the monthly financial plight of middle America without, or with too little, health coverage, the market must remain the balance for competition, not the government.
And before a few PC fools go off and try to use words bigger than they are, two of my best friends are black... who agree with what I just wrote (and are NOT voting for Hussein).
The debate is over the solution, and as a hard-line capitalist, I suggest the solution lies in the market. Recently, physicians, et al cite lawsuits as the largest expense responsible for high medical bills. Is this the krux? Should we push politricksters to enact and enforce caps on medical awards? Or should we leave awards alone and punish frivolous medical suits by sticking such plaintiffs with both sides' lawyer bills? Would such a penalty be sufficient deterrance against abuse?
Or is the krux a fiscal government responsibility? If so, responsibility and accountability of individuals is cut, families are weakened and society is confused. What good has ever come for ANY race of people by government subsidy? Sure didn't help most all blacks, indians, Mexicans, etc to turn them dependent on the government. And what did the nation get as an ROI for such redistribution of tax money?
Whichever route taken, if government ever gets off its ass and gets serious about the monthly financial plight of middle America without, or with too little, health coverage, the market must remain the balance for competition, not the government.
And before a few PC fools go off and try to use words bigger than they are, two of my best friends are black... who agree with what I just wrote (and are NOT voting for Hussein).
As we are not similar to most insects, reptiles or others who abandon their offspring at birth to fend for themselves - we take care of our children up to a particular age.
When should a parent no longer have to pay for their child? That age is set by us all - society - because we have chosen to live in something else than the completely separated existence of other humans.
If someone really wants to simplify life, don't pay any of the social burdens unless they want to - there are alternatives. There are people in the Amazon forest, in Africa and near the polar caps that do not worry about taxes or universal health care at all...
In 2019 there are planned new landings on the moon, and a decade later there are planned permanent structures on the moon.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon_landing#Future_plans
There is no threat to either political factions or religion in the future - it will explode in diversity when humans have cheap vehicles for going into space and establish permanent orbital or free-ranging stations. No doubt we will see this within 1000 years or less - unless we go through some catastrophic conflict or event.
As technology advance quickly, there will be new energy sources, cheaper advanced vehicles - and we will see some kind of new-found freedom with the option for permanent dwelling outside of the earth - Mars for sure. This will result in exactly the same conflicts that we saw when new continents were explored - with strong conflict, piracy and many types of rule or oppression. Make no mistake about it.
When should a parent no longer have to pay for their child? That age is set by us all - society - because we have chosen to live in something else than the completely separated existence of other humans.
If someone really wants to simplify life, don't pay any of the social burdens unless they want to - there are alternatives. There are people in the Amazon forest, in Africa and near the polar caps that do not worry about taxes or universal health care at all...
In 2019 there are planned new landings on the moon, and a decade later there are planned permanent structures on the moon.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon_landing#Future_plans
There is no threat to either political factions or religion in the future - it will explode in diversity when humans have cheap vehicles for going into space and establish permanent orbital or free-ranging stations. No doubt we will see this within 1000 years or less - unless we go through some catastrophic conflict or event.
As technology advance quickly, there will be new energy sources, cheaper advanced vehicles - and we will see some kind of new-found freedom with the option for permanent dwelling outside of the earth - Mars for sure. This will result in exactly the same conflicts that we saw when new continents were explored - with strong conflict, piracy and many types of rule or oppression. Make no mistake about it.
JOE STIGLITZ: It's a difficult problem. The peace dividend is not going to be as great as many people had hoped. Let me give you an example. I was mentioning the injuries and there have been so many injuries and so many bad injuries. The newest numbers coming out suggest that the fraction of those returning, that will be disabled in one way or another is 48 per cent. We actually use 39 per cent but the numbers coming in look much worse than we had anticipated. So our numbers are conservative. We had estimated in our more reasonable estimate that the total unfunded liability to take care of our returning disabled veterans, health care and disability benefits will exceed $600 billion. That's an amazing amount. It's roughly the order of magnitude the President said three years ago that we had a gap in our social security system. It threatened our economy, it threatened our ability to provide old age pensions for our elderly. Well, we've created just for the disabled in this war in the last five years, a gap equal to the gap that we created over decades in the social security system. So there is an enormous set of bills coming to and it's going to tie the hands of a future administration. Let alone the problem of figuring out how to get out of it.
http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2007/s2236161.htm
From some economics class I took in college, you can define 4 types of expenditures based on who pays the expenditure and on whom the money is spent. The possibilities are:
1) I pay the expenditure and the money is spent on me.
2) I pay the expenditure and the money is spent on someone else.
3) Someone else pays the expenditure and the money is spent on me.
4) Someone else pays the expenditure and the money is spent on still another person
Type 1 is most personal spending. I have an incentive to be frugal with the money yet I still buy things that I like.
Type 2 is, for example, when I buy a gift for someone. I have an incentive to be frugal with my money but I may not know the gift receiver's tastes and preferences well. So I may or may not buy them something that they would like to have.
Type 3 is like when I go to a business dinner and someone else is paying. I have no incentive to be frugal with the money but I'll buy something that I like. (Personally I usually order the filet mignon).
Type 4 characterizes a lot of government spending. It's not their money they are spending so there is no incentive to be frugal with the money. And secondly, the money is spent on someone else and the government probably doesn't know the tastes and preferences of those upon whom the money is being spent.
In general, I know what I want better than the government knows what I want. Could we change type 4 spending to another type? Yes, in some cases. Look at public housing. Instead of having federal government build rundown, poorly maintained apartment complexes when could just give the people that qualify some money to spend on their housing or how ever they see fit. But the feds think they know better what's good for us. We can't allow someone to choose what they could spend money on.
Want to read more. Check out the book "Free to Choose".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_to_choose
1) I pay the expenditure and the money is spent on me.
2) I pay the expenditure and the money is spent on someone else.
3) Someone else pays the expenditure and the money is spent on me.
4) Someone else pays the expenditure and the money is spent on still another person
Type 1 is most personal spending. I have an incentive to be frugal with the money yet I still buy things that I like.
Type 2 is, for example, when I buy a gift for someone. I have an incentive to be frugal with my money but I may not know the gift receiver's tastes and preferences well. So I may or may not buy them something that they would like to have.
Type 3 is like when I go to a business dinner and someone else is paying. I have no incentive to be frugal with the money but I'll buy something that I like. (Personally I usually order the filet mignon).
Type 4 characterizes a lot of government spending. It's not their money they are spending so there is no incentive to be frugal with the money. And secondly, the money is spent on someone else and the government probably doesn't know the tastes and preferences of those upon whom the money is being spent.
In general, I know what I want better than the government knows what I want. Could we change type 4 spending to another type? Yes, in some cases. Look at public housing. Instead of having federal government build rundown, poorly maintained apartment complexes when could just give the people that qualify some money to spend on their housing or how ever they see fit. But the feds think they know better what's good for us. We can't allow someone to choose what they could spend money on.
Want to read more. Check out the book "Free to Choose".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_to_choose
I actually agree with this statement to a degree. I do the same with my car, food, and clothes...I pay cash and its that simple...but hospitals really cheat you when you dont have health insurance. For Instance...my mother was babysitting my son when he was a baby and he had gotten a case of diarhea...My mom being worried took him to the hospital and the doctor checked him out and said there was nothing to worry about. 1 month later i get a hospital bill for 800 dollars. Does that sound reasonable? Imagine going to the grocery store and buying food. The food has no prices on it, and you get some milk, juice, eggs and bread and the store says they will send you a bill later. 1 month later you get a bill for 600 dollars for your bread, milk, juice and eggs. Does that sound fair?
In fact, if you go into any hospital in the US and ask how much it will cost for treatment, they dont know! Nobody will be able to tell you!
Now, I was in mexico one day and in the middle of the night my kid got a severe asthma attack. I drove him to the nearest private clinic which they had to open in the middle of the night to accomodate us, they gave him shots, breathing treatments and medicine which made him all better in a few hours. Cost: 50 dollars! That same treatment in the US would've run an unbelieveable amount of money especially if the doctor had to get out of bed to open the clinic for you!!! (heck diarhea cost 800$ in the US and they did nothing, imagine how much it would be if they actually did something!)