“Thou shalt not kill also means thou shalt not let profit margins decide who lives and who dies”.

[Trevor Watkins]

“Thou shalt not kill also means thou shalt not let profit margins decide who lives and who dies”.

This meme was recently posted on the Stimulus group. It betrays such a confusion of concepts that it's hard to know where to begin. You can't just hijack an age old biblical saying and add any appendix to it that you choose. If I said thou shalt not kill also means thou shalt not pick your nose then the inanity of the saying would be obvious. Thou shalt not kill means Thou shalt not kill. 

A profit margin is an economic concept. It indicates the amount by which a selling price exceeds a buying or manufacturing price. It represents the portion of a company's sales revenue that it gets to keep as a profit, after subtracting all of its costs. A profit margin has no agency. It is not an individual.  It does not decide who lives and dies. Perhaps the individual inspecting the profit margin might come to one conclusion or  another based on its value. However, planning to kill your customers on the basis of a low profit margin is a very unlikely and very unprofitable event. 

A low profit margin is simply a signal that there is a fault in your business process. Your costs are too high or your returns are too low to sustain your business.  Better you become aware of this earlier rather than later, hence the reason for calculating the profit margin in the first place. 

Healthcare insurance companies operate in the “free market” to the extent that the vast health regulation allows. The company offers health products for which it believes there is a market and on which a profit can be made.  The clients freely choose which products they wish to purchase and at what price and subject to which conditions. No one holds a gun to the clients head, unlike some deranged individuals in New York. If they find that the product does not work for them they can usually drop that product after some contract period has  expired. To expect the healthcare company to provide services at a loss or for free is just a death knell for the company, and will simply result in a shortage of health services like in most Socialist countries. 

If the government chooses to provide free healthcare services paid for at taxpayer expense then that should be a decision of the majority in that country.

Trevor Watkins .. cSASI
bas...@gmail.com - 083 44 11 721 - www.individualist.one

[Stephen vJ]

This topic gives me heart palpitations. My recent medical issues and first hand experience with Canadian healthcare has finally and for ever cured me of any illusions that may have remained that public healthcare could work. I did not believe it could and now there is no need for belief anymore, as belief implies some absence of concrete proof.

There are many Canadians who say that the healthcare here is good, but I am yet to find any of those Canadians who have experience of healthcare anywhere else with which to compare their opinions. Those who do have experience of other systems will quickly tell you that almost any other system is better and many of those (who can afford it) fly to under-developed countries like Mexico and South Africa for their healthcare. Yes, you get better healthcare in Africa than in Canada.

I have long said that I cannot understand why people would want their healthcare to be worthless (aka free). To be fair, private healthcare is not free and money is indeed a barrier to getting the healthcare you need for many people... but the choice is not good healthcare for free vs. good healthcare for expensive. As PJ O'Rourke said, if you think healthcare is expensive now, image that healthcare with a government bureaucracy on top.

The real choice is between rationed healthcare vs. as efficient as a free market can possibly make it. There is no magical solution where you get both free and good - you either have bad (people die) or at a price (less people die). Market driven healthcare might cause some people to die because they cannot afford the care they need, but the alternative is to kill the market and then even more people die.

I've been here 7 years now and I already know 3 people who have passed away for reasons that could have been addressed and cured had they lived in South Africa or Mexico. Sure, in South Africa I knew double that number in the last 7 year before we left who were killed violently in hijackings, robberies and farm invasions, so I guess there is a trade-off... and we know which one I chose.

It's insightful to see though what people do when given the choice. In SA there are both public and private options, so most other factors being equal, one can learn a lot from what SAns choose. Despite 50% unemployment, 86% of SAns choose to go to private hospitals when sick or in need of bigger interventions. Last time I checked only 16% of them had health insurance, but with help from family, stockfels and loans, they manage to pay.

And what of the other 14% ? Well, they have a choice... several choices if you include clinics, sangomas, Dischem and those people advertising on lamp posts... which is more than can be said of Canada, where no amount of money will give you an alternative.

Stephen.

On Dec 14, 2024, at 06:02, Trevor Watkins <bas...@gmail.com> wrote:



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Individualist Movement" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to individualis...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/individualist/CAN6K2LmH3PwB53uvZ8R0czvzEjEDRn1k6wPgu47vQi6h3oAoPw%40mail.gmail.com.

[viv...@iafrica.com]

Thank you for these thoughts. Sorry to hear about you health problems.

---

From: "Stephen vJ" <sjaar...@gmail.com>
To: "individualist" <indivi...@googlegroups.com>
Cc: "Individualist Movement" <indivi...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, December 14, 2024 9:24:28 PM
Subject: Re: IM: “Thou shalt not kill also means thou shalt not let profit margins decide who lives and who dies”.

To view this discussion, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/individualist/AD744F70-6253-4193-9F65-FCD515B84BD6%40gmail.com.

[Trevor Watkins]

Nothing is more convincing than personal testimony. I really like your aphorism " worthless (aka free)" Made it into my quotes file (a rare honour).

With "free" healthcare, you pay continuously (as tax) whether you need the healthcare or not. There is no point in taking special measures to protect your health (a la Vitality), the cost of care from the state is always the same. You cannot pay for better care or service from the state, it is not offered as an option. You can like it or lump it, you silly drain on the state's resources.

Trevor Watkins .. cSASI
bas...@gmail.com - 083 44 11 721 - www.individualist.one

To view this discussion, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/individualist/AD744F70-6253-4193-9F65-FCD515B84BD6%40gmail.com.