The Selfish Man's Guide to National Health Care
Perry E. Metzger
Care.
This article is designed to show you, the selfish voter, what the pros
and cons are for you. This article deals ONLY with the question of the
consequences of National Health Care to a selfish individual member of
society; I don't make any attempts to answer questions like "what
about the poor." If people want to discuss THAT issue, which is quite
seperate, I will do so gladly.
(The issue of whether there is a the moral imperitive to give the poor
government help with paying for health care is quite different from
the issue of how to provision this care to them. If we decided that
the poor MUST get aid of this kind, they could get, for instance, a
boost in welfare to give them the ability to buy private insurance, or
by adding funding to medicaid. Since National Health is not needed to
give government sponsored health care to the poor, I wish to consider
the issue of the "need" to give the poor aid in another thread.)
Fallacy 1: National Health Care isn't Free Health Care
An attempt is often made to delude the voter into thinking that
National Health Care would somehow be "free".
National health care isn't free. It will have to be paid for out of
tax money. The free market always provides services at least as
cheaply as government is capable of providing them at a given level of
service, so in order to provide service for those who do not pay
taxes, it will be necessary to charge those of us who do pay taxes
more (in the form of taxes) for National Health Care than would be
charged per consumer for private health care. If you have health
insurance now or can afford it, National Health Care will save you no
money at all. It may shift around the costs from premiums, or implicit
payments via your employer, into taxes, but it will NOT save you any
money.
In fact, given the perpetual tendancy of government bureaucracy to
cost far more than private enterprise, it is quite likely that
National Health Care may cost you even more than we would expect under
the naive assumption that the government can provide care as
efficiently as the market.
So, it is unlikely, if you have health coverage now, that National
Health Care will save you money.
2. National Health Care won't lower care costs.
Often National Health Care is touted as a way to reduce expenditures
on health care. We are often told about how health care prices are
skyrocketing, and told that something must be done.
However, all National Health Care will do is shift these costs from
direct payments by the consumer (possibly via their insurance
carriers) to payments by those same consumers via taxes. No money will
be saved.
Occasionally, it is proposed that National Health Care be combined
with the equivalent of price controls on health care (administered
either by government price fixing or government operation of all
health facilities.) However, let us recall our basic economics: price
controls may reduce costs, but only by reducing the quantity and/or
quality of service provided. It may take a while, but, for example,
price controls on doctors fees would reduce the number of doctors and
thus the quantity of care that could be provided. It might take years
for the number of doctors to go down (because people enter and leave
professions in a fairly slow manner), but it would happen. Similarly,
the cost of, say, CT scans could only be reduced either by lowering
the number of CT scans performed or forcing price controls on CT
scanner production (which would reduct the number available.)
Since the free market operates as economically efficiently as
possible, either National Health Care will cost the nation at least
the same amount as health care does now, or services shortages will
occur.
From the Selfish Man's point of view, no savings will accrue to him
thanks to National Health Care; per capita health care costs will not
lower unless his health care is sacrificed to lower costs.
(Please note that this doesn't take into account the inevitable
inefficiencies that would arise in a government controlled system, and
the inevitable increase in cost that this would entail.)
Perry Metzger
--
"Live Free or Die!"
For information on the Libertarian Party, call 1-800-682-1776
Barry Shein
>Fallacy 1: National Health Care isn't Free Health Care
Have you ever actually heard anyone claim this? Can you provide a
reference? Sounds like a strawman.
Actually, I was reading an article on this in the current Atlantic
(yeah yeah) and it was claimed that the total gross revenues of the
major health insurance companies was about $20B. Is this true? I don't
know, sounds a little low, but let's assume it's in the ballpark.
Now, if we do accept that figure, and then when we look at our federal
budget, it's not obvious that Nat'l Health Care, although not free,
isn't potentially quite a bargain. What's $20B in our federal budget?
A few per-cent. And we might be talking universal health care here
(obviously I'm begging the manageability question.)
Granted that $20B probably covers half the people in the US currently,
so double it. Still not all that expensive in the grand scheme of
things, $40B. Assuming 100M working people that's $400/year/worker.
Now, I can understand that you are PHILOSOPHICALLY opposed to the
whole idea.
But are you certain that it's as unworkable as you seem to claim?
When you do your figuring don't forget that the federal, local and
state govts are already paying a sizeable chunk of that $20B (on
behalf of their own employees.) So not all of it is new expense.
I'm not a big proponent of nat'l health care, so don't paint me with
that brush. But it is worth trying to work with some facts on the
issue (and I'm open to better facts.)
>2. National Health Care won't lower care costs.
Is this "fallacy" number 2?
>From the Selfish Man's point of view, no savings will accrue to him
>thanks to National Health Care; per capita health care costs will not
>lower unless his health care is sacrificed to lower costs.
Not self-evident, what's the total profit margin of health insurance
companies? How does that factor into your claim? How might that change?
--
-Barry Shein
Software Tool & Die | b...@world.std.com | uunet!world!bzs
Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 617-739-0202 | Login: 617-739-WRLD
Charles Nicoll;281 LSA;x2-1053
Perry, I hope you read this, because there's one more fundamental fallacy
you overlooked in your fine attempt to refute any egoistic basis for NHI:
Fallacy: Current U.S. Health Care problems are caused by a free market.
There is no free market in health care in the U.S., and there hasn't been
an approximation of one since the medical industry got organized along
the lines of a study performed by a Marxist commissioned by John D. Rocke-
feller's foundation which proposed to collectivize medicine. This included
using the monopoly granted to the AMA by the government to close half the
medical schools in the country. One of the earliest results of this
perestroika was that doctors ceased making house calls. This happened
in the 1920s.
Most of the problems with health care in the U.S. are caused by government
restriction of this vital service and by the increasing seizure of individual
funds which could be spent on that individual's health care needs or those
of his valued acquaintances.
Tim Starr
Think Universally, Act Selfishly
John Logajan
>> ... The free market always provides services at least as
>>cheaply as government is capable of providing them at a given level of
>>service,
>
Might well be. But then, the notion that government mandated services are
more utilitarian than free market provided services is likewise an article
of faith.
The difference between the two religions is that refusniks in the government
scheme have fines and/or jail cells awaiting them -- where as refusniks in
the free market scheme merely shop at another store.
Kinda puts a bad light on government action.
--
- John Logajan @ Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- log...@ns.network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
Jack Campin
> An attempt is often made to delude the voter into thinking that National
> Health Care would somehow be "free". National health care isn't free.
> It will have to be paid for out of tax money.
Good grief, how stupid do you think US voters are that they need to be told
this? Who on earth do you claim has asserted the contrary?
> In fact, given the perpetual tendancy of government bureaucracy to
> cost far more than private enterprise, it is quite likely that
> National Health Care may cost you even more than we would expect under
> the naive assumption that the government can provide care as
> efficiently as the market. [...]
> However, all National Health Care will do is shift these costs from
> direct payments by the consumer (possibly via their insurance
> carriers) to payments by those same consumers via taxes. No money will
> be saved. [...]
> (Please note that this doesn't take into account the inevitable
> inefficiencies that would arise in a government controlled system, and
> the inevitable increase in cost that this would entail.)
The evidence is all the other way. Private systems cost more in
bureaucracy than nationalized ones. A private system has to do the same
clerical operations as a nationalized one - supplies procurement and
salaries - and also has to undertake the extra tasks of moving money and
documents proving entitlement to money around between patients, insurers,
underwriters, shareholders, doctors and subcontractors, with every step
logged, checked, and audited. This is unproductive busywork that does
nothing towards getting people healthier.
Anyone who's ever had to deal with both the US health bureaucracy and a
socialized system will not be very surprised at this. It must take US
hospitals a tree per operation in billing forms. All a patient is likely
to see in a socialized system is the consent form.
Perry, how many health care systems have you been a patient in?
--
-- Jack Campin Computing Science Department, Glasgow University, 17 Lilybank
Gardens, Glasgow G12 8QQ, Scotland 041 339 8855 x6854 work 041 556 1878 home
JANET: ja...@dcs.glasgow.ac.uk BANG!net: via mcsun and ukc FAX: 041 330 4913
INTERNET: via nsfnet-relay.ac.uk BITNET: via UKACRL UUCP: ja...@glasgow.uucp
Barry Shein
From: rock...@socrates.umd.edu (Raul Rockwell)
>Barry Shein:
> Have you ever actually heard anyone claim this? Can you provide a
> reference? Sounds like a strawman.
>
>(or individual) to confuse it with.
Well, that's a new one on me, and I thought they called them strawmen
because they were set up only to be easily knocked down.
>How can you justify the assumption that a government-run enterprise
>will be as cheap as a privately run enterprise?
How can you justify that that's the only worthwhile goal in life?
>Also, what constitutional basis is there for the US Federal government
>to get into this business?
I dunno, they slipped national flood insurance and other such things
on us and I haven't heard any constitutional challenges.
The US Constitution mostly speaks loudest where it is silent. It's not
so much a list of what can be done (tho there are several important
exceptions), as a list of things which cannot be done (limitations of
powers, and rights reserved to the people and states.)
So the correct question is "tell me where the constitution prohibits
this?", not "where does it grant this?".
Chris Holt
[about National Health Care]
>Fallacy 1: National Health Care isn't Free Health Care
>An attempt is often made to delude the voter into thinking that
>National Health Care would somehow be "free".
Free at point of service. Nobody says free altogether. So why
"delude"?
> ... The free market always provides services at least as
>cheaply as government is capable of providing them at a given level of
>service,
This is an article of faith...
>so in order to provide service for those who do not pay
>taxes, it will be necessary to charge those of us who do pay taxes
>more (in the form of taxes) for National Health Care than would be
>charged per consumer for private health care. If you have health
>insurance now or can afford it, National Health Care will save you no
>money at all.
Two things come to mind. (i) Doctors' salaries may fall; this
would result in less cost overall. (ii) The entire apparatus
of medical insurance might be reduced. This might mean that
all of those insurance agent's salaries wouldn't have to be
paid for.
>Occasionally, it is proposed that National Health Care be combined
>with the equivalent of price controls on health care (administered
>either by government price fixing or government operation of all
>health facilities.) However, let us recall our basic economics: price
>controls may reduce costs, but only by reducing the quantity and/or
>quality of service provided.
This only applies in a free market, to material goods. If you
think the medical profession is a free market, I'm startled; and
if you think that people choose the medical profession mainly
for monetary reward, you live in an area with very different
ethics to the ones I've been in.
>It may take a while, but, for example,
>price controls on doctors fees would reduce the number of doctors and
>thus the quantity of care that could be provided. It might take years
>for the number of doctors to go down (because people enter and leave
>professions in a fairly slow manner), but it would happen.
Why? It's not obvious that the supply of doctors is at the right
point of the supply/demand curve.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chris...@newcastle.ac.uk Computing Lab, U of Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Salacious images dance through programs written in Freud..."
Russ Anderson
> Care.
Actually, it has been a big item on the liberal agenda for at least 50 years.
The reason it is gaining support is that more conservative politicians are
starting to support it. MacNeil-Leher had a story on National Health Care.
The two Senators speaking to support it were Ted Kennedy (no suprise there)
and Orin Hatch (which caught my attention). It seems that the public is
putting pressure on Congress to support National Health Care and conservative
politicians, who can read a poll a good as anyone, are starting to get the
message. With the baby boomers getting older, they are getting more concerned
about health care.
Another change is that several large corporations have started supporting
National Health Care. The big three American auto manufacturers support it
because they have an older work force than Japan and are betting that their
tax bill will be lower than paying private insurance for their workers.
> Fallacy 1: National Health Care isn't Free Health Care
Agreed.
> 2. National Health Care won't lower care costs.
Agreed.
The point is that the issue will not be decided based on economics (or even
comon sense). (If decisions were made that way, we would not have social
security.) You have to look at the political view, who are the major players
supporting each side. National Health Care got no where when supported only
by the "liberals". Now some big buisnesses and more baby boomers are jumping
on the bandwagon. Conservative politicians, not wanting to get run over, are
starting to climb on board. Watch out, it's coming....
--
Russ Anderson | Disclaimer: Any statements are my own and do not reflect
------------------ upon my employer or anyone else. (c) 1991
Twins' Scott Erickson 13-3, 2.02 ERA (on his way to the Cy Young Award!)
Raul Rockwell
>Fallacy 1: National Health Care isn't Free Health Care
Barry Shein:
Have you ever actually heard anyone claim this? Can you provide a
reference? Sounds like a strawman.
No it doesn't. A strawman only exists where there is some other claim
(or individual) to confuse it with. Since a national health care
system has tendencies higher costs than a private health care system,
the nationalization is not free.
Actually, I was reading an article on this in the current Atlantic
(yeah yeah) and it was claimed that the total gross revenues of the
major health insurance companies was about $20B. Is this true? I
don't know, sounds a little low, but let's assume it's in the
ballpark.
Now, if we do accept that figure, and then when we look at our
federal budget, it's not obvious that Nat'l Health Care, although
not free, isn't potentially quite a bargain. What's $20B in our
federal budget? A few per-cent. And we might be talking universal
health care here (obviously I'm begging the manageability
question.)
You sure are.
How can you justify the assumption that a government-run enterprise
will be as cheap as a privately run enterprise?
Also, what constitutional basis is there for the US Federal government
to get into this business?
--
Raul <rock...@socrates.umd.edu>
timothy.a.carlson
>> ... The free market always provides services at least as
>>cheaply as government is capable of providing them at a given level of
>>service,
>
>This is an article of faith...
Hardly. Public vs. Private schools immediately comes to mind. Private
schools provide a better education at half the cost. Private parcel
carriers outperform the US postal service hands down. There is a big
movement in city and county govt towards privatization now, which I
hardly think is motivated by "faith". Do YOU have any clear examples
where a public service is cheaper than a private version?
>This only applies in a free market, to material goods. If you
>think the medical profession is a free market, I'm startled; and
>if you think that people choose the medical profession mainly
>for monetary reward, you live in an area with very different
>ethics to the ones I've been in.
You certainly shouldn't go into the medical field if $ is your only
motivation - it requires too much dedication to be in it solely for
that reason. However, were we to reduce and cap physicians salaries,
I'm certain that putting up with 8 years of school and hellishly
long shifts during internship and residency would seem a lot less
attractive. I have three friends who are now physicians - all are
dedicated, none go as far as being altruistic.
>
>>It may take a while, but, for example,
>>price controls on doctors fees would reduce the number of doctors and
>>thus the quantity of care that could be provided. It might take years
>>for the number of doctors to go down (because people enter and leave
>>professions in a fairly slow manner), but it would happen.
>
>Why? It's not obvious that the supply of doctors is at the right
>point of the supply/demand curve.
>
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Chris...@newcastle.ac.uk Computing Lab, U of Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> "Salacious images dance through programs written in Freud..."
Chris, how about some first hand accounts of your experience with the
system in the UK? What parts do you feel work and what parts don't?
Tim
Perry E. Metzger
>
>>Fallacy 1: National Health Care isn't Free Health Care
>
>Have you ever actually heard anyone claim this? Can you provide a
>reference? Sounds like a strawman.
The same morning that I posted the message, I had heard a story on NPR
about some people protesting that people can't afford health care any
more and demanding that the government provide "Free" health care.
People on the net may be smart enough to understand the difference,
but there are lots of statists out there trying to convince people
that somehow government "health care" would be free.
>Actually, I was reading an article on this in the current Atlantic
>(yeah yeah) and it was claimed that the total gross revenues of the
>major health insurance companies was about $20B. Is this true? I don't
>know, sounds a little low, but let's assume it's in the ballpark.
I might believe that it is the quantity of money they earn, but not
the quantity of money that they take in in premiums.
>Granted that $20B probably covers half the people in the US currently,
>so double it. Still not all that expensive in the grand scheme of
>things, $40B. Assuming 100M working people that's $400/year/worker.
Thats NOT a realistic figure.
>Now, I can understand that you are PHILOSOPHICALLY opposed to the
>whole idea.
>
>But are you certain that it's as unworkable as you seem to claim?
I spent an entire message pointing out the essential problem, which
prehaps I will have to restate.
IF you already have health insurance, THEN it is no advantage to you,
and indeed a disadvantage because your costss will NECESSARILY go up
because you will start to have to pay for other people's health care.
This even discounts the fact that no government program ever works as
efficiently as the free market.
>>2. National Health Care won't lower care costs.
>
>Is this "fallacy" number 2?
>
>>From the Selfish Man's point of view, no savings will accrue to him
>>thanks to National Health Care; per capita health care costs will not
>>lower unless his health care is sacrificed to lower costs.
>
>Not self-evident,
If it was self evident, I wouldn't have spent paragraphs explaining it
which you elided. My basic point was that the market already provides
things at near-minimal cost for the level of service provided, so that
in order to lower prices service levels must necessarily be lowered. I
invite those who want to read my full explanation to re-read my
original article; it was detailed.
>what's the total profit margin of health insurance
>companies? How does that factor into your claim? How might that change?
Even with profit margins factored in, UPS and Fedex cost less to
deliver a package than USPS spends (although not necessarily less than
they charge; there are subsidies).
Even with profit margins factored in, private waste collectors charge
less to remove trash in those towns in northern New Jersey with
private trash removal services than it costs those towns with
municipal trash removal to remove that trash.
Even with profit margins factored in, AT&T delivers phone service
cheaper than any european PTT spends for comprable calls (though again
not necessarily less than they charge), even though AT&T is an evil
profit mongering giant and the PTTs are run by loving socialists who
want nothing for the best for the country, even if it sometimes takes
ten minutes to get a call through from Lyon to Paris.
Scott Cromar
> This article is designed to show you, the selfish voter, what the pros
> and cons are for you. This article deals ONLY with the question of the
> consequences of National Health Care to a selfish individual member of
> society; I don't make any attempts to answer questions like "what
> about the poor."
Fair enough. That's a good basis for discussion. Could we also keep
the inevitable discussion of libertarian philosophical objections to
government programs on another thread too? (Out of courtesy for our
friends in sci.econ.)
> Fallacy 1: National Health Care isn't Free Health Care
> An attempt is often made to delude the voter into thinking that
> National Health Care would somehow be "free".
I've never heard this argument before. The argument I've heard is
that it would be cheaper to pay the government to provide basic health
care. Usually such arguments are backed up by comparisons with our
neighbor to the north. (If I remember correctly, Canadians pay 1/3 of
the amount Americans do for health care. Please correct me if I'm
wrong.)
> National health care isn't free. It will have to be paid for out of
> tax money. The free market always provides services at least as
> cheaply as government is capable of providing them at a given level of
> service, so in order to provide service for those who do not pay
> taxes, it will be necessary to charge those of us who do pay taxes
> more (in the form of taxes) for National Health Care than would be
> charged per consumer for private health care. If you have health
> insurance now or can afford it, National Health Care will save you no
> money at all. It may shift around the costs from premiums, or implicit
> payments via your employer, into taxes, but it will NOT save you any
> money.
As I understand it, we will save money by providing basic medical
services for the poor. Right now, we are paying for the poor to wait
until their problem becomes an emergency, and then we pay for their
emergency room care. This is one of the most expensive ways to
provide care.
(We pay for emergency room care, either through increased medical
bills or through direct tax subsidies.)
The Tuesday New York Times had an article with some statistics that
back up this assertion. They looked at the Hawaii system. There
people had twice as many doctors visits and half as many hospital
stays as the national average. As Hawaii's director of health said,
"The emergency room is not the place to get prenatal care."
> In fact, given the perpetual tendancy of government bureaucracy to
> cost far more than private enterprise, it is quite likely that
> National Health Care may cost you even more than we would expect under
> the naive assumption that the government can provide care as
> efficiently as the market.
In a national health care system, we would be able to drastically cut
the level of bureaucratic oversight in our current system. Now a lot
of redundant effort is provided (for example for state and federal
Medicare and Medicaid oversight, the separate agencies responsible for
aiding hospitals, etc). With a Canadian-style system, a far lower
level of bureaucracy is needed to get the job done. I think that
we're shooting ourselves in the foot by concentrating so much on ways
to deny people health care. If we could just eliminate all the
bureaucracy that spends its time searching for reasons to deny
benefits, the savings would be enormous. (I don't reall the actual
numbers, but someone gave an estimate on the radio a few weeks back,
and it was a substantial chunk of change.)
Also, there is no reason to suspect that costs will skyrocket in a
national health care system (at least one dedicated to basic services,
not extraordinary care). Again, the Hawaiian system is a good
example. While it is near the top of the list in cost of living, it
is near the bottom of the list in average helath insurance
premiums--despite near universal coverage.
(By the way, the Hawaiian system does set limits on the amount of care
the state provides for those it covers. It limits coverage to five
days of hospital stay per year, and there are other limits.)
> So, it is unlikely, if you have health coverage now, that National
> Health Care will save you money.
For the reasons outlined above, among others, most proponents of a
basic national health care system disagree.
(Again, the type of system I'm talking about is one where basic
services are provided, not heart transplants and the like. Limits on
benefits like those in Oregon are one possible way to accomplish
this. If people want big-money coverage, they can still go to private
insurance.)
> 2. National Health Care won't lower care costs.
> Often National Health Care is touted as a way to reduce expenditures
> on health care. We are often told about how health care prices are
> skyrocketing, and told that something must be done.
> However, all National Health Care will do is shift these costs from
> direct payments by the consumer (possibly via their insurance
> carriers) to payments by those same consumers via taxes. No money will
> be saved.
Even though the money goes through the government en route to the
caregiver, it is still a more direct route than most of the current
money. Now, emergency room service for the poor is divided up among
the paying customers, who pass it off to their insurance companies
(average overhead of 14% for them), who pass it back to the customer,
who declares it on his taxes... A national health care system like
Canada's would drastically cut back on the amount of chasing around
each dollar has to do. In addition, a lot of money could be saved
because of the simplified billing that would be possible.
> Occasionally, it is proposed that National Health Care be combined
> with the equivalent of price controls on health care (administered
> either by government price fixing or government operation of all
> health facilities.) However, let us recall our basic economics: price
> controls may reduce costs, but only by reducing the quantity and/or
> quality of service provided. It may take a while, but, for example,
> price controls on doctors fees would reduce the number of doctors and
> thus the quantity of care that could be provided. It might take years
> for the number of doctors to go down (because people enter and leave
> professions in a fairly slow manner), but it would happen. Similarly,
> the cost of, say, CT scans could only be reduced either by lowering
> the number of CT scans performed or forcing price controls on CT
> scanner production (which would reduct the number available.)
I refer to the Canadian and Hawaiian examples again. Anyone who has
been treated in both Canada and the US want to comment? Most people
I've spoken with who have say that they prefer the Canadian system.
> Since the free market operates as economically efficiently as
> possible, either National Health Care will cost the nation at least
> the same amount as health care does now, or services shortages will
> occur.
I disagree, for the reasons in the last section, among others.
> From the Selfish Man's point of view, no savings will accrue to him
> thanks to National Health Care; per capita health care costs will not
> lower unless his health care is sacrificed to lower costs.
On the contrary, I believe that a national health care system which
concentrates on basic services and not extraordinary care could save a
great deal of money, from the selfish man's point of view. We're
already paying for the medical care of the uninsured in the emergency
rooms; it would be a lot cheaper to pay for it directly through taxes.
One thing needs to be addressed if you want to save money for
everyone--tort reform. Malpractice awards are far in excess of any
reasonable amount. If we went to a system of state-appointed boards of
experts to analyze cases, we would end up with a system that is fairer
and cheaper for everyone involved.
--
--Scott Cromar SUPPORT CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM
"One wonders whether Madonna Knows Maidenform sells this stuff at retail."
--Roger Ebert
Barry Shein
From: met...@watson.ibm.com (Perry E. Metzger) [responding to me]
>>>Fallacy 1: National Health Care isn't Free Health Care
>>
>>Have you ever actually heard anyone claim this? Can you provide a
>>reference? Sounds like a strawman.
>
>The same morning that I posted the message, I had heard a story on NPR
>about some people protesting that people can't afford health care any
>more and demanding that the government provide "Free" health care.
>People on the net may be smart enough to understand the difference,
>but there are lots of statists out there trying to convince people
>that somehow government "health care" would be free.
Well, that's a far cry from "free", people get their rent paid thru
welfare also, but I've never heard anyone say that this means to the
general public that rent is free.
>>Actually, I was reading an article on this in the current Atlantic
>>(yeah yeah) and it was claimed that the total gross revenues of the
>>major health insurance companies was about $20B. Is this true? I don't
>>know, sounds a little low, but let's assume it's in the ballpark.
>
>I might believe that it is the quantity of money they earn, but not
>the quantity of money that they take in in premiums.
That would be a bit high, I don't think there are more than 5
companies that have earned even $1B in a year (maybe 10), and none of
them are insurance companies (IBM, Exxon, GM, maybe a few others.)
And the curves on earnings usually drop exponentially after the top
5-10 earners in an industry are accounted for (Aetna, Liberty Mutual,
a few others.)
Maybe, but that doesn't gibe either.
I think $20B is just a bit low for gross revenues, perhaps it's the
top N companies gross revenues.
>>Granted that $20B probably covers half the people in the US currently,
>>so double it. Still not all that expensive in the grand scheme of
>>things, $40B. Assuming 100M working people that's $400/year/worker.
>
>Thats NOT a realistic figure.
Ok, what is?
You could at least offer what you think is a better, rough figure, you
must have something in mind.
>IF you already have health insurance, THEN it is no advantage to you,
>and indeed a disadvantage because your costss will NECESSARILY go up
>because you will start to have to pay for other people's health care.
>This even discounts the fact that no government program ever works as
>efficiently as the free market.
That's only true if you assume you will also always have insurance.
You could find yourself out of work for a time, or disabled, or old
etc.
That's the sort of thing people get concerned about.
>>what's the total profit margin of health insurance
>>companies? How does that factor into your claim? How might that change?
>
>Even with profit margins factored in, UPS and Fedex cost less to
>deliver a package than USPS spends (although not necessarily less than
>they charge; there are subsidies).
Sure, for $10 or more per letter. But I can't mail a simple letter for
29c thru them. I think most of us understand that this is underlying
some of the overhead costs. I don't think UPS or Fedex are all that
much less on overnight packages, like a dollar or two.
Well, I can't figure out if you mean "costs less to the consumer" or
"costs less to them" per package.
>Even with profit margins factored in, AT&T delivers phone service
>cheaper than any european PTT spends for comprable calls (though again
>not necessarily less than they charge), even though AT&T is an evil
>profit mongering giant and the PTTs are run by loving socialists who
>want nothing for the best for the country, even if it sometimes takes
>ten minutes to get a call through from Lyon to Paris.
I like AT&T.
But that aside, they did build that business out of essentially the
same deal as the PTT's had, until what was it? 1983? This story isn't
over yet.
Anyhow, one can also cite all sorts of other problems we'd find
intolerable in many of those countries that have nothing to do with
what you're describing. And vice versa, things in this country they'd
find intolerable that aren't caused by govt run entities. Ya know,
like lack of national health care...
Paul Barton-Davis
>In article <BZS.91Ju...@world.std.com> b...@world.std.com (Barry Shein) writes:
>
>>Actually, I was reading an article on this in the current Atlantic
>>(yeah yeah) and it was claimed that the total gross revenues of the
>>major health insurance companies was about $20B. Is this true? I don't
>>know, sounds a little low, but let's assume it's in the ballpark.
>
>I might believe that it is the quantity of money they earn, but not
>the quantity of money that they take in in premiums.
>
>>Granted that $20B probably covers half the people in the US currently,
>>so double it. Still not all that expensive in the grand scheme of
>>things, $40B. Assuming 100M working people that's $400/year/worker.
>
>Thats NOT a realistic figure.
>
Yesterday, I got a letter from my employer (who pays 100% of my
insurance premiums) that included a cost per employee of about $378,
for both "health" and dental coverage. This figure may not have been
including spouses - if not, the actual cost per employee goes down.
This covers all employees of the state of Washington. So perhaps $400
--
"I love children, but I couldn't eat a whole one"
- my sister, a mother.
Paul Barton-Davis
>>met...@watson.ibm.com (Perry E. Metzger) wrote:
>>> An attempt is often made to delude the voter into thinking that National
>>> Health Care would somehow be "free". National health care isn't free.
>>> It will have to be paid for out of tax money.
>>
>>Good grief, how stupid do you think US voters are that they need to be told
>>this? Who on earth do you claim has asserted the contrary?
>
>asserting that we need "free government health care" to a guy that
>handed me a flyer on April 15th outside the main post office in New
>York (guess what I was doing there...) saying that the government
>should stop spending money on bombs and start giving people "free
>national health insurance". I think that US voters DO need to be told
>over and over that it isn't free. Its important that people see that
>clearly, which they don't when they are told about the importance of
>"agricultural subsidies" or whatever program is being pushed this week.
I'll offer Perry my moderate support in this, even if its only
supporting a "Truth In Advertising" morality.
>That must explain why all those South American countries are trying as
>fast as they can to denationalize all their industries (ditto in
>Eastern Europe): it must be so that the increase in bureaucracy that
>private enterprise will bring will give people more jobs!
I don't know about South America; I do know that I can suggest a very
different reason why the UK's nationalized industries were/are being
sold off like crazy. The state dumps millions of dollars into them for
several decades, and then suddenly, there they are, priced way under
the market value, and generally low risk options. When the risk went
up (as for the water supply authorities), private enterprise, bless
its heart, didn't want to bite. These industries were sold off more
than anything else because some people could very rich by buying into
them. Any other effects could rightly be considered secondary. I
consider that plain wrong.
>Tell me, have you ever seen a government organization that required
>FEWER forms than a private company?
The INS requires fewer forms than most health care institions I've
been in. Voter registration, car licensing and drivers test were all
significantly form-reduced in WA by comparison with registering
products for warranty, buying furniture at a store called Dania in
Seattle, and renting our apartment.
Oh, wait, I forgot. All *those* forms were because of government
regulations, right ?
pip-pip !
-- paul
Perry E. Metzger
>> An attempt is often made to delude the voter into thinking that National
>> Health Care would somehow be "free". National health care isn't free.
>> It will have to be paid for out of tax money.
>
>Good grief, how stupid do you think US voters are that they need to be told
>this? Who on earth do you claim has asserted the contrary?
I've heard it many times, in everything from news coverage of people
asserting that we need "free government health care" to a guy that
handed me a flyer on April 15th outside the main post office in New
York (guess what I was doing there...) saying that the government
should stop spending money on bombs and start giving people "free
national health insurance". I think that US voters DO need to be told
over and over that it isn't free. Its important that people see that
clearly, which they don't when they are told about the importance of
"agricultural subsidies" or whatever program is being pushed this week.
>> In fact, given the perpetual tendancy of government bureaucracy to
>> cost far more than private enterprise, it is quite likely that
>> National Health Care may cost you even more than we would expect under
>> the naive assumption that the government can provide care as
>> efficiently as the market. [...]
>> However, all National Health Care will do is shift these costs from
>> direct payments by the consumer (possibly via their insurance
>> carriers) to payments by those same consumers via taxes. No money will
>> be saved. [...]
>> (Please note that this doesn't take into account the inevitable
>> inefficiencies that would arise in a government controlled system, and
>> the inevitable increase in cost that this would entail.)
>
>The evidence is all the other way. Private systems cost more in
>bureaucracy than nationalized ones.
That must explain why the postal service spends more on labor every
year as a fraction of costs than the year before in spite of constant
pushes towards automation. Its the reduction in bureaucracy!
That must explain why getting a phone installed in Italy is so much
more pleasant than in the U.S.; its that they have less bureaucrats at
the state phone company there! The month long wait must be just that
relaxed european way of making you feel at home!
That must explain why all those South American countries are trying as
fast as they can to denationalize all their industries (ditto in
Eastern Europe): it must be so that the increase in bureaucracy that
private enterprise will bring will give people more jobs!
>A private system has to do the same
>clerical operations as a nationalized one - supplies procurement and
>salaries - and also has to undertake the extra tasks of moving money and
>documents proving entitlement to money around between patients, insurers,
>underwriters, shareholders, doctors and subcontractors, with every step
>logged, checked, and audited. This is unproductive busywork that does
>nothing towards getting people healthier.
And you imagine, of course, that fewer steps will be needed in a
Government run system! Ah, its so clear now! They will avoid doing any
auditing so that the bureaucrats can embezzle the money! They will
avoid paying the doctors, and they won't transfer money around! It all
becomes so clear now!
And just imagine, the high cost of health care all this time was
caused by having to cut checks for the shareholders of Humana Hospitals!
>Anyone who's ever had to deal with both the US health bureaucracy and a
>socialized system will not be very surprised at this. It must take US
>hospitals a tree per operation in billing forms. All a patient is likely
>to see in a socialized system is the consent form.
Tell me, have you ever seen a government organization that required
FEWER forms than a private company?
Perry Metzger
John Otto
>>will be as cheap as a privately run enterprise?
>How can you justify that that's the only worthwhile goal in life?
It's not. So what's that got to do with it? If a private enterprise is
less expensive, while providing that which is most desired (i.e. bound by
supply and demand) and the gov't is more expensive, while providing that
which is not most desired, I'll take private enterprise any day.
>>Also, what constitutional basis is there for the US Federal government
>>to get into this business?
>I dunno, they slipped national flood insurance and other such things
>on us and I haven't heard any constitutional challenges.
You're "hearing" it.
>The US Constitution mostly speaks loudest where it is silent. It's not
>so much a list of what can be done (tho there are several important
>exceptions), as a list of things which cannot be done (limitations of
>powers, and rights reserved to the people and states.)
>So the correct question is "tell me where the constitution prohibits
>this?", not "where does it grant this?".
No, the constitution specifically says that all which gov't is not
specifically empowered to do, it is forbidden to do. As has been written
elsewhere, the bill or rights was added because many people did not trust
the people or institutions of government to remain within those bounds and
wanted more and more specific insurance that it would not (e.g. the right
of everyone to own and use the same kind of fire-power the people in the
gov't had). The federalists thought all of that was unnecessary, that the
gov't could do only those things enumerated (and, e.g. could not therefore,
regulate, infringe, limit or hinder the the people from having and using
fire-power equivalent to that held by the people in the gov't).
John G. Otto j...@fsu.bitnet j...@rai.cc.fsu.edu
Cindy Kandolf
it, so i am not sure who exactly asked if anyone had seen a government
service that required fewer forms than a corresponding private service.
I have, and as it happens it had to do with medical care:
Part One. I am in college in Pittsburgh (US). I fall, and hurt my ankle.
It starts to swell, so i go to "Student Health Services", as its called
there. The doctor there cant be sure whether its a sprained or broken
ankle, and there is no x-ray machine there to check (the university is
very close to large hospital, so they dont feel the need for having a lot
of expensive equipment). So, i get sent to the hospital. First, though,
since i havent been a patient there before, i have to fill out forms letting
them know who i am. (Fortunately, i got out of the insurance forms, since
i was referred up there by SHS.) Then i have to sign a release form before
they can start treatment. The doctor there examines it and says yes, she
needs to see an x-ray. A new form for the x-ray! After it shows that
my ankle is not broken, another person (not sure of his job) wraps my
ankle and explains the use of crutches. He also has with him a pamphlet
explaining the care of a srained joint. Oh, and i had to sign a form
saying i had read THAT and understood, before i was allowed to go.
Part Two. I have been having recurrent sinus headaches, the really bad
kind that are impossible to ignore. They have been getting more frequent in
the past months. Since i have just married and moved to a new country
(Norway) the doctor suspects stress, but they arent following any typical
pattern like stress-related problems often do. Just to be safe, she
refers me to a specialist. He also suspects stress, because there is no
obvious physical problem, but suggests x-rays to make sure there is no
problem deeper inside where he cant see. He makes an appointment for me at
the hospital, and when i go to have my x-rays taken, i fill out a simple
form. Name, address, "personnummer" (something like a Social Security
number), and signature. My husband pays the "egenandel" (literally
"own share") while the "pictures" are being taken, and thats it. We go.
(The x-rays are sent to the specialist, who found no problem incidentally.)
Now, one example cannot prove or disprove a theory. But this is at least
one example where a government service took less paperwork than the
corresponding private service. Oh, incidentally, i have only filled out
one "new patient" form in Norway; even that wouldnt have been necessary if
i had only moved from one part of the country to the other.
-Cindy Kandolf
ci...@solan.unit.no
Trondheim, Norway
Perry E. Metzger
>
>[about National Health Care]
>
>>Fallacy 1: National Health Care isn't Free Health Care
>
>>An attempt is often made to delude the voter into thinking that
>>National Health Care would somehow be "free".
>
>Free at point of service. Nobody says free altogether. So why
>"delude"?
Because people start decoupling the service from the payment in their
mind even though they are still paying.
>> ... The free market always provides services at least as
>>cheaply as government is capable of providing them at a given level of
>>service,
>
>This is an article of faith...
No one has ever shown a counterexample. I will admit that it is hard
to PROVE, in the same sense that one can prove the pythagorean
theorem, that this is true, but you accept such non absolutely
provable things every day. For instance, you assume that if you step
in front of a car moving at high speed that you will be injured.
That the market is near maximally efficient no less inevitable.
>>so in order to provide service for those who do not pay
>>taxes, it will be necessary to charge those of us who do pay taxes
>>more (in the form of taxes) for National Health Care than would be
>>charged per consumer for private health care. If you have health
>>insurance now or can afford it, National Health Care will save you no
>>money at all.
>
>Two things come to mind. (i) Doctors' salaries may fall; this
>would result in less cost overall.
How would they fall?
They are currently being paid market rates. If the government
forceably reduces doctors salaries, that will mean that fewer people
will become doctors than the market demands, and that service will
thus decline.
>(ii) The entire apparatus
>of medical insurance might be reduced. This might mean that
>all of those insurance agent's salaries wouldn't have to be
>paid for.
However, the salaries of numerous state and federal employees will
have to be paid for. It is unlikely that costs due to bureaucrats will
decline if the government takes over.
>>Occasionally, it is proposed that National Health Care be combined
>>with the equivalent of price controls on health care (administered
>>either by government price fixing or government operation of all
>>health facilities.) However, let us recall our basic economics: price
>>controls may reduce costs, but only by reducing the quantity and/or
>>quality of service provided.
>
>This only applies in a free market, to material goods.
I've never heard anyone argue that the laws of supply and demand
applied any less to services than to goods.
>If you
>think the medical profession is a free market, I'm startled;
No, you are quite right: entry into the medical profession is
artificially restricted by acreditation laws that give the AMA the
ability to restrict the number of doctors. However, no one other than
libertarians has thus far suggested removing these laws as a way to
lower costs.
>and
>if you think that people choose the medical profession mainly
>for monetary reward, you live in an area with very different
>ethics to the ones I've been in.
Irrespective of the other factors that may or may not influence the
decision of someone to enter the medical profession, pay is a factor.
Few would be doctors if they were paid nothing; more would become
doctors if the average medical income doubled. A supply curve exists
for the decision to enter the medical profession, and even if other
intangibles remain constant (they won't; working in state institutions
is hellish), a reduction in pay will certainly lower the number of
medical practitioners in the long run.
Perry E. Metzger
>
> Perry, I hope you read this, because there's one more fundamental fallacy
>you overlooked in your fine attempt to refute any egoistic basis for NHI:
> Fallacy: Current U.S. Health Care problems are caused by a free market.
doctors graduated has driven health costs through the roof.]
Tim:
I did not overlook this point, which you have made quite well. I was
merely trying to stay away from that whole side of the issue.
I wished to address not the question of how medical costs could be
lowered in the US (which they certainly could), but rather I wanted to
demonstrate the following:
THERE IS NO RATIONAL ARGUMENT FOR NATIONAL HEALTH CARE.
1. The selfish man has no reason to want it because it will cost him
more than the old system where he got his own health insurance.
2. The altruistic man has no reason to want it as the poor could also
be given money with which to purchase health care without any need
to nationalize health insurance, and this redistribution of wealth
(which I oppose, but thats beside the point) would cost no more
(probably less) than the redistribution under a natinalized health
care system.
Even if you are an altruist who cannot be convinced that the poor are
better off in a country where the economy is not drained by foolish
government programs, and even if you insist that the poor must be
given health care, there is NO rational argument for national health
insurance for all, since the poor could be provisioned health care
without bringing in national health insurance.
At some point, when we have disposed of those who believe that
national health insurance would be a win, we will move on to the
larger question of whether redistribution is helpful to the poor in
the first place.
Perry E. Metzger
>>to get into this business?
>
>I dunno, they slipped national flood insurance and other such things
>on us and I haven't heard any constitutional challenges.
>
>The US Constitution mostly speaks loudest where it is silent. It's not
>so much a list of what can be done (tho there are several important
>exceptions), as a list of things which cannot be done (limitations of
>powers, and rights reserved to the people and states.)
Re-read your Constitition.
It IS a list of what can be done. The enumeration of powers is quite
specific on what congress is allowed to do, and the 10th Amendment
quite specifically says that what isn't explicitly permitted the
federal government is forbidden to it.
I will grant you that it has been almost 60 years since anyone paid
any attention to the fact that the federal government is prohibited
from doing anything it isn't specifically permitted, and that it has
been nearly 130 years (the greenback cases and the court pack that was
used to get a favorable ruling in them come to mind as the demarcation
line) since the principle was adhered to strictly. However, no matter
how much they may ignore what the bit of animal skin at the national
archives says, they can't change what it says.
Barry Shein
>>Yesterday, I got a letter from my employer (who pays 100% of my
>>insurance premiums) that included a cost per employee of about $378,
>>for both "health" and dental coverage. This figure may not have been
>>including spouses - if not, the actual cost per employee goes down.
>>This covers all employees of the state of Washington. So perhaps $400
>
>employer pay for a health insurance policy (which included a high
>deductable and no dental care) was $2300. I would not be suprised if
>the National Average was substantially above the figure of $400.
Although it sounds a bit high, about double, the $378 figure sounds
closer to a monthly figure. Are you sure that's not what was meant?
Perhaps to impress you the figure was pumped up a bit, like including
administrative staff salaries and overhead of some sort relating to
these programs?
In Massachussetts the figure is just under $200/month per person
(barring special circumstances, and this is individual not family) for
small groups, and I assume substantially less for large groups.
I know this one because I pay 100% of my employees' health insurance
here.
I doubt it varies all that much between states, some, but not hundreds
of percent (if it does, send me local commercial real estate listings
quick!)
Perry E. Metzger
>>>Granted that $20B probably covers half the people in the US currently,
>>>so double it. Still not all that expensive in the grand scheme of
>>>things, $40B. Assuming 100M working people that's $400/year/worker.
>>
>>Thats NOT a realistic figure.
>>
>
>Yesterday, I got a letter from my employer (who pays 100% of my
>insurance premiums) that included a cost per employee of about $378,
>for both "health" and dental coverage. This figure may not have been
>including spouses - if not, the actual cost per employee goes down.
>This covers all employees of the state of Washington. So perhaps $400
Prehaps in Washington State. Here in New York the least I have seen an
employer pay for a health insurance policy (which included a high
deductable and no dental care) was $2300. I would not be suprised if
the National Average was substantially above the figure of $400.
Perry Metzger
Viktor Haag
> I actually got to watch the Canadian health system in action today,
>since an old lady decided to collapse on the sidewalk just up the street.
>The elapsed time from my call to 911 to the arrival of the ambulance was
>about three minutes. The speed or response is probably due to KW's size
>than purity of essense in funding source; my store is within 3 klicks of two
>hospitals.
>
> Mind you, I can't understand why they also sent a fire truck and
>a police car.
I can easily explain that. First of all, here are a few things to know.
The average response time in KW for 911 calls is between 2 and 3 minutes.
As far as I know, this is pretty good for a city of KWs size. Toronto's
response time to 911 calls is, last I heard, between 5 and 6 minutes, at
best and averages about 7 to 8 minutes. This may have changed/improved.
The reason that fire and police arrived as well, is two fold, and this
policy was implemented in the last few years, and is called Tiered Response.
Basically, Tiered Reponse allows for 2 improvements over the basic 911 system,
where the caller's info determines what gets sent to the scene:
1) The closer/faster unit will arrive first and be able to
assess the situation and render first aid, rescue stranded victims
and so forth. This is the most important reason for tiered response,
and it increases the average victim survival rate by a measurable
amount (I once heard the figures from a FD Emergency Team, but I
can't remember now).
2) The caller often doesn't know the whole picture. The number of
calls that come through 911 with inadequate information are
astounding, as people in a panicky situation often hangup before
they give the required info. Luckily the phone lock can (I think)
provide a trace to the phone's location, but often the details of
what sort of assistance is needed is largely unknown. Having Police,
Fire, and Ambulance at the scene will help "prepare for any
emergency". Suppose, some example, that some wacko had knocked
the little old lady over the head, and you had called 911 only after
seeing her lying on the sidewalk. Meanwhile, the wacko was inside a
nearby store holding up/harrassing/gathering hostages. In this
situation, you would probably think that an ambulance only was
required, while the Cops arriving would be keen as well -- and
the lives of the store people would not be as threatened.
There have been hold up cases, for example, where the
robbers have injured an innocent bystander, and then run away, and
due to Tiered Response, the cops were able to get a description
within 5 minutes of the person leaving the scene -- in these cases,
the 911 callers said that they needed an ambulance, and a normal
call to police was made about the hold-up. The police arrived
with, before, or shortly after the ambulance.
Whew -- that long winded reply should answer the question.
--
vik veh...@crocus.uwaterloo.ca
"I have the necessary qualifications to speak on behalf of Jesus"
Ted "Apotheosis Now" Kaldis
David Casseres
>
> Recently, a big item on the liberal agenda has been National Health
> Care.
>
> This article is designed to show you, the selfish voter, what the pros
> and cons are for you. This article deals ONLY with the question of the
> consequences of National Health Care to a selfish individual member of
Great! That means I don't have to wade through all the rest of this crapola.
David Casseres
Phil Ngai
>gov't had). The federalists thought all of that was unnecessary, that the
>gov't could do only those things enumerated (and, e.g. could not therefore,
>regulate, infringe, limit or hinder the the people from having and using
>fire-power equivalent to that held by the people in the gov't).
I would say the people have the right to have fire-power equivalent to
that commonly carried by soldiers in the US Army. How they use it is
a different matter.
--
Why do birds fly south in the winter? To stay warm.
Why do birds fly north in the spring? To eat Montana mosquitos.
Paul Barton-Davis
>>>insurance premiums) that included a cost per employee of about $378,
>>>for both "health" and dental coverage. This figure may not have been
>>>including spouses - if not, the actual cost per employee goes down.
>>>This covers all employees of the state of Washington. So perhaps $400
>>
>>Prehaps in Washington State. Here in New York the least I have seen an
>>employer pay for a health insurance policy (which included a high
>>deductable and no dental care) was $2300. I would not be suprised if
>>the National Average was substantially above the figure of $400.
>
>Although it sounds a bit high, about double, the $378 figure sounds
>closer to a monthly figure. Are you sure that's not what was meant?
>
>Perhaps to impress you the figure was pumped up a bit, like including
>administrative staff salaries and overhead of some sort relating to
>these programs?
AS provider of the $378 figure, I have 2 apologies to make. First,
this *IS* a monthly figure, when Barry's original guess was $400/year.
Secondly, the real figure is $313, which is itself up by over about $60
from last year because of restructuring the benefits packages.
Sorry for any misleading that this caused.
-- paul
Barry Shein
From: ot...@fsu1.cc.fsu.edu (John Otto)
>In article <BZS.91Ju...@world.std.com>, b...@world.std.com (Barry Shein) writes...
>>From: rock...@socrates.umd.edu (Raul Rockwell)
>>>Barry Shein:
>>>How can you justify the assumption that a government-run enterprise
>>>will be as cheap as a privately run enterprise?
>
>>How can you justify that that's the only worthwhile goal in life?
>
>It's not. So what's that got to do with it? If a private enterprise is
>less expensive, while providing that which is most desired (i.e. bound by
>supply and demand) and the gov't is more expensive, while providing that
>which is not most desired, I'll take private enterprise any day.
The issue of a national health care system is to provide health care
to every citizen, regardless of ability to pay. That's different than
what you're describing (or at least I think it is.) You're referring
to a system that leaves a large percentage of the population without
adequate health care.
A relevant issue I'd like to knock down before we get bogged down in
it too much:
Just because it's national health care does not mean, necessarily, the
govt is in the health care business. It could easily mean that we pool
our money and get private insurance companies to provide that service
by disbursements to private hospitals (and public, ie, much the same
as today.)
This would be analogous to how the defense industry runs. We have a
"national defense care" system, you betcha! But that doesn't mean govt
employees are building tanks, we contract it out to the Rockwells,
Lockheeds, Boeings, General Electrics, etc of the country.
Arguments about (real) problems with the military-industrial complex
excepted, I am just trying to lay out schemes which do not fulfill the
nightmarish extrapolations being presented.
I am also trying to forestall the claim that there is no precedent to
such a system. Hogwash, we use a national system to build weapons and
provide for a military, the govt acts in the role of acquisition and
disbursement, not provider of such products.
There are no doubt other good examples if you're willing to think
honestly about it (highways comes to mind, the govt doesn't build
highways, private companies build highways, etc.)
I still maintain that I am not a big fan of a national health care
system, but not for the reasons I see being advocated here.
Thant Tessman
[...]
> Even if you are an altruist who cannot be convinced that the poor are
> better off in a country where the economy is not drained by foolish
> government programs, and even if you insist that the poor must be
> given health care, there is NO rational argument for national health
> insurance for all, since the poor could be provisioned health care
> without bringing in national health insurance.
Health care is so important that it can't be left to market forces.
If you knew anything, you'd know that health care in other countries
is far better than it is here.
How can anyone morally justify people making money off of sick people?
There is too much bureaucracy in the medical industry and we need the
government to step in and reduce it.
The strength and security of the United States and its economy are
dependent on health care, so there is also the free rider problem.
Just curious, but have you ever been to medical school?
thant
Ron Bodkin
>>to get into this business?
>
>so much a list of what can be done (tho there are several important
>exceptions), as a list of things which cannot be done (limitations of
>powers, and rights reserved to the people and states.)
specifically excluded (by the 10th amendment) from doing anything not
explicitly permitted by the enumeration of its powers.
Ron
Herman Rubin
....................
> Health care is so important that it can't be left to market forces.
How large a medical profession would we need to have what I would consider
reasonably good health care?
First of all, the physicians would have to be far more aware of the risks
of their procedures, and the great amount of individual variation, than they
now are, and have to explain the alternatives to their patients. This would
at least greatly decrease the number of patients seen by physicians in a day,
and require probably more than 5 hours/week just to keep up.
Also, the information required for a really good decision about anything more
complicated than glorified first aid is far more than you seem to realize. I
know of an effort to enable a computer search for internal medicine diseases,
many of which are now missed. It seems that the program would have to process
15,000 items of information. Possibly when the program has been developed and
debugges, this might be reduced to 5,000.
> If you knew anything, you'd know that health care in other countries
> is far better than it is here.
This is debatable.
> How can anyone morally justify people making money off of sick people?
One could equally well say this about justifying paying servicemen to
service things which even just wear out. At least much disease is caused
by bodily wear and decline.
However, there is an alternative. That is to have an insurance policy for
which the premium goes up with the degree of health. BUT, this runs into
another problem; suppose that I do something to improve my health; then
why should I pay the insurance company for this?
> There is too much bureaucracy in the medical industry and we need the
> government to step in and reduce it.
Probably most of the bureaucracy is due to administrative costs for government
AND INSURANCE record-keeping. There are extremely few instances in which
government intervention has made any reduction in bureaucracy, but rather
quite the contrary.
--
Herman Rubin, Dept. of Statistics, Purdue Univ., West Lafayette IN47907-1399
Phone: (317)494-6054
hru...@l.cc.purdue.edu (Internet, bitnet) {purdue,pur-ee}!l.cc!hrubin(UUCP)
Ken Rose
>
>[...]
>
>> Even if you are an altruist who cannot be convinced that the poor are
>> better off in a country where the economy is not drained by foolish
>> government programs, and even if you insist that the poor must be
>> given health care, there is NO rational argument for national health
>> insurance for all, since the poor could be provisioned health care
>> without bringing in national health insurance.
>
>Health care is so important that it can't be left to market forces.
This is a non-sequitur! The argument should be whether or not health
care is better provided by the government, privately, or some
combination of the two. Denouncements such as this do *nothing* to
advance rational argument, but make good bumper stickers. Of
course, if one thinks in bumper-sticker slogans...
>How can anyone morally justify people making money off of sick people?
Again, a bumper-sticker argument. I`m surprised Thant forgot to decry
the private production of food and housing (you know, how do you
justify making money off the hungry and homeless?). Maybe we should
restrict private enterprise to small scale things like selling
lemonade.
The reply, if stated without resort to emotionally charged words,
is that economics is the `science` that studies the allocation of
scarce resources, and a private marketis one way in which a society
can choose to allocate resources. The justification, moral or
otherwise, lies in showing that the free market is better in
providing medical care than the government-run alternative.
Thant`s sentence would sound good spoken by a demagogue (or a
Kennedy) but is irrelevant to deciding the mechanism society should
choose to allocate medical resources.
--
Ken Rose
(ke...@storage.tandem.com)
ROBERT WERMAN
met...@watson.ibm.com (Perry E. Metzger) writes...
[delete]
>And you imagine, of course, that fewer steps will be needed in a
>Government run system! Ah, its so clear now! They will avoid doing any
>auditing so that the bureaucrats can embezzle the money! They will
>avoid paying the doctors, and they won't transfer money around! It all
>becomes so clear now!
>Tell me, have you ever seen a government organization that required
>FEWER forms than a private company?
[delete]
*************
Whatever solution is most economic, private or public, the fundamental
question of rising medical costs must be met at some level. And only
national means of raising the emense amounts of money involved will
work. The lower middle class is now being crushed by $6,000 - $8,000
per year insurance costs. Triage for expensive procedures has now been
introduced in Oregon [for those over 65 who will no longer be eligible
for such procedures, even if life saving if they are indigent]. This
trend will only spread.
The possibility of linked taxes should be considered as a possible
solution for raising the money needed to support the national health
bill. I would suggest alcohol and tobacco taxes for starters.
Out here in the rest of the world, we are greatly concerned about how
the US solves this problem. The US not only solves its own problems
but often becomes a role model for the rest of the world.
__Bob Werman
rwerman@hujivms
Jerusalem
Ron Bodkin
>Health care is so important that it can't be left to market forces.
to market forces (shelter is more important too, and left to
market forces more than food). But ultimately, the point is: *why*
is government provision better than market forces for that which
is important.
>If you knew anything, you'd know that health care in other countries
>is far better than it is here.
Which countries? Not Canada, at least from my opinion. Then
again, you may just be suffering from the "greener grass" idea.
>How can anyone morally justify people making money off of sick people?
By what morality? If one is a utilitarian its not tough to
make the justification (having money made from such people improves
their care.) Only a squeamish, irrational morality could question
this.
>There is too much bureaucracy in the medical industry and we need the
>government to step in and reduce it.
This is a joke right? Government will step in and reduce
bureaucracy??
>The strength and security of the United States and its economy are
>dependent on health care, so there is also the free rider problem.
Not a terribly significant impact, because practically there is
sufficient health care to safe guard productive members of society.
Ron
Thant Tessman
> In article <1991Jul26.1...@zola.esd.sgi.com>, th...@horus.esd.sgi.com (Thant Tessman) writes:
>
> ....................
>
> > Health care is so important that it can't be left to market forces.
>
> How large a medical profession would we need to have what I would consider
> reasonably good health care?
[etc]
I must appologize for not making it more clear that my post was a joke,
or rather, a list of predicted and irrelevant responses.
I guess it wasn't that funny.
thant
John Logajan
>I must appologize for not making it more clear that my post was a joke,
>or rather, a list of predicted and irrelevant responses.
>
>I guess it wasn't that funny.
I liked it. :-)
--
- John Logajan @ Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- log...@ns.network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
Raul Rockwell
>And you imagine, of course, that fewer steps will be needed in a
>Government run system! Ah, its so clear now! They will avoid doing
>any auditing so that the bureaucrats can embezzle the money! They
>will avoid paying the doctors, and they won't transfer money
>around! It all becomes so clear now!
Robert Werman:
Whatever solution is most economic, private or public, the
fundamental question of rising medical costs must be met at some
level. And only national means of raising the imense amounts of
money involved will work.
Hold it, stop it, that's enough.
While it be true that the "fundamental question of rising medical
costs must be met [at the national level]", that be not the same as
saying "national means of rasing money is viable."
The USA is right now experiencing the effects of a depressed economy,
it's just that the effects are partially masked by government action.
That those effects were the result of government action does not
inspire the necessary trust for me to go out hollering for higher
taxes and more bureaucracy.
The lower middle class is now being crushed by $6,000 - $8,000 per
year insurance costs.
Suprise, suprise.
Triage for expensive procedures has now been introduced in Oregon
[for those over 65 who will no longer be eligible for such
procedures, even if life saving if they are indigent]. This trend
will only spread.
Hmm... better they should have cut that sort of support across the
board.
The possibility of linked taxes should be considered as a possible
solution for raising the money needed to support the national
health bill. I would suggest alcohol and tobacco taxes for
starters.
Actually, in concept this might be a good idea. But I would suggest a
cocaine tax and a heroin tax. For alcohol and tobacco it would be
sufficient to remove the agricultural support.
Out here in the rest of the world, we are greatly concerned about
how the US solves this problem. The US not only solves its own
problems but often becomes a role model for the rest of the world.
Why not go us one better and make your own way? Freedom is for those
who choose it.
--
Raul <rock...@socrates.umd.edu>
Perry E. Metzger
>>and indeed a disadvantage because your costss will NECESSARILY go up
>>because you will start to have to pay for other people's health care.
>>This even discounts the fact that no government program ever works as
>>efficiently as the free market.
>
>That's only true if you assume you will also always have insurance.
>You could find yourself out of work for a time, or disabled, or old
>etc.
>
>That's the sort of thing people get concerned about.
One can get insurance to cover nearly anything, from paying your
mortgage if you become unemployed to paying for hotel bills if your
house burns down.
Getting insurance to pay for your health insurance premiums should you
become disabled is just another form of insurance, no more difficult
for the free market to supply than any other sort.
As for paying for your premiums when you get elderly, that is a
sub-problem of the retirement savings problem, not a seperate problem.
My contention still stands: The selfish man has no reason to desire
national health insurance, and the altruist can find other ways of
"providing for the health of the poor" than national health insurance.
>>>what's the total profit margin of health insurance
>>>companies? How does that factor into your claim? How might that change?
>>
>>Even with profit margins factored in, UPS and Fedex cost less to
>>deliver a package than USPS spends (although not necessarily less than
>>they charge; there are subsidies).
>
>Sure, for $10 or more per letter. But I can't mail a simple letter for
>29c thru them. I think most of us understand that this is underlying
>some of the overhead costs. I don't think UPS or Fedex are all that
>much less on overnight packages, like a dollar or two.
You can't mail a letter through them because federal law prevents it.
As for UPS or Fedex vs. USPS: USPS has a far, far worse record on
overnight delivery than either of the other two, and they make no
promises about overnight delivery. Fedex gives you a solid guarantee,
and lives up to it.
Perry E. Metzger
I didn't mean "can you find the government organization that has the
fewest forms and compare it to the free market organization with the
most forms". Mailing a letter usually involves no forms; I'm suprised
you didn't mention that as long as you were going for unfair
comparisons. I meant for you to compare any government organization
with one outside of government performing a comprable function, like
government purchasing departments compared to private companies
purchasing departments.
When comparing hospital forms, I suggest that you compare apples to
apples, like the shenanigans you have to go through at a VA hospital
to the fairly light paperwork (by comparison) at a private hospital.
Perry E. Metzger
[Examples of how there are far fewer forms to fill out at a norwegian
hospital than at an american one.]
The comparison is unfair; most of the forms filled out in the american
system, like the numerous seperate concent forms, are required by
state laws and are not necessarily desired by the hospital.
For a truer comparison, try comparing a private American hospital to
an American VA hospital.
Also, when noting paperwork, don't assume that because a government
office doesn't require YOU to fill out paperwork that there aren't
bureaucrats exchanging forms as a result of your presense.
Perry E. Metzger
I am pleased to announce that in the spirit of pure selflessness,
David Casseres has decided to give all his worldly goods to the poor
and work as a janitor in a leper colony for the rest of his life.
Oops, whats that David? You mean, you aren't totally selfless? You
mean you occassionally see a movie when you could have given that
money to a beggar? You mean that you wear clothing that is better than
the minimum needed to keep you protected from the elements instead of
going around in a tattered robe and giving the money you saved to AIDS
research? You mean that you occassionally eat a fancy meal? You don't
live in minimal housing? You spend money on YOURSELF! SHAME!!!!
Those who preach selflessness should practice what they preach for a
while, and consider only the needs of others and not those of
themselves. Maybe it would teach 'em a thing or two.
(Of course, if everyone was selfless and went out looking for people
to give all their worldly goods to, the question arises of who is left
to GET all those worldly goods given that everyone has decided to
consider everyone else's needs first, but collectivists rarely discuss
such minor technicalities)
Myself, I'm happy to be a Selfish Capitalist Pig. I think I'll go home
after work and gloat about my luxury goods, just to piss off the
net.collectivists.
Ron Bodkin
>Even the collectivists are selfish; just not in a material way. They
>selfishly pursue satisfaction through giving to others.
This is always an interesting argument. If an ascetic claims
to be acting in a way which is harmful to themselves, and they are, in
fact, harming themselves (by a given method of estimating utility) how
are they being selfish? By the way, the (objective) method is
necessary, else the argument becomes a tautology which is premised on
ignoring the point of a word like 'selfish' (which itself is a biased
term).
However, these ascetics are acting on the basis of their will
to power, which is certainly a sense in which they are acting for their
interest. Ultimately, though I don't think the idea that all people
are selfish is right.
>... I think it would be a big mistake to say that one
>is superior to the other, rather we need to have each in moderation.
I don't agree. As bad as unenlightened/unwise self-interest
is, it is nothing compared to the spite of selfless ascetism and
paternalism. In any case, this is a topic requiring more detailed
consideration than simple platitude (moderation! spite! etc.)
Ron
Matthew T. Russotto
>
>>Also, what constitutional basis is there for the US Federal government
>>to get into this business?
>
>on us and I haven't heard any constitutional challenges.
>
>so much a list of what can be done (tho there are several important
>exceptions), as a list of things which cannot be done (limitations of
>powers, and rights reserved to the people and states.)
>So the correct question is "tell me where the constitution prohibits
>this?", not "where does it grant this?".
Wrong.
Article I Section 8 enumerates the powers of Congress, and Article X of
the amendments states:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution,
nor prohibited by it to the States,
are reserved to the States, respectively,
or to the people.
--
Matthew T. Russotto russ...@eng.umd.edu russ...@wam.umd.edu
.sig under construction, like the rest of this campus.
Just say NO to police searches and seizures. Make them use force.
(not responsible for bodily harm resulting from following above advice)
Philip Moore
>>things, $40B. Assuming 100M working people that's $400/year/worker.
>
>Thats NOT a realistic figure.
Why not?
>IF you already have health insurance, THEN it is no advantage to you,
>and indeed a disadvantage because your costss will NECESSARILY go up
>because you will start to have to pay for other people's health care.
>This even discounts the fact that no government program ever works as
>efficiently as the free market.
WRONG:
If you have health insurance then you are already paying
for other people's health care. Hospitals have insurance with the
same companies to cover the costs of treating patients with no
insurance. This number is alarmingly large and growing. The
evidence form the canadian study of US insurance companies
showed that the national care system in Canada was eleven times
more efficient than our private system. If you are an employee
who has insurance as part of a benefit package then you are
removed from the check writing, but if you ahve to pay for your
own health insurance or if you own your company then you know how
painful it is sending off that check with the knowledge that only
eleven cents out of every dollar gets paid to the overpriced
doctors while the great majority of the money is spent on
"administrative" costs.
A national health care system would reduce the amount
of money we pay for medical coverage because the government wouldn't
have to shell out twenty-five cents of every dollar to pay for
advertising to convince us that they have the best plan.
Most economists I have encountered subscribe, as I do in most
cases, to the free market free competition model to produce the
highest level of efficiency. I think the problem with applying this
model to the insurance industry is that are not only significant
barriers to entry but also legislatively mandated markets.
Your argument against bureaucratic inefficiencies in the
government could just as easily be assessed to the huge bureaucracies
of the insurance giants.
My obvious advocation of the nationalized health insurance
propositions comes less from a theoretic examination than from
personal experience. I contracted hepatitis while in Greece and
fell to the symptoms when I arrived in London. I took the U to
the nearest hospital and was directed into an emergency waiting
area. I had to wait an entire hour before a physician saw me
and took a blood test. It took another fifteen minutes for the
results of the blood test. The diagnosis was non-contageous
hepatitis the prognosis was weakened physical ability for up to
a year and a lack of appetite for several days. The doctor graciously
offered to fill out lots of forms that other doctors would want to
see if a the symptoms recurred after I got home. Then he said
get some rest and went off to doctor the next patient and I was
free to go, FREE to go. They didn't ask for my British tax number,
they didn't even ask if I was British, they could see from my juandise
that I was sick and they took care of me. That is what the doctors
in England do, they take care of sick people.
I have had the misfortune of visiting emergency rooms in
our wonderful technologically advanced private hospitals and spent
four hours waiting to get into an exam room before another hour wait
for a doctor. Then they take a blood test which takes another two
hours. The admitting clerk in the American hospital is like a loan
officer at a damn bank. After passing the financial ability test
at my last ER visit a sat and watched the bloody victim of an auto
accident be denied treatment because he didn't have insurance. The
cold bitch informed the man that he could be taken by ambulance to
a county hospital where the uninsured were guaranteed treatment.
This white male in his early forties was in so much pain that he
winced when he spoke, was short of breath and moaned when she told
him he would not be treated in her facility. In America the
hospital/doctor/insurance business is just that, a business.
I said no thank you to health insurance when I renegotiated
my contract. Instead I took the cash, I said," You're spending
X dollars on health and liability insurance on me. I'll sign
a contract that remits my claim to workers compensation and
says I will provide for my own health care if you will give
me the money that you're sending to the insurance companies."
My net pay doubled. I make a hundred dollars a day where
my previous income was seven dollars an hour. You may be
blind to the fact that you are being screwed out of your
money because the government has legislated that companies
provide health and worker's compensation benefits to their
employees. If everyone could do what I did maybe the insurance
giants would have some incentive for efficiency.
>For information on the Libertarian Party, call 1-800-682-1776
--
How do we know? Philip Moore What really happened?
The People
Phi...@reed.edu 2000 Phi...@reed.Bitnet
Jack Campin
> THERE IS NO RATIONAL ARGUMENT FOR NATIONAL HEALTH CARE.
> 2. The altruistic man has no reason to want it as the poor could also
> be given money with which to purchase health care without any need
> to nationalize health insurance, and this redistribution of wealth
> (which I oppose, but thats beside the point) would cost no more
> (probably less) than the redistribution under a natinalized health
> care system.
And how would you administer this almgiving? If you allow that people's
treatment doesn't all cost the same, you need to check that people don't
misrepresent their warts being frozen off as kidney transplants. Invoices.
Cheques. Receipts. Accounts detailing what each patient's treatment has
cost. All unnecessary in a system that doesn't make a fetish of fee-for-
service. Each of which adds cost for clerical processing (or, to put it as
I would prefer, condemns people to being clerks when they could be doing
something useful).
> At some point, when we have disposed of those who believe that
> national health insurance would be a win
I have been arguing against ANY form of health insurance, private or state
capitalist. It is a waste of human resources.
--
-- Jack Campin Computing Science Department, Glasgow University, 17 Lilybank
Gardens, Glasgow G12 8QQ, Scotland 041 339 8855 x6854 work 041 556 1878 home
JANET: ja...@dcs.glasgow.ac.uk BANG!net: via mcsun and ukc FAX: 041 330 4913
INTERNET: via nsfnet-relay.ac.uk BITNET: via UKACRL UUCP: ja...@glasgow.uucp
Jack Campin
>>> Health Care would somehow be "free". National health care isn't free.
>>> It will have to be paid for out of tax money.
>> Good grief, how stupid do you think US voters are that they need to be told
>> this? Who on earth do you claim has asserted the contrary?
> I've heard it many times, in everything from news coverage of people
> asserting that we need "free government health care" to a guy that
> handed me a flyer on April 15th outside the main post office in New
> York (guess what I was doing there...) saying that the government
> should stop spending money on bombs and start giving people "free
> national health insurance".
And were any of those people asserting that it wouldn't cost tax money?
> >> In fact, given the perpetual tendancy of government bureaucracy to
> >> cost far more than private enterprise, it is quite likely that
> >> National Health Care may cost you even more than we would expect under
> >> the naive assumption that the government can provide care as
> >> efficiently as the market. [...]
>> The evidence is all the other way. Private systems cost more in
>> bureaucracy than nationalized ones.
[Perry mentions the USPS and the Italian phone system.]
I was continuing the thread you started and talking specifically about
_health care_ systems, not about every imaginable state-run enterprise.
These involve much more complex accounting than a phone or mail network:
nobody routinely claims the cost of their postage stamps back off an
insurance company. There isn't a parasitic market in malpractice insurance
for telephone operators. The US health care system spends a higher
proportion of its running costs on clerical operations than any other in
the world.
>> A private system has to do the same
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> clerical operations as a nationalized one - supplies procurement and
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> salaries - and also has to undertake the extra tasks of moving money and
^^^^^^^^
>> documents proving entitlement to money around between patients, insurers,
>> underwriters, shareholders, doctors and subcontractors, with every step
>> logged, checked, and audited. This is unproductive busywork that does
>> nothing towards getting people healthier.
> And you imagine, of course, that fewer steps will be needed in a
> Government run system! Ah, its so clear now! They will avoid doing any
> auditing so that the bureaucrats can embezzle the money! They will
> avoid paying the doctors, and they won't transfer money around! It all
> becomes so clear now!
Learn to bloody well read. Maybe it's easier if I underline things for
you as above. Sorry I can't transmit highlighter in ASCII.
>> Anyone who's ever had to deal with both the US health bureaucracy and a
>> socialized system will not be very surprised at this. It must take US
>> hospitals a tree per operation in billing forms. All a patient is likely
>> to see in a socialized system is the consent form.
> Tell me, have you ever seen a government organization that required
> FEWER forms than a private company?
As I implied (about as clearly as possible) there, all the state-run health
care systems I've used (three) involved MUCH less form-filling than the US
one, which I have also used. I have not filled out a clerical form when
getting medical treatment here, or done the equivalent by oral
questionnaire, since the consent form for my last surgical operation
(1978). In theory I was supposed to fill out a postcard for Greater
Glasgow Health Board five years ago: in practice I binned even that and it
made no difference. Try that with any part of the US medical business.
I reiterate: have you any personal experience whatever with any health care
system but that of the US? It certainly doesn't read like it.
Steve Ansell
Health care is so important that it can't be left to government.
>If you knew anything, you'd know that health care in other countries
>is far better than it is here.
If you knew anything, you'd know that health care in this country is far
better than it is in other countries.
>How can anyone morally justify people making money off of sick people?
How can anyone morally justify people loosing money on sick people?
>There is too much bureaucracy in the medical industry and we need the
>government to step in and reduce it.
There is too much bureaucracy in the government and we need to reduce it.
>The strength and security of the United States and its economy are
>dependent on health care, so there is also the free rider problem.
The strength and security of the United States and its economy are
dependent on the free market, so there is also the socialist problem.
>Just curious, but have you ever been to medical school?
Just curious, but have you ever taken a course in logic?
Steven T. Ansell
san...@fai.com
(408) 432-1300 x5324
Disclaimer: This is mine.
Jack Campin
> Just because it's national health care does not mean, necessarily, the
> govt is in the health care business. It could easily mean that we pool
> our money and get private insurance companies to provide that service
> by disbursements to private hospitals (and public, ie, much the same
> as today.)
> This would be analogous to how the defense industry runs. We have a
> "national defense care" system, you betcha! But that doesn't mean govt
> employees are building tanks, we contract it out to the Rockwells,
> Lockheeds, Boeings, General Electrics, etc of the country.
This is, in part, what the US has got now with Medicare, isn't it? The
result is a nightmare of inefficiency that not only has all the clerical
tomfoolery involved in managing cash flows between the health and insurance
industries, but adds an _additional_ interface between the state and the
insurers that also needs invoices, statements, payment advices, why-hasn't-
our-cheque-arrived letters, double-entry accounts and audits against fraud.
The result, on a a national scale, would involve twice as many clerks and
accountants as nurses in the overall system. The military is hardly a
great example of efficient use of tax dollars.
Cameron Laird
.
.
.
>>> Anyone who's ever had to deal with both the US health bureaucracy and a
>>> socialized system will not be very surprised at this. It must take US
>>> hospitals a tree per operation in billing forms. All a patient is likely
>>> to see in a socialized system is the consent form.
>> Tell me, have you ever seen a government organization that required
>> FEWER forms than a private company?
>
>As I implied (about as clearly as possible) there, all the state-run health
>care systems I've used (three) involved MUCH less form-filling than the US
>one, which I have also used. I have not filled out a clerical form when
>getting medical treatment here, or done the equivalent by oral
>questionnaire, since the consent form for my last surgical operation
>(1978). In theory I was supposed to fill out a postcard for Greater
>Glasgow Health Board five years ago: in practice I binned even that and it
>made no difference. Try that with any part of the US medical business.
>
>I reiterate: have you any personal experience whatever with any health care
>system but that of the US? It certainly doesn't read like it.
.
.
Mr. Campin's right. I'm generally unfriendly to nationalizing
anything, but, if we're going to argue from personal experience,
I can attest that the French social security system addressed
some of my medical demands with the exchange of shockingly little
paper.
--
Cameron Laird +1 713-579-4613
c...@lgc.com (cl%lgc...@uunet.uu.net) +1 713-996-8546
Perry E. Metzger
>In article <1991Jul25....@watson.ibm.com> met...@watson.ibm.com (Perry E. Metzger) writes:
>>>things, $40B. Assuming 100M working people that's $400/year/worker.
>>
>>Thats NOT a realistic figure.
>
>Why not?
Because we have already been given evidence that group health
insurance costs at least $2000-$4000 per worker per year.
The original figure was based on the idea that "Well, gee, we have $20
bil being spent on health insurance (not an accurate number), and we
have 100 Million workers, so doubling the costs we get $400 a year per
worker".
The realistic way to do this is as follows:
"The average insurer charges $300 per month per worker" (not reality,
but within a factor fo 50% certainly). "That means $3600 per year per
worker. Assuming the government doubles costs" (the original poster
made that comment, not me) "that means everyone will be paying AT
LEAST $7800 a year in health care taxes. Assuming 100M workers, thats
THREE QUARTERS OF A TRILLION DOLLARS."
I don't have the figures, but a very large fraction of the GNP right
now is spent on health care. Can we afford the risk of giving over
control of that much more of the economy to the feds?
Perry Metzger
--
"Live Free or Die!"
Tim Eades
>care systems I've used (three) involved MUCH less form-filling than the US
>one, which I have also used. I have not filled out a clerical form when
>getting medical treatment here, or done the equivalent by oral
>questionnaire, since the consent form for my last surgical operation
>(1978). In theory I was supposed to fill out a postcard for Greater
>Glasgow Health Board five years ago: in practice I binned even that and it
>made no difference. Try that with any part of the US medical business.
>
I don't understand this conversation, I have never filled out piles of forms
here in the U.S. either. If I go to a new Dr. I have to fill out the new
patient form, but no others. I have been hospitalized and so has my wife, either on eof us as had to fill out more then one form. Matter a fact the last time
my wife went into the hospital the admin person just asked if anything changed
since the last time. I said no and she printed out the form and I sighed it.
Even if I had to fill out 20 forms I don't see how that makes the medical care
in the U.S. inadequate. Maybe if the state run health system had more forms
to fill out, the abuse would go down. When I leved in Detroit the Canadians
that I worked with were complaining that people went to the emergency room
for all sorts of minor problems. This over burden the system, to where those
who needed help had to wait.
--
Tim A. Eades | NCR - USG Product Marketing and Support
Tim....@DaytonOH.NCR.COM | Phone:(513)-445-5511 622-5511 (Voice Plus)
..!ncrlnk!usglnk!uspm650!uspm800!eades |
..!uunet!ncrlnk!usglnk!uspm650!uspm800!eades |
Barry Shein
>Because we have already been given evidence that group health
>insurance costs at least $2000-$4000 per worker per year.
Maybe we're being ripped off?
Maybe that's the problem that's driving all this?
(oh i know, i'll save you the typing, but the free market should fix
this, but it doesn't, hmm, how come, govt intervention!)
Perry E. Metzger
>> THERE IS NO RATIONAL ARGUMENT FOR NATIONAL HEALTH CARE.
>> 2. The altruistic man has no reason to want it as the poor could also
>> be given money with which to purchase health care without any need
>> to nationalize health insurance, and this redistribution of wealth
>> (which I oppose, but thats beside the point) would cost no more
>> (probably less) than the redistribution under a natinalized health
>> care system.
>
>And how would you administer this almgiving? If you allow that people's
>treatment doesn't all cost the same, you need to check that people don't
>misrepresent their warts being frozen off as kidney transplants. Invoices.
>Cheques. Receipts. Accounts detailing what each patient's treatment has
>cost. All unnecessary in a system that doesn't make a fetish of fee-for-
>service. Each of which adds cost for clerical processing (or, to put it as
>I would prefer, condemns people to being clerks when they could be doing
>something useful).
There is an obvious solution to all of this: just give them money to
buy their own health insurance privately. Then the insurance company
gets to worry about wart freezing being represented as a kidney
transplant.
Not that I support such a program, but it appears that the statists in
favor of nationalizing health care seem to have a lack of imagination
when it comes to how similar goals could be met without full
nationalization.
>> At some point, when we have disposed of those who believe that
>> national health insurance would be a win
>
>I have been arguing against ANY form of health insurance, private or state
>capitalist. It is a waste of human resources.
Ah, so you feel that guns should be used to keep peaceable people from
making insurance contracts, because your personal feeling is that it
is "a waste of human resources", and you want to see violence used to
prevent that waste.
Perry E. Metzger
>Mr. Campin's right. I'm generally unfriendly to nationalizing
>anything, but, if we're going to argue from personal experience,
>I can attest that the French social security system addressed
>some of my medical demands with the exchange of shockingly little
>paper.
On the other hand, our current nationalized hospitals, the VA
hospitals, probably have a substantial impact on world deforestation.
1/2 :-)
Stephen Carlson
>>Even with profit margins factored in, UPS and Fedex cost less to
>>deliver a package than USPS spends (although not necessarily less than
>>they charge; there are subsidies).
>
>Sure, for $10 or more per letter. But I can't mail a simple letter for
>29c thru them. I think most of us understand that this is underlying
>some of the overhead costs. I don't think UPS or Fedex are all that
>much less on overnight packages, like a dollar or two.
The reason you cannot mail a simple letter for 29c (or for that matter at
any price) through UPS or Fedex is because the USPS has a monopoly on first
class mail. It is illegal for UPS and Fedex to deliver your letter as first
class mail, thus we cannot know what price UPS or Fedex would offer. Congress
has allowed UPS and Fedex to compete with the Postal Service for overnight
deliveries, and as you noted they provide a cheaper service. Your comparing
of $10 per overnight letter versus 29c per first class letter is comparing
apples and orangutans.
The Pittsburgh Press has recently reported that although the Postal Service
has lost over 1.5 billion dollars in the past three years, they have paid out
more than 2 million dollars in executive "bonuses"! When asked to justify this
extravagance, the head of the Postal Service said "the Postal Service is not
like a private company."
Obviously, he means that private companies won't have this waste.
--
Stephen Carlson | ICL OFFICEPOWER Center | In theory, theory and
s...@rlgvax.reston.icl.com | 11490 Commerce Park Drive | practice are the same.
..!uunet!rlgvax!scc | Reston, VA 22091 | (703) 648-3300
Paul Barton-Davis
was "No". However, I'm getting tired of seeing the ridiculous
assertion quoted below go unchallenged. ]
In article <1991Aug2.1...@watson.ibm.com> met...@watson.ibm.com (Perry E. Metzger) writes:
>
>Ah, so you feel that guns should be used to keep peaceable people from
>making insurance contracts, because your personal feeling is that it
>is "a waste of human resources", and you want to see violence used to
>prevent that waste.
Here we go again. Perry's claim that the existence any law means that
the government is willing to kill somebody for breaking it.
This interpretation is the best indicator I have seen of absolutist
tendencies in Perry's arguments (I'm using his name because I haven't
yet seen too many other Libertarians echo his claim). Does it not
occur to you Perry, that the law may actually represent the sentiment:
"We, the government, would really like you to [ do | not do ]
this particular thing. If you in fact [ do not | do ] it, we
will take the following action against you. If you refuse to
be be bound by those actions, we will escalate them.
However, we reserve the right at any time to reconsider our
policy of escalation on the grounds that it no longer serves
any purpose. If we need to bring in a commando squad to
prosecute you for a traffic violation, we may consider that
a waste of money, and decide to pursue it no longer."
As has been discussed on t.p.t many times,a legal system depends
either on massive force, or the relative consent of those subject to
its laws, or both. If the government (whatever *that* means) decided
to be arbitrary about the vigour with which it prosecuted certain
illegal acts, then the continued observation of the law depends
largely on people's belief that it is a good law (I skipped a couple
of iterations here - sure you'll catch up).
I am not condoning this system, not any specific laws. But it is
ABSOLUTELY RIDICULOUS to suggest that the existence of any law
indicates a willingness to kill a violator of that law. Laws are
intended, for the most part, to influence behaviour (sometimes rather
strongly). There are some laws, no doubt, that are created with the
hopeful lust of an executioner gleaming from the eyes of our
legislators. But it is not, and never has been true that society,
government or whatever attaches such importance to all laws that a
refusal to submit to any one of them must result in the death of the
refusor.
The legal system may make your life a misery Perry, I accept that. But
it does not mean that the US Congress is after you life if you break
one of its laws.
-- paul
--
Politics is what you get when more than one person does anything.
Raul Rockwell
Here we go again. Perry's claim that the existence any law means
that the government is willing to kill somebody for breaking it.
This interpretation is the best indicator I have seen of absolutist
tendencies in Perry's arguments (I'm using his name because I
haven't yet seen too many other Libertarians echo his claim).
Well, we all know that the police never use violence to enforce, say,
traffic laws. And we all know that the police never shoot any one
for, say, abruptly reaching for something during an arrest.
Should I go on?
--
Raul <rock...@socrates.umd.edu>
Barry Shein
From: s...@rlgvax.Reston.ICL.COM (Stephen Carlson)
>>Sure, for $10 or more per letter. But I can't mail a simple letter for
>>29c thru them. I think most of us understand that this is underlying
>>some of the overhead costs. I don't think UPS or Fedex are all that
>>much less on overnight packages, like a dollar or two.
>
>The reason you cannot mail a simple letter for 29c (or for that matter at
>any price) through UPS or Fedex is because the USPS has a monopoly on first
>class mail. It is illegal for UPS and Fedex to deliver your letter as first
>class mail, thus we cannot know what price UPS or Fedex would offer. Congress
>has allowed UPS and Fedex to compete with the Postal Service for overnight
>deliveries, and as you noted they provide a cheaper service. Your comparing
>of $10 per overnight letter versus 29c per first class letter is comparing
>apples and orangutans.
Wait a minute.
I didn't compare 29c first class letters with $10 overnight, I simply
mentioned them both in the same paragraph. Read it again.
What I said was that USPS is probably subsidizing the still relatively
inexpensive 29c letters with the higher prices on other, special
services. It was just a speculation. The words are right up there.
>The Pittsburgh Press has recently reported that although the Postal Service
>has lost over 1.5 billion dollars in the past three years, they have paid out
>more than 2 million dollars in executive "bonuses"! When asked to justify this
>extravagance, the head of the Postal Service said "the Postal Service is not
>like a private company."
>
>Obviously, he means that private companies won't have this waste.
Indeed, that's a problem.
Of course, if it were a private company then the public really would
have no right at all to stop such extravagences.
Last year while Ford was enacting massive lay-offs and demanding union
give-backs due to unprofitability they were rewarding their top
executives upwards of a million dollars and more *each* in performance
bonuses. Performance for what? For losing money?
Perhaps that's their right, as a private company, and they have only
their stockholders and employees to answer to.
But it sure doesn't look like too promising a precedent to support
your implication that this would not be a problem if the USPS were
private.
Paul Barton-Davis
You certainly should, although I thought you were on vacation :-)
I never claimed that the government does not use violence, even
"extreme prejudice" in its attempts to enforce laws. I did, however,
claim, that the existence of any given law is not an indicator that
such force will always (or ever) be used, and that equally, the
government (there's "the" in that magnificent abstracting role again),
reserves the right to desist in the escalation of force at any point.
You may well get beaten to a pulp for some minor infraction, but
that does not imply that this is implicit in the existence of that
law, and much less so, in the existence of any others.
Moreover, it also points out my biggest misgiving about some
anarchists' "protection companies". It is unwise to leave the
continued existence of peace and tranquility in the hands of those
whose methods of doing so contradict those ideas from the outset.
This applies to the LAPD as much as to "We Stop Dirty Rotten
Socialists from Coopting Your Peacefully Acquired Loot, Inc".
Russell Turpin
In article <1991Aug5.1...@beaver.cs.washington.edu> pa...@stowe.cs.washington.edu (Paul Barton-Davis) writes:
> I never claimed that the government does not use violence, even
> "extreme prejudice" in its attempts to enforce laws. I did, however,
> claim, that the existence of any given law is not an indicator that
> such force will always (or ever) be used, and that equally, the
> government (there's "the" in that magnificent abstracting role again),
> reserves the right to desist in the escalation of force at any point.
This rebuttal strikes me as weak. A law that one knows ahead
of time will never be enforced is a law in name only. Even
libertarians have little objection to this kind of law.
Depending on the partial enforcement of a law to mitigate its
coercive element is even scarier. Partially enforced laws tend
to be arbitrarily used for reasons far from the ones that were
intended even by the legislature. "Oh? So you're a wise guy?
We'll write you up for failure to wear a tie on Sunday."
It strikes me as quite reasonable in discussing the good or bad
of a law to assume that it will be enforced. When the proponent
of a law has to resort to "maybe it won't be enforced", he has
as much as admitted that it shouldn't be law.
Russell
John Logajan
>the existence of any given law is not an indicator that
>government (there's "the" in that magnificent abstracting role again),
>reserves the right to desist in the escalation of force at any point.
The law enforcement people are studied practitioners of pre-defined
procedures. Depending on the crime they have three general options:
1.) immediate arrest, 2.) a warrant to appear before a court, 3.) a
civil fine in which the court date is sought only at the option of
the accused (a presumption of guilt.)
If they encounter a defector in any of these situations, they are
required by law to escalate to arrest. And desisting is done in the
courts -- provided you haven't been killed for resisting arrest.
But courts do not desist. Fortunately, as far as deadly force
is concerned, by the time it gets to the courts, you have been
physically subdued so that you are no longer a threat.
Incarceration is the actual intended final resort of most laws.
However, they will use deadly force whenever their arrest attempts
go awry.
It is structurally similar to a highway man who demands that you
either forfeit your money or your life. If you defer to his complete
demands, your life might be saved.
--
- John Logajan @ Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- log...@ns.network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
Perry E. Metzger
>
>>Because we have already been given evidence that group health
>>insurance costs at least $2000-$4000 per worker per year.
>
>Maybe we're being ripped off?
>
>Maybe that's the problem that's driving all this?
>
>(oh i know, i'll save you the typing, but the free market should fix
>this, but it doesn't, hmm, how come, govt intervention!)
You missed the point. The original poster claimed that even if the
Government health care system costs as much per worker as the current
system it would only cost $400 a year per person, which since the
current system costs $2000-$4000 a year is patently absurd. We were
not even discussing how the government could (mythically) reduce
costs; the whole question was what current costs are.
Perry E. Metzger
>In article <1991Aug2.1...@watson.ibm.com> met...@watson.ibm.com (Perry E. Metzger) writes:
>>
>>Ah, so you feel that guns should be used to keep peaceable people from
>>making insurance contracts, because your personal feeling is that it
>>is "a waste of human resources", and you want to see violence used to
>>prevent that waste.
>
>Here we go again. Perry's claim that the existence any law means that
>the government is willing to kill somebody for breaking it.
What, precisely, do you think the source of government law enforcement
is?
When a policeman stops at my house to arrest me, and I decide not to
play along, does he or doesn't he depend on that '45 on his hip to
enforce the will of the state? Yeah, most of the time he'll just
strongarm me into the handcuffs and physically drag me into the car
against my will, but if he feels that that isn't sufficient, he can
use deadly force.
>I am not condoning this system, not any specific laws. But it is
>ABSOLUTELY RIDICULOUS to suggest that the existence of any law
>indicates a willingness to kill a violator of that law.
Before continuing on this, why don't you go to any law library and
look up the case law on when deadly force is and is not permitted to
officers of "the law"?
Scott Cromar
: The Pittsburgh Press has recently reported that although the Postal Service
: has lost over 1.5 billion dollars in the past three years, they have paid out
: more than 2 million dollars in executive "bonuses"! When asked to justify this
: extravagance, the head of the Postal Service said "the Postal Service is not
: like a private company."
: Obviously, he means that private companies won't have this waste.
I don't know. Based on all the recent stories about extravagant
salaries and bonuses for executives of companies operating in the red,
this might indicate that the USPS is more like a private company than
you think.
--
--Scott Cromar SUPPORT CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM
"We all have our prices."
--Arizona State Sen. Carolyn Walker. Her price was $25,880.
Joe Keane
(Perry E. Metzger) writes:
>Ah, so you feel that guns should be used to keep peaceable people from
>making insurance contracts, because your personal feeling is that it
>is "a waste of human resources", and you want to see violence used to
>prevent that waste.
In article <1991Aug2.2...@beaver.cs.washington.edu>
pa...@stowe.cs.washington.edu (Paul Barton-Davis) writes:
>Here we go again. Perry's claim that the existence any law means that
>the government is willing to kill somebody for breaking it.
Did he say that? <look> No, i don't think he did.
Suppose you get mugged by some guy with a knife. Most likely the guy has no
intention of killing or even hurting you. He just wants your money. Does
that make it all right?
No, the goverment won't try to kill you if you grow pot or have oral sex (in
some states). However, they will try to put you in a nice room by yourself.
And if you try to avoid that, they will try to kill you. Don't believe me?
--
Joe Keane, amateur mathematician
j...@osc.com (...!uunet!stratus!osc!jgk)
Perry E. Metzger
Thank you for explaining my point much better than I ever did.
Certainly, when you see a mugger come up to you with a gun, he isn't
saying "I am going to kill you for your money". Rather, he is
threatening that if you refuse to comply with his wishes, he will kill
you. Most of the time, there is no question but that you will give in,
but whether or not a murder is committed it is the THREAT that you
will be killed if you don't comply that is used to enforce the
mugger's demands.
Governments necessarily operate much the same way. What is the
mechanism for making you comply with the law? Ultimately, the law is
backed with the threat that non-compliance means force will be used
against you. I can perfectly accept this if that threat of force is
being used to defend someone from force, but I can't accept that for
non-violent behavior like having oral sex, smoking a joint or
insisting that people entering your restaurant have ponytails and
purple tuxedos. I am ultimately willing to use the threat of deadly
force to defend my life and property. If necessary, I will kill to
preserve these things (although like the mugger or policeman I don't
expect such action to be necessary). I can't, however, conscience the
idea that killing may be used as the ultimate threat to enforce a law
against selling liquor on a Sunday. Although it is unlikely that the
police would ever need to go to the extreme of killing the shopkeeper
for disobeying that law, that is only because the shopkeeper is likely
to obey them and go off to jail rather than "making" them use deadly
force.
Perry E. Metzger
>In article <49...@osc.COM> Joe Keane <j...@osc.com> writes:
>>(Perry E. Metzger) writes:
>>>Ah, so you feel that guns should be used to keep peaceable people from
>>>making insurance contracts, because your personal feeling is that it
>>>is "a waste of human resources", and you want to see violence used to
>>>prevent that waste.
>>
>>In article <1991Aug2.2...@beaver.cs.washington.edu>
>>pa...@stowe.cs.washington.edu (Paul Barton-Davis) writes:
>>>Here we go again. Perry's claim that the existence any law means that
>>>the government is willing to kill somebody for breaking it.
>>
>>Did he say that? <look> No, i don't think he did.
>
>the cited article, and elsewhere, but he surely doesn't make it in the
>quote shown above.
I may have said that, but I meant it the way that Joe Keane
interpreted what I said: that the ultimate threat that enforces
compliance with the laws (including the law that says if a court
convicts you of a crime you have to wait quietly in a cell for a few
years) is killing. I didn't mean that the government necessarily will
intentionally kill you for smoking pot any more than one would argue
that a mugger desires to kill you for your money. In both cases,
however, it is the THREAT of death that is used to enforce compliance.
>>No, the goverment won't try to kill you if you grow pot or have oral sex (in
>>some states). However, they will try to put you in a nice room by yourself.
>>And if you try to avoid that, they will try to kill you. Don't believe me?
>
>Can you say talk.politics.THEORY ? I stressed several times over that
>I am not defending the current implementation of "law+order" in the
>USA. Perry made very wide claims about the meaning of a law, any law,
>any time, any place. I think those claims are wrong, even if it is
>true that in the USA today, you can be killed by police for a traffic
>violation or, worse yet, nothing at all.
Ultimately, there is no other way to force another individual into
compliance with your wishes than the use of violence. All law depends
on the threat of violence as an ultimate enforcement mechanism.
Whether the law is enforced by a Government agent or an agent of a
protection agency, the threat that makes you comply is that if you
resist, they will use force to stop that resistance, and that if you
resist too hard, they will use deadly force. This is not to say that a
government or a protection agency necessarily WANTS to kill you
(although it may), it is merely to say that they only mechanism by
which it can create conformity to its rules is the use of physical
force.
Governments are said to be created by men to defend their rights. (I
disagree with this explanation, but since it is one given by statists
I will accept this for argument's sake). That means that governments
base their rights on the delegation of the rights of the people. Since
you cannot delegate any rights that you did not have to begin with,
Governments cannot, by this theory of their existance at least,
exercise any right that an individual citizen is not capable of
exercising. If it could, where would it have gotten that right from?
Because I do not believe that individuals have the right to kidnap or
possibly kill others for smoking pot, I do not believe that
governments (or my prefered mode of law enforcement, private
protection agencies) have the right to do this.
Because I do believe that individuals have the right to stop an
attacker with the use of (possibly deadly) force, I believe that
government has the right to do this.
Because I do not believe that individuals have the right to kidnap or
possibly kill others for refusing to give them a job, I do not believe
that governments have the right to do this.
Because I do believe that individuals have the right to stop the theft
of their property with (possibly deadly) force, I believe that
government has the right to do this.
Chris Holt
>Ultimately, there is no other way to force another individual into
>compliance with your wishes than the use of violence.
Since we know that many people can be forced into compliance by
threats of starvation, this suggests that starvation involves
the use of violence. So the threat of firing someone from a job
when there are no alternative jobs, and where there is no
welfare mechanism, can be viewed as a threat of violence? :-)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chris...@newcastle.ac.uk Computing Lab, U of Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Salacious images dance through programs written in Freud..."
Russ Nelson
When you said this:
1) however, it is the THREAT of death that is used to enforce compliance.
I thought that you understood the source of power. But when you said:
2) Ultimately, there is no way to force another individual into
compliance with your wishes other than the use of violence.
I realized that you don't. And then you danced so close to comprehending
the source of government's power that I just can't believe that you don't
understand it:
3) That means that governments base their rights on the delegation of
the rights of the people. Since you cannot delegate any rights that
you did not have to begin with, Governments cannot, by this theory
of their existance at least, exercise any right that an individual
citizen is not capable of exercising. If it could, where would it
have gotten that right from?
Let's take your statement 1. It is *exactly* the THREAT of death that
is used to compel obedience. But death itself cannot command that
obedience. Consider trying to force someone to dig a ditch by threatening
to shoot them. If you actually go ahead and shoot them, you don't get
your ditch dug.
On to statement 2. It is simply wrong. There is NO WAY AT ALL to
force another individual into compliance with your wishes. Suppose I
say "Perry, I'm going to make you into a socialist". Do you think
there is any level of violence, large or small, that will get me my
wish? I'm sure your response would be "death first!" [1]
Statement 3 may be correct (or not), but it is tantilizingly close to
explaining the source of government's power. Governments base their
power on the delegation of the power of the people. Without the
obediance of the people, a government has no power.
[1] Wesley, "The Princess Bride".
--
--russ <nel...@clutx.clarkson.edu> I'm proud to be a humble Quaker.
Bengt Larsson
>I am ultimately willing to use the threat of deadly
>force to defend my life and property. If necessary, I will kill to
>preserve these things (although like the mugger or policeman I don't
>expect such action to be necessary). I can't, however, conscience the
>idea that killing may be used as the ultimate threat to enforce a law
>against selling liquor on a Sunday. Although it is unlikely that the
>police would ever need to go to the extreme of killing the shopkeeper
>for disobeying that law, that is only because the shopkeeper is likely
>to obey them and go off to jail rather than "making" them use deadly
>force.
All right. I'm actually trying to understand here. I can understand
how you would want to defend your life using deadly force. You
obviously value your life (as we all do). And I would agree at this point.
Trouble is, do you *actually* consider your property to be worth as
much as your life, and you would be willing to die rather than let anyone
into your premises?
And if so, isn't this seriously overstating the importance of your
property? Would you die for other things, like defending your
children, for example (or maybe saving them from a disaster)? If no, do
you value your house more than your children?
Bengt Larsson.
--
Bengt Larsson - Dep. of Math. Statistics, Lund University, Sweden
Internet: ben...@maths.lth.se SUNET: TYCHE::BENGT_L
james c oconnor
> Let's take your statement 1. It is *exactly* the THREAT of death that
> is used to compel obedience. But death itself cannot command that
> obedience. Consider trying to force someone to dig a ditch by threatening
> to shoot them. If you actually go ahead and shoot them, you don't get
> your ditch dug.
>
> On to statement 2. It is simply wrong. There is NO WAY AT ALL to
> force another individual into compliance with your wishes. Suppose I
> say "Perry, I'm going to make you into a socialist". Do you think
> there is any level of violence, large or small, that will get me my
> wish? I'm sure your response would be "death first!" [1]
How about this: Russ, I am going to force you to stop discriminating
against people with moles on their faces. What you won't stop? ZAP!!!
(I put you into the electric chair). Guess who no longer gets to
discriminate against people with moles on their faces. Guess who gets
the strong message that they'd better consider if moles on the faces of
others are really that important. I have won. I got exactly what I
wanted.
You didn't quote Wesley where he talks about "once people find out that
a pirate has gone soft... [forgot the exact words that go here]
then it is work, work, work."
Killing someone for not digging the ditch only means you won't get the
ditch if that was the only person capable of digging it. So long as
there is someone else who the person who wants the ditch dug thinks will
give in he can kill all of the resisters he wants.
Killing works very well for stopping someone specific from doing an
undesired thing. It also intimidates the others who might consider
doing the undesired thing.
Jim
Russ Nelson
From article <NELSON.91...@sun.clarkson.edu>, by nel...@sun.soe.clarkson.edu (Russ Nelson):
> Let's take your statement 1. It is *exactly* the THREAT of death that
> is used to compel obedience. But death itself cannot command that
> obedience. Consider trying to force someone to dig a ditch by threatening
> to shoot them. If you actually go ahead and shoot them, you don't get
> your ditch dug.
>
> On to statement 2. It is simply wrong. There is NO WAY AT ALL to
> force another individual into compliance with your wishes. Suppose I
> say "Perry, I'm going to make you into a socialist". Do you think
> there is any level of violence, large or small, that will get me my
> wish? I'm sure your response would be "death first!" [1]
How about this: Russ, I am going to force you to stop discriminating
against people with moles on their faces. What you won't stop? ZAP!!!
(I put you into the electric chair). Guess who no longer gets to
discriminate against people with moles on their faces. Guess who gets
the strong message that they'd better consider if moles on the faces of
others are really that important. I have won. I got exactly what I
wanted.
I didn't dispute that. I said that you cannot *cause* someone to do
something that they do not wish to do, even upon pain of death. Certainly
you can *stop* someone from doing something by killing them.
Killing someone for not digging the ditch only means you won't get the
ditch if that was the only person capable of digging it. So long as
there is someone else who the person who wants the ditch dug thinks will
give in he can kill all of the resisters he wants.
So? I never said that cowardice got you anything worth having.
Killing works very well for stopping someone specific from doing an
undesired thing. It also intimidates the others who might consider
doing the undesired thing.
Quite true. But you cannot make someone start doing something by killing
them. And societies can only be run and governed with the cooperation of
the governed.
Perry E. Metzger
>met...@watson.ibm.com (Perry E. Metzger) writes:
>
>>Ultimately, there is no other way to force another individual into
>>compliance with your wishes than the use of violence.
>
>Since we know that many people can be forced into compliance by
>threats of starvation, this suggests that starvation involves
>the use of violence. So the threat of firing someone from a job
>when there are no alternative jobs, and where there is no
>welfare mechanism, can be viewed as a threat of violence? :-)
No. If I force someone to take a job by threatening to shoot him, he
has no choice. A person cannot be threatened into taking a job by a
threat of "starvation" however. There are always alternatives. One can
take another job, for example. There is almost always a shortage of
people willing to do meanial work in the US. It is generally possible
to get a job as a janitor and the like. One may be forced into living
in unpleasant conditions, but it is almost impossible to starve unless
you are unwilling to take any job at all.
There are chinese illegal immigrants in this country who get paid less
than minimum wage, live in squalid illegal apartments that are tiny,
and manage to save large amounts of money to start their own
businesses.
Even if there were no other jobs available, there is an ENORMOUS
difference between harm through inaction and harm through action. Your
existance is no claim on my life. I owe others nothing; they owe me
nothing. There is no natural right to a job. If you can convince a
person to employ you, thats fine, but just as you have no right to a
wife (no matter what being single does to your mental state) and no
right to friends, you have no right to work. Others don't owe you a
job just because you "need" one; you have to be of some value to them
that makes them want to employ you.
Perry E. Metzger
>In article <1991Aug7.1...@watson.ibm.com> met...@watson.ibm.com (Perry E. Metzger) writes:
>
>When you said this:
>
>1) however, it is the THREAT of death that is used to enforce compliance.
>
>I thought that you understood the source of power. But when you said:
>
>2) Ultimately, there is no way to force another individual into
> compliance with your wishes other than the use of violence.
>
>I realized that you don't. And then you danced so close to comprehending
>the source of government's power that I just can't believe that you don't
>understand it:
>
>3) That means that governments base their rights on the delegation of
> the rights of the people. Since you cannot delegate any rights that
> you did not have to begin with, Governments cannot, by this theory
> of their existance at least, exercise any right that an individual
> citizen is not capable of exercising. If it could, where would it
> have gotten that right from?
>
>Let's take your statement 1. It is *exactly* the THREAT of death that
>is used to compel obedience. But death itself cannot command that
>obedience. Consider trying to force someone to dig a ditch by threatening
>to shoot them. If you actually go ahead and shoot them, you don't get
>your ditch dug.
That much is true. However, for the threat to be credible, there must
be the belief that if you don't dig the ditch you will in fact be
killed. That means that you must be willing to kill the occasional man
who refuses to dig, if only to assure that the others would comply.
Just as it is not the intention of a mugger to kill but to steal, it
is not necessarily the intention of the government to kill but to
force compliance with its laws.
>On to statement 2. It is simply wrong. There is NO WAY AT ALL to
>force another individual into compliance with your wishes. Suppose I
>say "Perry, I'm going to make you into a socialist". Do you think
>there is any level of violence, large or small, that will get me my
>wish? I'm sure your response would be "death first!" [1]
Actually, you might find it very easy. I'm a fairly cowardly guy.
Unless I believed that resistance would serve some useful purpose, I
would probably give in. Death is way too final for me. Thats why I pay
my taxes even though I think of taxation as no better than extortion
of protection money by a mobster.
>Statement 3 may be correct (or not), but it is tantilizingly close to
>explaining the source of government's power. Governments base their
>power on the delegation of the power of the people. Without the
>obediance of the people, a government has no power.
But the point is this: if a government's power is based on the
delegation of the power of the people, then a government agent can
only use those methods a private citizen would be allowed. That means
he can shoot at a murderer, but not extort money from an honest man at
gunpoint.
Ron Bodkin
>>No, the goverment won't try to kill you if you grow pot or have oral sex (in
>>some states). However, they will try to put you in a nice room by yourself.
>>And if you try to avoid that, they will try to kill you. Don't believe me?
>
>Thank you for explaining my point much better than I ever did.
>
>Certainly, when you see a mugger come up to you with a gun, he isn't
>saying "I am going to kill you for your money". Rather, he is
>threatening that if you refuse to comply with his wishes, he will kill
>you. Most of the time, there is no question but that you will give in,
>but whether or not a murder is committed it is the THREAT that you
>will be killed if you don't comply that is used to enforce the
>mugger's demands.
their goal of making "the punishment fit the crime." I.e., they
attempt to ensure that they have sufficient force to
Perry E. Metzger
>In article <1991Aug7.1...@watson.ibm.com> met...@watson.ibm.com (Perry E. Metzger) writes:
>>Certainly, when you see a mugger come up to you with a gun, he isn't
>>saying "I am going to kill you for your money". Rather, he is
>>threatening that if you refuse to comply with his wishes, he will kill
>>you. Most of the time, there is no question but that you will give in,
>>but whether or not a murder is committed it is the THREAT that you
>>will be killed if you don't comply that is used to enforce the
>>mugger's demands.
> However, modern governments strugggle manifestly to achieve
>their goal of making "the punishment fit the crime." I.e., they
>attempt to ensure that they have sufficient force to
You stopped there, but I can answer already.
The "punishments" they meet out are part of their system of laws,
which they need the threat of death to enforce. Without being able to
threaten a person with death, what ability does a government have to
get me to enter their cute little jail cells for 5 years, eh? Of
course, in the usual case I either cooperate or I am physically
overpowered, but if I refuse the former and evade the latter the only
mechanism left for assuring future compliance with the law is the
elimination of the "lawbreaker". The question of punishment has
nothing to do with the question of the mechanism of enforcement. Just
as the mugger doesn't expect to need to kill you to get your money,
the government doesn't expect to need to kill you to get you to enter
one of their little concrete hotel rooms, but both are willing to kill
to have their desires fulfilled.
Perry Metzger
--
"Live Free or Die!"
Libertarian Party info: Phone 1-800-682-1776, E-Mail 345-...@mcimail.com
Bengt Larsson
>You stopped there, but I can answer already.
>
>The "punishments" they meet out are part of their system of laws,
>which they need the threat of death to enforce. Without being able to
>threaten a person with death, what ability does a government have to
>get me to enter their cute little jail cells for 5 years, eh?
Lots of hassle, I would think. You wouldn't dare to have any affairs
with the state, you couldn't call the police if a crime was committed
against you (without fear of being sent to prison for your own crime) etc.
You would have to live as an "outlaw", always on the run, always
protecting yourself with deadly weapons etc. There would be no reason
at all to use deadly force against you.
You pay your taxes. You have said so (so do I, BTW :-). Do you
_really_ pay them because otherwise you think you would be killed?
What an imagination.
>Of
>course, in the usual case I either cooperate or I am physically
>overpowered, but if I refuse the former and evade the latter the only
>mechanism left for assuring future compliance with the law is the
>elimination of the "lawbreaker".
Merely "evading" would bring you to your knees. Of sheer stress,
if nothing else.
>The question of punishment has
>nothing to do with the question of the mechanism of enforcement. Just
>as the mugger doesn't expect to need to kill you to get your money,
>the government doesn't expect to need to kill you to get you to enter
>one of their little concrete hotel rooms, but both are willing to kill
>to have their desires fulfilled.
It is a little harder to evade the state than a single mugger.
Therefore deadly force need not be used.
Russell Turpin
In article <1991Aug14.2...@lth.se> ben...@maths.lth.se (Bengt Larsson) writes:
> You pay your taxes. You have said so (so do I, BTW :-). ...
I'm always leary of such claims. Most people who pay less in
tax than the government would prefer are wise enough not to
admit such. They have a healthy, and justified, caution of
the state's threats.
> ... Do you _really_ pay them because otherwise you think
> you would be killed? What an imagination.
I knew a man who didn't pay his taxes. He spent his last few
years in prison because of this. True, they didn't outright
kill him; though they might have had he tried harder to escape.
There *is* a real difference between "they will try to kill you"
and "they will try to incarcerate you for a few years, with
deadly force at their disposal". But it is not a large enough
difference to change much the moral overtones of this discussion.
Russell
Steve Wallis
>In article <1991Aug14.2...@lth.se> ben...@maths.lth.se (Bengt Larsson) writes:
>> You pay your taxes. You have said so (so do I, BTW :-). ...
>
>I'm always leary of such claims. Most people who pay less in
>tax than the government would prefer are wise enough not to
>admit such. They have a healthy, and justified, caution of
>the state's threats.
I don't pay my poll tax (a flat rate local tax), along with about 14 million
other people. I'm aware of the steps the state could take to try to enforce
payment (bailiffs, taking it from wages, or jail). Because of the sheer
scale of opposition to this tax, effective enforcement is impossible and it
is going to be scrapped.
>> ... Do you _really_ pay them because otherwise you think
>> you would be killed? What an imagination.
Some people pay their poll tax because they think it is a good thing, or
because they don't want to break the law. Some others pay because they are
afraid of the consequences of not paying (usually worried about having their
property taken away by bailiffs). The possibility of being killed by the
state is not something many people are worried about in this country, even if
it is the ultimate penalty (and even though one protestor has been killed by
the police).
>I knew a man who didn't pay his taxes. He spent his last few
>years in prison because of this. True, they didn't outright
>kill him; though they might have had he tried harder to escape.
>There *is* a real difference between "they will try to kill you"
>and "they will try to incarcerate you for a few years, with
>deadly force at their disposal".
The maximum penalty for poll tax non-payment is three months. People know
that the jails are already overcrowded and the probability of them being
picked out is so small, so the threat of jail is not regarded by many as a
serious threat. And the probability of being killed by the state is much
smaller still (unless you deliberately try to break out of jail, etc.)
>But it is not a large enough
>difference to change much the moral overtones of this discussion.
Some argue that breaking the law is immoral. Others argue that the poll tax
itself is immoral.
There are other laws which can't be enforced because of the number of
people/companies that break them (and partly because the state doesn't try to
enforce them). Sunday trading, minimum wages, health & safety, and pollution
laws are broken all the time by companies, and the low penalties/probability
of being prosecuted make it cost effective for companies to break them.
Steve.
--
/ / / \ / / -------------------------
\/\ /\ \/ \ / \\/ / | Steve Wallis: |
/ \ \/ \/ \\//\ / | ste...@cs.man.ac.uk |
\/ \/ -------------------------