I wasn't arguing that you only have yourself to blame. It's an accurate statement that people care for their bodies in varying levels and that this level of care can increase or decrease susceptibility. The freedom to behave as you wish for maintaining your own health is something I support. However, it should be accompanied by the responsibility of having to pay for the care you need.
There are, of course, diseases that can strike regardless of upkeep, but that's why you work hard, save money, and have good insurance for. Each individual is responsible for guarding themselves against disaster as best they can. For those who can't protect themselves, that's covered by private charity.
Under universal care, everyone is forced to pay into a program equally or, worse, the government decides what behaviors to encourage/discourage through pricing (ex. abortion). So it either places an unfair burden on those who behave responsibly or an encroachment into things like a woman's right to choose. (Remember, universal health care doesn't have to be instituted from a socially liberal perspective - theocrats can use it as a tool, as well.)
Yes, the option to vote another guy into office exists. However, we're currently trapped in the position Nader called "Republicrats:" two parties on paper, one party in practice. There's no difference between "that guy" and "the other guy." We vote for McCain, we get massive deficit spending that ruins the dollar. We vote for Obama, we get massive deficit spending that ruins the dollar. There's no guy who says, "Why are we doing massive deficit spending and ruining the dollar?"
In the case of programs, this translates into: you don't like how government is handling your money, you vote for the other guy...and they continue the same policies as the first guy. No accountability, no answering to the people. At least with charities you can look at several different ones and place your money with the one most likely to use it well.
Your vaccine example gives a good place to highlight the differences. In a private system, demand causes companies to produce the measles vaccine and sell it through hospitals. Production and profit leads to innovation and cheaper vaccines. The price drops as each company seeks to out perform the others in terms of quality and cost. In the end, most parents who want the vaccine can afford it themselves and its cheap enough those with means can donate it to the people who can't buy it.
In the government model, the government wants to give measles vaccines to everyone. They apportion several million for it. Companies compete for the contracts, 1 or 2 with the best political connections (not the best manufacturing or science divisions) win. The companies create the vaccines for the price agreed on. Knowing the gov't money will be there for a while due to the policy mandate they have no motivation to drop prices, so the vaccines remain at the same cost (as high as the company can wring from the government) and quality for years. Innovation stalls as the companies with the government contracts can use their guaranteed revenue stream to out-compete smaller competitors, granting them an unfair advantage in the market place and causing market failure. This has already occurred in some states with prescription drug programs, where 1 or 2 companies get government funds for their drugs so the state can hand them out at a discount. They're then able to put their competitors out of business by using taxpayer money for expansion, leading to a monopoly.
(Vaccines are less dramatic on the innovation angle, but for other areas of tech and services it's a big concern.)
There are, of course, diseases that can strike regardless of upkeep, but that's why you work hard, save money, and have good insurance for. Each individual is responsible for guarding themselves against disaster as best they can. For those who can't protect themselves, that's covered by private charity.
Under universal care, everyone is forced to pay into a program equally or, worse, the government decides what behaviors to encourage/discourage through pricing (ex. abortion). So it either places an unfair burden on those who behave responsibly or an encroachment into things like a woman's right to choose. (Remember, universal health care doesn't have to be instituted from a socially liberal perspective - theocrats can use it as a tool, as well.)
Yes, the option to vote another guy into office exists. However, we're currently trapped in the position Nader called "Republicrats:" two parties on paper, one party in practice. There's no difference between "that guy" and "the other guy." We vote for McCain, we get massive deficit spending that ruins the dollar. We vote for Obama, we get massive deficit spending that ruins the dollar. There's no guy who says, "Why are we doing massive deficit spending and ruining the dollar?"
In the case of programs, this translates into: you don't like how government is handling your money, you vote for the other guy...and they continue the same policies as the first guy. No accountability, no answering to the people. At least with charities you can look at several different ones and place your money with the one most likely to use it well.
Your vaccine example gives a good place to highlight the differences. In a private system, demand causes companies to produce the measles vaccine and sell it through hospitals. Production and profit leads to innovation and cheaper vaccines. The price drops as each company seeks to out perform the others in terms of quality and cost. In the end, most parents who want the vaccine can afford it themselves and its cheap enough those with means can donate it to the people who can't buy it.
In the government model, the government wants to give measles vaccines to everyone. They apportion several million for it. Companies compete for the contracts, 1 or 2 with the best political connections (not the best manufacturing or science divisions) win. The companies create the vaccines for the price agreed on. Knowing the gov't money will be there for a while due to the policy mandate they have no motivation to drop prices, so the vaccines remain at the same cost (as high as the company can wring from the government) and quality for years. Innovation stalls as the companies with the government contracts can use their guaranteed revenue stream to out-compete smaller competitors, granting them an unfair advantage in the market place and causing market failure. This has already occurred in some states with prescription drug programs, where 1 or 2 companies get government funds for their drugs so the state can hand them out at a discount. They're then able to put their competitors out of business by using taxpayer money for expansion, leading to a monopoly.
(Vaccines are less dramatic on the innovation angle, but for other areas of tech and services it's a big concern.)
Reply
Leave a comment