Robatoy wrote:
On Sep 22, 9:02 pm, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
Please explain to me where this "right" comes from?
When you pay insurance premiums, you have the 'right' to have whatever
fixed if you've paid your premiums (either direct or via direct pay-
cheque (tax) withdrawal.
There is another big difference: With socialist healthcare of the sort
found in Canada and elsewhere, even if you have *never* paid a
premium, you get to make claims against the system. If people choose
to band together to spread risk via an insurance mechanism, there is
absolutely no problem. When they are *forced* to do so AND forced to
pay for people who never contributed a dime, this is known as ... er
..... fraud.
I was born in Canada but never lived there full time for any long
period. Suppose I moved back and retired there, having never paid a
penny of Canadian taxes. Is it morally OK that I should reap the
benefits of the healthcare and elder care system in place there?
Again, these are the kinds of problems innate to wealth redistribution
schemes.
In the automotive version, many people pay to fix my car if my damage
exceeds the total premiums I have paid.
All of whom voluntarily participate in the insurance system. Moreover,
there are many insurers competing for your business thereby providing
the best possible rates to the lowest risk customers. This
eeeeeeevil market behavior helps keep a cap on premiums in a way
no government thug ever could.
I suppose the difference lies in the area of what a doctor is allowed
to charge for a certain product...but that is ultimately his/her
choice to belong to that system. The autobody guy isn't regulated.
Sure he/she is. Autobody prices are "regulated" by what the
insurance company is willing to pay for a particular bit of work.
The distinction here though, is that the entire process is *voluntary*.
You don't *have* to pay comprehensive insurance on any car you own
outright (though most states here require liability before you can
get on the road as a protection for others - even there, though, they
do no mandate *who* insures, only that you be insured).
Contrast this with socialist healthcare. There is one provider, and
there is no competition for lowest price, best service, or highest
quality care. The only "option" is whether you want to be in the
medical business or not. Once you decide to do so, you are forced
to place this perverse game of stealing from some to give to others.
Worse still, since there is always more demand for healthcare than there
is supply, the limited supply is forcibly redistributed to the entire
population without regard to their personal behaviors or willingness
to pay. The result is that most people (everyone except the nominal
poor) see a *decrease* in the quality, efficiency, and speed of care.
In short, it's a deal done strictly by government coercion and it's
a system that causes most people to be served more poorly than they
would otherwise be. In the mean time, the real answer to care for
the poor - incenting the rest of us to help them on a voluntary
charitable basis - gets tossed in the wastebasket because private
charity is something the political critters cannot use to their
personal benefit and ambition.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/