Quote:
Originally Posted by Bane of your existence
Yeah, firemen and cops were there for the rich. That's the point. You're forgetting about the drop-in-the-bucket problem. Think about National Defense. In a free market there is no incentive for you to pay for your share. The defense as a whole is such a giant thing, that your small contribution will go unnoticed. However, it's not something that you can give to only the people that pay for it. Everyone enjoys its benifits regardless of what they chipped in. It's the same thing with firemen. They wont go stand by a house while it's burning just to make sure the fire doesn't get out of hand and spread to buildings that paid for fire protection. Everyone enjoys it's benifits so it wouldn't hurt not to pay for it. That's why there has to be a tax, to make sure everyone contributes. In healthcare, it's easy to exclude the people that don't pay. You need treatment, you pay. This example is exclusive, therefore not a social good.
I'm with you and all. I'm just helping you out because some people like to argue by shooting down moot points of your diatribe, making you look like 'you don't know what you're talking about,' instead of talking about the overall problem.
|
I see what you're trying to say, and I appreciate how nice you are about it considering I called your post bull****. National Defense is a better example of that, but I still think Police and Firemen could also be a private business. There is no reason the Police can't enforce the law on some people and not on others (like corrupt Police or security guards) or protect some people and not others. The fact that Police are out there arresting lawbreakers is only because they are paid by the government and not by individuals (unless they're corrupt). It's also possible for firemen to wet down the houses on either side of the burning house, and I've read accounts of them doing exactly that back when you had to pay for fire protection.
Even ignoring the point of helping others by contributing to their health care, isn't the whole point of it to make it affordable? On a purely selfish basis, you are getting the same level of care as they are for what is likely a better price than what you had or didn't have under private insurance. I don't think we should outlaw private practice or anything like that, but an appropriate level of minimum care is necessary in my opinion. That's why I support welfare, government pension, all that sort of thing and why I live in Canada.
It remains to be seen what plan is the best and whether the government will even be able to pull off a socialized health program in the States; Alejo's point is well taken. I think it's a step in the right direction though and high on the list of homeland priorities that Obama should be focusing on in lieu of saber wielding in other countries.