Originally Posted by Jim in CT
I am not necessarily saying I think Obamacare is a good thing, not at all.
I didn't think you did. I was just baiting you to bring you out into a wider discussion. To delve into more than the economics and feasibility of it. Which, to a brief extent, you did.
I am saying, that it seems fair and decent to me, that we have some risk-sharing mechanism where healthy people (who could get sick at any time) subsidize sick people in some way.
That is an economic consideration that needs to be worked out after the decision to implement such a mechanism. The initial stage involves the fairness of forcing people to share in something they don't wish to do. And it involves who decides. It involves PRINCIPLES of fairness and decency and coercion and liberty. Collectivist societies have little problem deciding and implementing such mechanisms, and the cost, for such societies, is secondary, or even less in importance. Consider in what kind of society you live in, or wish to live in, before you decide what kind of mechanism creates the subsidies and who, or what part of your society decides.
If we could accomplish that without the federal government being involved, I would prefer that.
I agree with that. Further, I believe it is beyond preference, but a necessity that the federal government stay out of mandating, decision making, and the mechanics of how it works. I believe, not just because of constitutionality, that the federal gvt. would be far more effective and less costly to run if it stuck to its constitutional limitations. The all expansive role it plays in our lives and the massive and expanding size of its bureaucracy, are absolute prescriptions for failure, for snafus, breakdowns, constant need of repair and reform, not to speak of the accompanying dictatorial methods required to operate as it does. How less likely a Benghazi incident would be if the federal gvt. were only involved with its constitutional duties. The time, resources, money, effort, systemic planning involved in managing a myriad of duties is far more costly and susceptible to failure compared to the focus on more limited objectives and their financing. Benghazi is a constitutional federal responsibility. More attention paid to it than on nonconstitutional objectives would auger more success in eliminating such tragedies.
I was amazed how the government's prescription for making General Motors successful was to downsize it, to eliminate two of its car lines, renegotiate union contracts and pension liabilities so that they were affordable, yet it couldn't look in the mirror and see that it needed to do the same thing. So GM is now financially viable, mean and lean heading toward a future of success--so long as it stays the course of fiscal responsibility and remains a competitive size. The federal gvt. on the other hand is a bureaucratic mess, verging on the bankruptcy it bailed GM out of, failing on many "small" missions while it tries to gather larger and more expansive ones--as was GM before it employed the government prescription.
I know that Catholic hospitals (which I donate to) will treat folks regardless of their ability to pay. So we do have some of that. But maybe we could level the playing field a bit more?
Yeah, and the Obamacare mandate on contraceptives may mean that those hospitals will either have to abandon a core belief or abandon the wonderful charitable work. I haven't followed that--maybe that has been favorably resolved?
And I strongly believe we would have much more of that kind of charity if mandated federal "help" to the needy were eliminated and left to local governments and private concerns. That has always been an American tradition which has been dampened by government takeover of charity. That has "leveled the playing field" but dampened the natural human spirit of kindness, compassion, and charity. I think that has even contributed to an expansion of cruelty, violence, and lack of human empathy in our society.
I don't think anyone should endure a lifelong financial burden for something they have zero control over. Nor do I think that healthy people 'deserve' the lifelong financial windfall that comes with being healthy.
I am not talking about health expenses that are within one's control...if you choose to smoke and get lung cancer, I don't want you reaching into my pocket.
Charitable help exists even outside of Catholic charities--there are actual charities that can be applied to for help by the needy and to whom hospitals can refer patients who are unable to pay. I do think that those who are more conscious of health maintenance and practice it (which BTW can be costly) do deserve a financial break for their effort
I'm not saying I like Obamacare. But I guess I am saying that the strict libertarian view on this, seems a bit callous to me.
Maybe I'm not saying anything, I don't know.
|