Roads are within the public domain. In order to drive on them, the state requires you to be licensed and pay taxes to support the construction and maintenance of these roads. That's why the state can force you go buy automobile insurance to use public roads. However, health care is a service produced by groups of individuals for use by other individuals on a voluntary basis. It isn't within the public domain. Hence, the distinction between the two.
Your first statement doesn't make logical sense. Profits are revenues minus costs. Therefore, all else equal, higher costs mean lower profits. As for your question, I'd like to respond with a question for you: Do lower health care costs mean better health care? I'm asking you seriously. For instance, health care costs would be lower if the state refused to provide health care for people who voluntarily did harm to their bodies (by smoking, drinking, poor eating habits, etc.), but 'public health' wouldn't benefit from a measure like this. Keep in mind, this is just an example. From an economic perspective, giving the state more control over the market for health care just makes them a middleman in the process. Consider this: The state never actually produces anything. They're only able to provide services to the governed by taxing (by force) their constituents. With this in mind, I'd like to ask another question: Are people better off when the state takes their money to finance the services people demand, or are they better off financing these services on their own without the middleman? It's been said that the road to hell is paved with good intentions. And while I appreciate the good nature of people, it is my opinion that your good intentions are paving the road to a symbolic hell.
No, your argument is the one that is silly and flawed. (See, I can make baseless claims that don't add anything to the discussion, too! )
Fine. I'll spell it out for you. There is nothing about roads that makes them especially part of the "public domain". It is simply more convenient and equitable to do so and a choice was made to finance them in such a fashion. This choice can be made elsewhere as needed. Your argument is fundamentally flawed because for some reason you treat roads as a special case when there is absolutely no rationale to support the assertion. There is bit of irony of course, in that publicly financed roadways are a massive subsidy to many industries.
You're really nitpicking here. I'd think that if the public owns something, you could consider that as being within the "public domain." Regardless, I don't see where we disagree. If it would suit you better, you could say that people make the choice to allow the state to finance roads because there is no economic incentive for individuals to build their own roads. Therefore, the state can set guidelines for using their property. And by extension, because health care is not a public good (meaning that individuals can mutually benefit from using and providing this good on a voluntary basis), the state cannot force you to abide by any set of conditions in order to use this service. Is that so disagreeable?
I can't edit posts: To clarify, my last post is an attempt to justify my treatment of roads as a "special case." To address your last statement, I definitely agree that publicly financed roads are a subsidy to private industry, but I don't think this contradicts my argument. In fact, it goes along with my argument that the state never produces anything. It just forces itself into a voluntary agreement as a middleman.
This is not correct. Hospitals are required to treat people in urgent need of medical attention even if they don’t have insurance. If hospitals, and ultimately the government, are required to do this and pay for it, then everyone should be required to have insurance. Seems pretty straight forward to me.
No I'm not. The public domain is what the public decides it will be (in a democracy anyway, in theory). That's critically different than what you argued. Probably true, but irrelevant. Your terminology is confusing. If a "public good" as defined above is the test for what can or cannot be regulated by the state, how would roads apply? Are individuals providing roads on a voluntary basis? What about those who do not own a car? Or, how about privately owned toll roads - they exist and are obviously profitable... For me, the public good, like the public domain, is simply what the public chooses it to be (again, all the caveats about democratic theory apply). In America then, we can conclude that if the public decides that health care is a public good which people deserve, and that industry cannot provide sufficiently, the constitution rather specifically empowers the people with a variety of means by which to achieve that goal. That's not to argue the constitutionality of the method detailed in the Health Care Bill as passed - that's a separate argument.
Thanks for saying this Grizzled - I got sidetracked but this was the other part of my complaint with said original post.
This is correct see my previous post. The uninsured goes to the hospital and does not pay. The government funds the hospitals to the tune of 50 Billion a year through the DSH system to keep them from going under. Therefore you should be required to carry coverage.
Lots of problems here, but let’s start with this issue, because it may get to the root of things. The problem is this. You can’t have a democracy without taxation. So, do you oppose democracy?
Any bets on whether he’ll answer the above question? Or will he run away and hide like basso does when he gets caught contradicting himself? You folks have a strange battle on your hands these days. I get that tough economic times have created a backlash against the government, but it also seems to have emboldened the wingnuts. Countering them without getting into pissing matches I think is the trick. From a political standpoint I think progressives need to take the high road all the time. The low road is for Basso and his friends. People expect that of them, but if progressives start lashing back it seems wrong, and Joe voter tends to back away. Maybe that’s as it should be. If Joe voter isn’t inspired by either side maybe he tends to see the status quo as the safer way to go. If a group of people wants to change things for the better, otoh, maybe they need to convince Joe voter than they have a better idea, and that they operate by higher standards? Just thinking out loud.
Haha, that's funny. When a judge rules DADT and/or gay marriage unconstitutional, he's an activist judge. When a judge rules mandated healthcare unconsitutional, he's brilliant. I'm becomingly increasingly convinced that most people believe only what they want to believe and convince themselves of it.
It should be obvious that he meant higher cost to the payer of the insurance premium, not higher costs for the insurance company.
No, the government mandates that the ER treat people who come in, regardless of their ability to pay. That's why they can force you to be financially responsible for your own healthcare costs.
What's the point? It doesn't go into effect until 2014, and there's dozens of duelign court cases at hand anyway...might as well let it work it's way up the chain normally in a world of scarce judicial resources; likewise some temporal distance between the politics of it all is probably a good thing also.
Why don't we just pass a law that says everyone has to have a job? We can use Siberian labor camps as a reference point. Isn't raw liberty and freedom wonderful! I am pretty much untrusting of anyone in Washington DC knowing what is best for me.
Maybe we can pass a law banning silly hyperbolic metaphors by people who are either unable or unwilling to comprehend complex problem.
