{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
11/21/2017 5:06:09 PM
3
That's all well and good, except for the people who can't pay. If hospitals checked credit score before ER admittance and turned away the poor, it would work fine. They don't, though, so someone (the government) needs to foot the bill. Things like the individual mandate in theory reduce that bill while encouraging more people to seek treatment.
English
-
Edited by SpiRits: 11/21/2017 5:34:08 PM[quote] If hospitals checked credit score before ER admittance and turned away the poor, it would work fine.[/quote] Is it ethical to force someone to provide a service to someone else? Would you subscribe to a hospital that is known for rejecting emergency patients? In the free market, charity is a lot more relevant we see today. We don't see the states artificially created disincentive to help others due to the ever growing welfare state, which is zero sum economics anyway. Charity hospitals and clinics will be a lot more predominant through the means of private welfare. State interference hasn't allowed current day care provider to increase the supply of these firms due to the every raising demand for services, and every raising shortage on restricted supplies. The poor will have a greater access to healthcare at a far greater cheaper price than we see today, minus the coerced individuals forced to subsidize it. And lets be realistic, does a hospital have the time to check everyone's credit score upon a urgent care situation? Would a doctor work for a hospital that turns away those who can necessarily make full payment on request? [quote]They don't, though, so someone (the government) needs to foot the bill.[/quote] The state cant pay for anything first before it removes resources from the private industry via threat of force, resources that could have gone to help the poor at a far more efficient manner. [quote]Things like the individual mandate in theory reduce that bill while encouraging more people to seek treatment.[/quote] All mandate does is force lower risk individuals to purchase insurance on items that should not be insurable. And as I have explained much above, this forces the state created oligopoly on insurance companies to pool higher risk individuals with lower ones, forcing the lower risk clients to pay significantly higher premiums and never gain anything from the system, while they subsidize the 80 year old's smoking addiction. Not to mention as I said above, a mandate that will always artificially increase the demand for any service, especially in an ologopolistic market, will always raise the price with it.
-
Without hard numbers none of this is substantiated. You claim that private charity will foot the bill for the poor and unfortunate. I'm of the opinion that while charity does great things, philanthropy and charity tend to be distributed unevenly, and that the healthcare of the poor and unfortunate will be passed over for flashier opportunities. Government is inefficient, sure, but by stripping private citizens of their hard-earned wealth, it ensures that key infrastructure and services remain available, even if they aren't particularly profitable or prestigious.
-
Edited by SpiRits: 11/21/2017 8:51:15 PMYou haven't responded to anything I originally said. You say my claims are not sustainable then move onto make claims that I could simply say are not sustainable. All of the knowledge given above is based on praxeological [i]a priori[/i] axioms of economic law. Truth statements from logical deduction. There is a very good source to show that less state (less coercion) = more prosperity: http://www.heritage.org/index You really have made no argument against anything I have said. I have already explained multiple times how the free market healthcare system will always provide greater access to the poor. Ive elaborated how state intervention leads to the death of individuals not able to afford healthcare because of regulation. The state doesnt help the poor, they simply exist to solve problems they have created themselves and only impoverish the poor more. [quote]Government is inefficient, sure, but by stripping private citizens of their hard-earned wealth, it ensures that key infrastructure and services remain available, even if they aren't particularly profitable or prestigious.[/quote] First off, very general comment. It seems as if you really don't have an actual argument to anything I said so you decided to make a claim with no real logic attached. So in reply to your off topic general claim, Im going to do the same thing: ALL services and goods can be provided at higher quality and more efficiently through the free market, rather than a monopoly that unilaterally provides such services at whatever quality and cost.
