login about faq

My question pertains to health insurance in particular and is the following: Why not have a state insurance system sub-contracting to the best businesses? The military sub-contracts to private companies. We all pay for the military and the police to secure the whole country.

to put it in another way: Do you choose more suffering, pain and an uncertain future for your family because you can't afford it or do you chose a system of basic state insurance backed up with private insurance?

asked Feb 02 '11 at 07:48

Fareed's gravatar image

Fareed
2202054

edited Feb 02 '11 at 10:35

Greg%20Perkins's gravatar image

Greg Perkins ♦♦
1002425618

Who gets to decide who are the best businesses?

(Feb 08 '12 at 17:40) Marnee Dearman ♦ Marnee%20Dearman's gravatar image

In the case of military health care, contracts with private businesses are competitive and based on a balance of cost, capability, quality, and accessibility. During the contract execution, the TRICARE agency monitors the contractors in all these areas. Costs under this program have continued to escalate but at a rate slightly less than health care in general.

(Feb 08 '12 at 18:34) ethwc ♦ ethwc's gravatar image

From an Objectivist perspective, the real question here is: is it wrong for the government to impose mandatory taxes on its citizens to pay for health services, especially considering that governments already do it to pay for military services?

This raises a further question: is there anything different about military services compared to health services that makes one proper for government taxation, and the other not?

(Actually, "mandatory taxes" is a reduncancy; all taxes are mandatory. They wouldn't be classified as "taxes" if they weren't.)

I will elaborate on my own answers to these questions in due course if needed. For now, I will say that the issue here is physical force.

answered Feb 02 '11 at 15:22

Ideas%20for%20Life's gravatar image

Ideas for Life ♦
467718

The philosophical issue here is whether it is appropriate for a government to require the populace to provide health care for all members. Or, put differently, is the welfare of the "all" justification for taking from the "few." Does that sound familiar? In a society where right to property is guaranteed, taxes can only be justified for those government actions related to ensuring those rights (defense from criminals and from other countries intent upon invasion). Ours, long ago ceased to be such a society.

The issue now is one of whether we should allow the dictatorship of the majority to impose upon the minority the obligation to provide health care for all. As we move further away from being a representation republic to being a full fledged democracy, this and similar issues will be answered by that majority with a resounding yes. Perhaps more a more important question might be to ask, will the minority ever decide to withdraw their support of the dominating majority?

Would I be terribly remiss to point out that health care cost escalation out of proportion to base inflation began with increased involvement of the Federal government (Medicare in the 1960s). Once, health care providers were guaranteed payment pretty much regardless of what they charged, they increased charges rapidly. In addition, inventors found that they had a very profitable sector to which they could sell their products (i.e., government paid coverage).

answered Feb 03 '11 at 09:00

ethwc's gravatar image

ethwc ♦
19417

Follow this question

By Email:

Once you sign in you will be able to subscribe for any updates here

By RSS:

Answers

Answers and Comments

Share This Page:

Tags:

×161
×154
×11

Asked: Feb 02 '11 at 07:48

Seen: 1,244 times

Last updated: Feb 08 '12 at 18:34