09-06-2014, 12:28 AM
There's free as in freedom, and then there's free as in beer.
As I mentioned in the freedom thread, freedom is simply voluntary action. If a man voluntarily gives a woman a drink, the result is that she gets free beer, but that's an example of freedom. Simply demanding the beer as if it's a right is the "free beer" philosophy, and it just doesn't work because we live in a world of scarcity. It's not a policy choice or a philosophical leaning. It's reality, and we ignore it at our peril.
The same holds for food, clothing, shelter, and healthcare. And it's funny, that. I remember when I was in third grade and we were learning about the caveman days, we were taught that the three necessities of life are food, clothing, and shelter. I don't know when healthcare was added to the list. But it seems absurd to even talk about universal healthcare when we don't even have universal nutrition or housing, both of which would relieve some of the demand on healthcare. A person will certainly die of starvation or dehydration quicker than most illnesses.
But the big thing here I need to point it, it probably should have been among my original points, is that I do not consider Blue Cross, or really any health insurance provider (again, I consider health insurance to be an aberration), to be part of the free market system. It'll take too long to delve into it, so I'll simply say that when you look closely into the incentives, it's got government hands all over it.
The big thing I should point out, though, is Blue Cross cannot deny you treatment to anything. They're not the ones that actually treat anybody. They merely offer solutions to financing health expenses. It's the health providers themselves--hospitals and doctors--that deny treatment (presumably in absence of payment).
At this point, you're faced with one of two choices, and the ethical choice here should be easy. Either you enslave the care providers, force them to administer healthcare so The People can claim their Sacred Right. Or else realize that the real challenge has nothing to do with the healthcare itself, but in how to plan your finances so that you will be able to make the payment when the need arises to get your healthcare.
Once you understand it's not a healthcare problem but a finance problem, you take to solving it very differently. Give me the average amount of money Americans are spending on healthcare, and I'd structure their finances so they not only have their healthcare needs taken care of, but they also retire with millionaire level income as well.
As I mentioned in the freedom thread, freedom is simply voluntary action. If a man voluntarily gives a woman a drink, the result is that she gets free beer, but that's an example of freedom. Simply demanding the beer as if it's a right is the "free beer" philosophy, and it just doesn't work because we live in a world of scarcity. It's not a policy choice or a philosophical leaning. It's reality, and we ignore it at our peril.
The same holds for food, clothing, shelter, and healthcare. And it's funny, that. I remember when I was in third grade and we were learning about the caveman days, we were taught that the three necessities of life are food, clothing, and shelter. I don't know when healthcare was added to the list. But it seems absurd to even talk about universal healthcare when we don't even have universal nutrition or housing, both of which would relieve some of the demand on healthcare. A person will certainly die of starvation or dehydration quicker than most illnesses.
But the big thing here I need to point it, it probably should have been among my original points, is that I do not consider Blue Cross, or really any health insurance provider (again, I consider health insurance to be an aberration), to be part of the free market system. It'll take too long to delve into it, so I'll simply say that when you look closely into the incentives, it's got government hands all over it.
The big thing I should point out, though, is Blue Cross cannot deny you treatment to anything. They're not the ones that actually treat anybody. They merely offer solutions to financing health expenses. It's the health providers themselves--hospitals and doctors--that deny treatment (presumably in absence of payment).
At this point, you're faced with one of two choices, and the ethical choice here should be easy. Either you enslave the care providers, force them to administer healthcare so The People can claim their Sacred Right. Or else realize that the real challenge has nothing to do with the healthcare itself, but in how to plan your finances so that you will be able to make the payment when the need arises to get your healthcare.
Once you understand it's not a healthcare problem but a finance problem, you take to solving it very differently. Give me the average amount of money Americans are spending on healthcare, and I'd structure their finances so they not only have their healthcare needs taken care of, but they also retire with millionaire level income as well.