4 ms·

We're willing to endure incredible pain to ensure that nobody gets a free ride.

Waterluvian 8y ago
Giving people a free ride can be a valid selfish act. When I enjoy paying all my tax that covers social systems like healthcare and decent schools and welfare, it's not because I'm altruistic. It's because I believe it's the cheapest way to not get stabbed and robbed that also doesn't feel like a dystopian gated community. Or put more absurdly: I want quality NPCs in my world. (not that they're mindless automatons, but that I want prosperity for all those people who make up the backdrop of my experience, even if they're not immediate friends, family, colleagues)
- tedunangst 8y ago
  I think this is a compelling argument, but the advocates for more social services never seem to use it.
- twoquestions 8y ago
  Completely agree here, except for the "quality NPCs" bit. Remember, "There, but for the grace of God, go I". It both enrages and saddens me that people will willingly suffer more pain trying to keep "free riders" out than save the bureaucratic labor and just let everyone in and "buy in bulk". Other countries get better care for less per person, in some cases much less. Americans are irrationally, short-sightedly selfish and cheap when it comes to medical threats to our well-being. If only we could frame this as a national security issue...
  - maxxxxx 8y ago
    " If only we could frame this as a national security issue... " If you framed it that way you would just end up paying even more without better results. Just look at the high incarceration rates and the prison costs that follow.
maxxxxx 8y ago
I have to say the "Medicare for all" movement looks more and more attractive.
mc32 8y ago
It's not that simple. The indigent get a free ride, people over a certain age get a free ride. It's the people who work for workplaces who offer no coverage who get screwed --the working poor. Now, medicine for all is not a panacea either, but it may be better than what we have now. I think one answer might be a two tiered system. One that is no strings attached[1] basic healthcare for all and a second tier for those who want 'premium' healthcare through their employer or other private means. Reason is even in places with universal coverage, often times people will get private coverage for a multitude of reasons from quality of care, to wait times, to experience of staff (low incidence of malpractice), etc. [1] Lest anyone be overenthusiastic, this often means your doctor has final say in options, treatment, etc. which is why a 'premium' private market thrives alongside the universal option.
- maxxxxx 8y ago
  "I think one answer might be a two tiered system. One that is no strings attached basic healthcare for all and a second tier for those who want 'premium' healthcare through their employer or other private means. Reason is even in places with universal coverage, often times people will get private coverage for a multitude of reasons from quality of care, to wait times, to experience of staff, etc. " Exactly. That's how it works in most of Europe.

Giving people a free ride can be a valid selfish act. When I enjoy paying all my tax that covers social systems like healthcare and decent schools and welfare, it's not because I'm altruistic. It's because I believe it's the cheapest way to not get stabbed and robbed that also doesn't feel like a dystopian gated community. Or put more absurdly: I want quality NPCs in my world. (not that they're mindless automatons, but that I want prosperity for all those people who make up the backdrop of my experience, even if they're not immediate friends, family, colleagues)

tedunangst 8y ago
I think this is a compelling argument, but the advocates for more social services never seem to use it.
twoquestions 8y ago
Completely agree here, except for the "quality NPCs" bit. Remember, "There, but for the grace of God, go I". It both enrages and saddens me that people will willingly suffer more pain trying to keep "free riders" out than save the bureaucratic labor and just let everyone in and "buy in bulk". Other countries get better care for less per person, in some cases much less. Americans are irrationally, short-sightedly selfish and cheap when it comes to medical threats to our well-being. If only we could frame this as a national security issue...
- maxxxxx 8y ago
  " If only we could frame this as a national security issue... " If you framed it that way you would just end up paying even more without better results. Just look at the high incarceration rates and the prison costs that follow.

maxxxxx 8y ago

I have to say the "Medicare for all" movement looks more and more attractive.

mc32 8y ago

It's not that simple. The indigent get a free ride, people over a certain age get a free ride. It's the people who work for workplaces who offer no coverage who get screwed --the working poor. Now, medicine for all is not a panacea either, but it may be better than what we have now. I think one answer might be a two tiered system. One that is no strings attached[1] basic healthcare for all and a second tier for those who want 'premium' healthcare through their employer or other private means. Reason is even in places with universal coverage, often times people will get private coverage for a multitude of reasons from quality of care, to wait times, to experience of staff (low incidence of malpractice), etc. [1] Lest anyone be overenthusiastic, this often means your doctor has final say in options, treatment, etc. which is why a 'premium' private market thrives alongside the universal option.

maxxxxx 8y ago
"I think one answer might be a two tiered system. One that is no strings attached basic healthcare for all and a second tier for those who want 'premium' healthcare through their employer or other private means. Reason is even in places with universal coverage, often times people will get private coverage for a multitude of reasons from quality of care, to wait times, to experience of staff, etc. " Exactly. That's how it works in most of Europe.