13 ms·

> people can allocate money better than governments (Full disclosure: we live in Europe) and my OH - who earns way more than I do - has been moaning about her

> people can allocate money better than governments (Full disclosure: we live in Europe) and my OH - who earns way more than I do - has been moaning about her taxes and deductions since, well, forever. However in the last few years - and as an entire family - we have hit the state healthcare system pretty hard, including every single member of the family, for a whole variety of reasons. Trips to the ER, accidents, stays in hospital, operations, you name it. Got some more somewhat frustrating news this morning from our family doctor meaning yet more appointments at the hospital, this time for two more family members, including - but not limited to - an MRI and a gastroscopy. I was pretty down on the way home from the doctor, but on the plus side, there's basically no cost to us at all for all this additional medical care, other than from having paid the contributions to the state up-front through the taxation system. Q: You'd prefer to roll the dice that you'll stay healthy?

weaksauce 4y ago
> Q: You'd prefer to roll the dice that you'll stay healthy? not op but I think that in order to have a BI that works you would need to have a functioning single payer health care system like the NHS has. The poor people would still spend the money and the money trickles back up into the wealthy but there is a velocity of the money that the rich don't have that poorer people do have because it's spent in the community immediately instead of ticking up in some wealthy person's bank account accruing interest.
WaitWaitWha 4y ago
> ... no cost to us at all for all this additional medical care, other than from having paid the contributions to the state up-front through the taxation system. This is a contradictory statement. Either it is no cost to you, or you paid up-front. I wish you the very best.
- logifail 4y ago
  > This is a contradictory statement. Either it is no cost to you, or you paid up-front. Perhaps I wasn't quite explicit enough: no additional cost to us, after a condition is diagnosed... I'm sure there are people who are happy to pay as they go. This is fine, right up until the moment when you roll the dice and discover it isn't.
robocat 4y ago
> people can allocate money better than governments Maybe for quotidian expenses. But absolutely not for many long term expenses and risks. My New Zealand government is pretty good at allocating money for common infrastructure and for people’s long-term costs (retirement, healthcare, benefit of education). Most infrastructure wouldn’t happen if we could avoid paying for it as individuals - fairly provable by comparing between countries that have good and poor infrastructure. We all see how much taxation costs us, but too many people deny/unsee the value of the massive benefits we all accrue. The other aspect that governments can do is to manage risk and insurance, for rare events, which in my experience most people are extremely poor at planning for. When my city Christchurch was hit in 2010 by a devastating earthquake, everyone has the opportunity to see the value of the infrastructure that they lost (destroyed/damaged), and the opportunity to see the value of belonging to a society that fixes our infrastructure. Also taxation shares the costs between the financial winners and the losers. We tax those that have benefited financially from belonging to a healthy society (people don’t “make” money, their society provides them with their opportunity and the safety to enjoy their gains), and we pay those that screw up (poorly paid job) or have bad luck (lose the genetic lottery, illness etcetera). This is easy to see: take someone who is well off (made themselves) and move them with nothing to a shitty country and see if they rebound: most people would not do well. Cue foreigners with degrees driving taxis.

weaksauce 4y ago

> Q: You'd prefer to roll the dice that you'll stay healthy? not op but I think that in order to have a BI that works you would need to have a functioning single payer health care system like the NHS has. The poor people would still spend the money and the money trickles back up into the wealthy but there is a velocity of the money that the rich don't have that poorer people do have because it's spent in the community immediately instead of ticking up in some wealthy person's bank account accruing interest.

WaitWaitWha 4y ago

> ... no cost to us at all for all this additional medical care, other than from having paid the contributions to the state up-front through the taxation system. This is a contradictory statement. Either it is no cost to you, or you paid up-front. I wish you the very best.

logifail 4y ago
> This is a contradictory statement. Either it is no cost to you, or you paid up-front. Perhaps I wasn't quite explicit enough: no additional cost to us, after a condition is diagnosed... I'm sure there are people who are happy to pay as they go. This is fine, right up until the moment when you roll the dice and discover it isn't.

robocat 4y ago

> people can allocate money better than governments Maybe for quotidian expenses. But absolutely not for many long term expenses and risks. My New Zealand government is pretty good at allocating money for common infrastructure and for people’s long-term costs (retirement, healthcare, benefit of education). Most infrastructure wouldn’t happen if we could avoid paying for it as individuals - fairly provable by comparing between countries that have good and poor infrastructure. We all see how much taxation costs us, but too many people deny/unsee the value of the massive benefits we all accrue. The other aspect that governments can do is to manage risk and insurance, for rare events, which in my experience most people are extremely poor at planning for. When my city Christchurch was hit in 2010 by a devastating earthquake, everyone has the opportunity to see the value of the infrastructure that they lost (destroyed/damaged), and the opportunity to see the value of belonging to a society that fixes our infrastructure. Also taxation shares the costs between the financial winners and the losers. We tax those that have benefited financially from belonging to a healthy society (people don’t “make” money, their society provides them with their opportunity and the safety to enjoy their gains), and we pay those that screw up (poorly paid job) or have bad luck (lose the genetic lottery, illness etcetera). This is easy to see: take someone who is well off (made themselves) and move them with nothing to a shitty country and see if they rebound: most people would not do well. Cue foreigners with degrees driving taxis.