5 ms·

"Public health care" is interesting, because it usually involves first forcing everyone to pay for a government healthcare system, then (usually) regulating the

by nickff 13y ago

"Public health care" is interesting, because it usually involves first forcing everyone to pay for a government healthcare system, then (usually) regulating the private system into oblivion, or destroying it outright. "Public health care" is fundamentally incompatible with liberty. Your third paragraph is interesting, because you appear (to me at least), to endorse liberty, yet without believing in it. >"given that the abolition of force and fraud is a moral long term goal, what sort of society would we want to build that would be likely to evolve in that direction" My answer to your question, (as quoted above,) is that I believe liberty would allow for people to prosper, and all the fascist, feudal, and that regressive tendencies we see are a product of coercion. I do not understand your answer to the question, as it seems to open the door for any type of coercive means with the stated intent (but not necessarily with the result) of improving the welfare of the populace. The ends which you describe in the last paragraph are all interesting, and nice goals, but do not (in themselves) justify the use of coercive means; especially since the coercion presents many discrimination problems due to the discretionary powers granted to those who would 'solve' the problems.

dragonwriter 13y ago
> "Public health care" is interesting, because it usually involves first forcing everyone to pay for a government healthcare system, then (usually) regulating the private system into oblivion, or destroying it outright. You seem to be using a strange definition of "usually" -- every OECD country has "some degree of public healthcare" (what the grandparent post suggested support for), and yet most of them have some degree of a private system.
- nickff 13y ago
  I would pose a question to you: In what area of healthcare has a government in the OECD reduced its 'participation'? If the answer is 'a few' or 'not many', then I would say we are experiencing the destruction of private health care right now.
  - dragonwriter 13y ago
    If you define "destruction" that way, your argument is circular, as you've just made it: 1. Public health care usually leads to destroying private health care, and 2. "Destroying" private health care means the government not decreasing the public role in health care.
    - nickff 13y ago
      I left unstated the fact that many OECD governments are greatly increasing their roles in healthcare, because I thought it was readily apparent. Perhaps I should have been more clear. My point is that many OECD states are (greatly) increasing the portion of the healthcare market controlled by the government, and few if any are decreasing it substantially (or at all). I define 'destroying' the private market in healthcare as the government taking over previously private activities, in effect nationalizing the industry.
      - dragonwriter 13y ago
        > I left unstated the fact that many OECD governments are greatly increasing their roles in healthcare, because I thought it was readily apparent. Perhaps I should have been more clear. It wouldn't change the basic problem; you first started with the claim that public health care usuually means destroying private health care and have progressed to define "destroying" private health care as government either not decreasing (your penultimate post) or increasing (your last post) its role in health care. Which means that, stripped of the peculiar definition of destruction, your claims is that public health care means the government either not decreasing or increasing its role in health care. Which is trivially true, of course, but absolutely vacuous.
        nickff 13y ago
        Clearly stated, you criticism should be that my claim is tautological, not trivial; this is a legitimate point... But you seem to be forgetting that the proposition was part of a larger argument, where I was criticizing a previous post which claimed to support liberty, but was also supporting government healthcare programs. My argument was basically that the government health program destroys the private market, thus eliminating liberty (and choice). If you take the statement that 'increasing government control destroys private markets' alone, it is tautological; but extracting that phrase from the argument of which it was only a part, then criticizing the statement is a pointless set of activities.

by nickff 13y ago

dragonwriter 13y ago

> "Public health care" is interesting, because it usually involves first forcing everyone to pay for a government healthcare system, then (usually) regulating the private system into oblivion, or destroying it outright. You seem to be using a strange definition of "usually" -- every OECD country has "some degree of public healthcare" (what the grandparent post suggested support for), and yet most of them have some degree of a private system.

nickff 13y ago
I would pose a question to you: In what area of healthcare has a government in the OECD reduced its 'participation'? If the answer is 'a few' or 'not many', then I would say we are experiencing the destruction of private health care right now.
- dragonwriter 13y ago
  If you define "destruction" that way, your argument is circular, as you've just made it: 1. Public health care usually leads to destroying private health care, and 2. "Destroying" private health care means the government not decreasing the public role in health care.
  - nickff 13y ago
    I left unstated the fact that many OECD governments are greatly increasing their roles in healthcare, because I thought it was readily apparent. Perhaps I should have been more clear. My point is that many OECD states are (greatly) increasing the portion of the healthcare market controlled by the government, and few if any are decreasing it substantially (or at all). I define 'destroying' the private market in healthcare as the government taking over previously private activities, in effect nationalizing the industry.
    - dragonwriter 13y ago
      > I left unstated the fact that many OECD governments are greatly increasing their roles in healthcare, because I thought it was readily apparent. Perhaps I should have been more clear. It wouldn't change the basic problem; you first started with the claim that public health care usuually means destroying private health care and have progressed to define "destroying" private health care as government either not decreasing (your penultimate post) or increasing (your last post) its role in health care. Which means that, stripped of the peculiar definition of destruction, your claims is that public health care means the government either not decreasing or increasing its role in health care. Which is trivially true, of course, but absolutely vacuous.
      - nickff 13y ago
        Clearly stated, you criticism should be that my claim is tautological, not trivial; this is a legitimate point... But you seem to be forgetting that the proposition was part of a larger argument, where I was criticizing a previous post which claimed to support liberty, but was also supporting government healthcare programs. My argument was basically that the government health program destroys the private market, thus eliminating liberty (and choice). If you take the statement that 'increasing government control destroys private markets' alone, it is tautological; but extracting that phrase from the argument of which it was only a part, then criticizing the statement is a pointless set of activities.