3 ms·
Actually you can. That's part of the deadweight loss of taxation: you are forced to spend money on stuff you don't want and are unable to spend on stuff you do
by pedrocr 17y ago
Actually you can. That's part of the deadweight loss of taxation: you are forced to spend money on stuff you don't want and are unable to spend on stuff you do want.
(...)
Now, in a democracy, people in the situation of person X may only make up 50% - 1 of the population, but that doesn't change the fact that they lose.
That is all true of course. What I was pointing out is that the democratic group decision to spend more on healthcare is also a spending decision. The counterpoint is what you mentioned, that 50% - 1 could be against it. In Scandinavia however you will find that support for the welfare state is very high. Another important consideration is that the public healthcare in these countries tends to be much more efficient per person than the one you get for you private dollars otherwise. You could of course argue that that is just the market currently being inefficient.
- yummyfajitas 17y agoSupport for "the welfare state" in the abstract is irrelevant. The relevant question is "would person X purchase retail goods or health care if given the choice?" People might support the welfare state for various other reasons, including signaling [1], compromise and ignorance [2]. Regarding more efficient public health care (assuming it to be true for the moment, I've seen no compelling evidence for this), all this does is reduces the deadweight loss by lowering the price of the unwanted goods. [1] I voted for X because I'm {religious/moral/not racist/hard working/$OTHER_TRIBAL_IDENTITY}. [2] This is due both to politicians lying ("I won't force people to buy health insurance they can't afford") as well as to people not having a clue ("death panels").