Insurance for Healthcare

[SteveF]

Hi Peter, I realize I've already put a lot on your plate but I have one more thing I'd like you to take a look at. I casually mentioned to a friend about our discussion on the forum and he said he wanted to send me a link to a video he had recently watched. I wanted to send you the link as well and get your thoughts. It challenges the concept of a free market.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/warning/view/

Steve

[thrombomodulin]

Thanks for sharing the links, I'll probably get a chance to watch them tonight. Writing a reply, however, might have to wait until this weekend or next.

[thrombomodulin]

I have been working a great deal of overtime in the past couple months, and using the remainder of my time with wife and daughter. Nevertheless I've finally been able to finish a reply! I didn't put the usual effort here into proof reading, feel free to call out and ask for clarification on any errors that cause confusion.

I think I could take the Australian oath without reservation because it seems to paint the ultimate authority as God. ...My rational would be if I am taking an oath under God then I would ultimately do what God requires in the case where I was asked to do something against God’s law. I could face imprisonment but I would not be breaking my word.

It is certainly a more agreeable pledge, I think your are right that it is reasonable to say that the wording must necessarily be taken to be conditional upon our understanding of honoring God's will.

The question I have is how do we implement the following injunctions found in scripture?

1Pe 2:17 ".. Honor the emperor".

Rom 13:7 ".. honour to whom honour".

This is a good question. I think we should, in general, obeying Caesar's decree's even when he acts outside of jurisdiction. We should not obey Caesar when he commands we act contrary to what God requires of us (e.g. it is written "we must obey God rather than men"). The identification of which category an action falls into is not an easy task, but I hope that if we give careful though and pray over any matter that God may lead us to the right choice. As mentioned before, however, our command to honor Caesar does not constitute a basis upon which Caesar can lawfully expand his jurisdiction.

Romans 13:7 says "Render to all what is due them: tax to whom tax {is due;} custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honor to whom honor." The verse begins with "Render to all what is due them". If a ruler does not act in a way that is worthy of honor, is honor due to him? In any case, given Isaiah's example (Isaiah 10:1), I do not think it precludes righteous condemnation of wherever a ruler acts wickedly.

Just a side question. Do you think (based on the two scriptures above) that it would have been sinful for a Christian to participate in or support the American Revolutionary War against the King of England in the 1770’s? No easy questions here

You have indeed asked a hard question.

It leads me to ask how do you know a legitimate ruler when you see one? In the present there seems to be little difficulty in discerning which institution is the legitimate authority, however, at other points in history it is not at all obvious. Whenever two rulers claim authority over the same jurisdiction, whom do you obey? For example, consider the war to prevent southern secession in the 1860's. Which person or entity should Christian men have recognized as having legitimate or illegitimate authority? I believe the southern side was correct, but this does depend upon the notion that the constitution and contracts are binding upon government officials. There is the idea of whether we should ultimately consider the law to be authoritative over the king or vice verse (lexrex).

I don't have a firm opinion on the matter of the revolutionary war. The bible describes that God acts to raise kings, or to bring them down. David seems to have done well to not act to kill Saul to bring about his ascent to the kingship - despite the fact that he knew God had already anointed him. I presume we would do well to do likewise, and allow God to carry out the disestablishment of an evil authority. Davids example indicates that not acting to advance either side is appropriate. This, however, would be quite problematic for anyone who is a Christian and employed in any government security position - but especially the military.

I was going to ask if you if you considered yourself in line was some libertarian ideas and then I noticed that the author of the article is a libertarian.

My position has been changing over time, and I have moved from conservative to minarchist/libertarian in the past couple years. I have also been reading for a while from those who advocate an anarcho-capitialist position. It is quite fascinating, but I have not been persuaded that it is best.

In the light of these 7 statements I wanted to get your feedback on two philosophies from a generation ago in the United States. In the 1970’s the United States, as you recall, was facing an energy crisis....

Indeed, neither philosophy fits my view for both views presume that the government ought to make decisions and act in matters where, I believe, it has neither authority nor valid practical reasons to do so. First

First, Ronald Reagan’s presumes it is the governments job to decide whether the prosperity level of citizens is too much or too little - this a not a matter the government should be deciding. Second, Carter presumes that it is the business of the government to secure an oil or alternate energy supply for its citizens. The function of supplying energy needs, however, can be and has been well met by private citizens who operate the business of extracting such resources from the earth or purchasing them from abroad, and selling them here.

The case that ordinary needs can be met by the operation of private business probably needs no defense, however, I would like to explain that crises are well handled by private sector speculation. It is important that government does not inhibit the actions of speculators who buying or selling resources such according to their discretion. The actions of successful speculators are often criticized, however, it should not be so for successful speculators provide a benefit to their fellow citizens. Unsuccesful speculators do harm to their fellow citizens and in the process go bankrupt rendering them harmless.

Realize that a successful speculator buys a quantity of a resource at a time when prices are low and he withholds these products from use until a later time when prices are higher. Thus, before the onset of a crisis, his actions reduced the supply of an item available for others, which results in lower amounts consumed and increases prices higher than would otherwise have been. When a crisis occurs, the shortage of the resource causes prices to rise. The rising prices cause a restriction in the consumption a resource - which is exactly what is needed. However, at this time the speculator sells his goods at the now increased market price. His actions make more of the product available than would otherwise have been, and the additional quantity decreases prices making it less expensive than it would otherwise would have been for his fellow citizens. Thus the speculators actions leads to a price leveling, and a consumption leveling between times that of crisis, and times of plenty. A successful speculator will earn a handsome profit, and receive much condemnation from his fellow citizens who have failed to realize that his actions benefit rather than harm consumers.

The business of speculation can result in great gains, or losses for those engaged in such an activity. Those who are better able to foresee future circumstance will be successful and profit. The profit thus attained gives them ability to expand his role in alleviating future crises, but those who lack the ability to foresee future conditions and thus speculate incorrectly suffer loss and lose the ability to cause further harm.

If we proceed further, it should be realized that government cannot rationally perform the speculative function, for the profit and loss mechanism provides at least two elements to private action that do not exist in government (1) a means of calculation of the cost of conservation, against the potential gains is not active - namely one purchasing to his own gain or loss defines prices in a way that purchases with someone else's money cannot (taxpayer dollars) (2) The profit and loss mechanism does not operate in a government so as to select and empower those who are most perceptive among us in recognizing future conditions to affect the allocation and consumption of scarce resources. To compete the point, I would like to say that Carter correctly realizes that more than one resource can be used to fulfill a particular need - in this case oil or alternative energy. A man of course need not build a warehouse of oil to engage speculation. He could also engage in speculation by the development of alternative energy solutions. The costs of alternative energy development are thus weighed by the speculator against the risk of higher oil prices, thus allowing a development of prices for these resources and a rational calculation of when the development of alternative resources is or is not prudent.

The severity of the oil crisis was intensified because the government mandated a maximum price for which oil could be sold. Of course, regardless of any government action or inaction it is physically impossible for the consumption of oil to exceed the supply (one cannot consume what does not exist!) and a reduction in supply will necessarily bring about a reduction in use.

In a free market a rising price would have restricted the use of oil to only those the most urgent needs, and marginal uses of oil would be forgone. However, absent the increase in price consumers did not reduce their usage of oil as they otherwise would have. (Note that prices are the means by which private market participants communicate about the value and scarcity of goods). Hence, it was a frequent occurrence that oil was completely consumed until none remained. My father owned a gas station at this time and he frequently ran out of gas. Realize that without government intervention the situation of having no oil would never come about - there would always be some oil available for the most urgent needs, although the price may indeed may become very great. As it was, the first intervention of price controls necessitate the second intervention of a system of government rationing among citizens (e.g. cards were issued to citizens permitting them to purchase up to X units of gasoline).

I had somewhere read that the reason foreign suppliers "turned off the taps" due to the US support of Israel. I'm not sure the extent to which this is true. But, if so, then it is yet another of the very frequent occurrence that government intervention in one area begets government intervention in another. Here, the crisis may never had occurred if the US had not intervened in the affairs of another part of the world.

The seven statements apply in this way: [1] Christians should give of from their own supplies to help those who have less (a Christian who has oil gives it to a person who lacks oil, and forgoes the benefits of consuming the oil himself). [2] People should be free to buy or sell oil at any price buyer and seller mutually agree to (e.g. allow speculators to act, and prices to rise to reduce consumption). [3] Price controls are a restriction on a persons use of his own property and should be abolished (e.g. the company that owns a certain amount of oil should be free to require any price whatsoever for the product). Government price capping causes the practical problems of shortages. [4-5] A persons decision to buy oil, sell oil, produce, or consume oil depends on many more factors than simply money. All men are subject to a scarcity: First a scarcity of time - at any moment my choice to do one thing excludes the possibility of doing a vast number of alternative possibilities. It may be monetarily profitable to ride my bicycle to a destination instead of driving, however among other factors, if I value the time required to ride my bicycle more or less than the fuel consumed to drive to a destination my decision to do one or the other is made accordingly. (By riding my bicycle I have forgone the use of a certain amount of time that could have been used towards other ends). Second, there is a scarcity of goods - I have the choice of consuming oil to visit a destination, or forgo the traveling and not consume the oil. Depending on whether I value going to a certain destination more or less than the oil consumed, among other factors, to get there I will choose accordingly. [6] Speculators actions are entirely selfish, yet beneficial to their neighbors. [7] If someone steals oil from someone else, they should be required to give it back.

1. What do you think of Corporations? Would they fit within your philosophy? In particular, I’m thinking of the fact that they are legally required to seek monetary profit...often at the expense of other values.

An increase in profit is not long sustained by dishonoring the values of customers. A prudent corporation/businessman realizes that the maximization of profit requires him to act to fulfill the needs of his employees and customers rather than cheat them. What values do you feel a business must compromise in order to attain profitability?

2. What do you think of the phrase, when speaking of the economy, "greed is good"

It is a statement which is prone to generate a misunderstanding, because the definition of what greed is must be first established.

Are we talking about judging from a moral point of view an economic exchange between individuals of something (e.g. labor for money)? If so, first we should consider what are the pair of objects to which a persons greed is applied? Recall that 'greed' implies a person is making a value judgment of 'this' more than 'that'. Second, for the people that are making these value judgment of said objects - do they agree or disagree in their ranking of whether one thing is more or less valuable than the other? Third, is there wrongdoing in the transaction. For example, is one bearing false witness about the objects (e.g. dishonest weights and measures), or coercion (e.g. threat to life)?

Of course, cases involving wrong doing are easily dealt with. However, if wrong doing is not present then conditional statements apply. For example, a man should provide for material goods for his family, but perhaps he spends his a great deal of his wages on himself, and only a little for his wife and children. Certainly this is greedy and can be condemned as such by Christians. In such matters where obedience to Christ is a matter of difference in degree, rather than in kind, I believe it falls outside the jurisdiction of Caesar to act as judge and attempt to remedy a situation. Each man is accountable to Christ, and before Christ's judgment he will stand or fall.

3. If a free market economy is the answer to people being treated fairly then why does the government need to implement laws against collusion etc,.. to
prevent the public from being taken advantage of.

Did you have a particular situation in mind? The government need not implement such laws, for businessmen may indeed attempt to collude, but a free market already contains the mechanism by which their collusion will be soon defeated. For by definition of collusion being a problem, it has already been presupposed that the customers of certain businessmen are discontent as they are worse off than what is otherwise feasible. Such collusion cannot withstand the entry of new individuals into their type of business. If even one new businessman enters the trade and declines to collude with those already in business then he has found sure success and profit - for customers patronize that businessman which best meets their needs, and a ready supply of discontent customers exists. Those who persist in collusion will find their customer base dwindle, while those that best provide for customers needs will capture their business.

Also, what about in the 1940’s and 50’s in your former city of Detroit, where not a single black person was hired at any of the major car factories? The unemployment rate amongst blacks was at 50 percent. Why didn’t the open market work for them?

Actually it did. In this case there is a factual error. Auto manufacturers were hiring of black people, and this was a primary reason they migrated into detroit during these years. Ford was most notable in hiring of blacks.

Also, what about credit card companies and banks that take advantage of the poor and feeble minded? They get them to sign contracts that trick them into thinking they are getting a better deal but it’s only a better deal for the credit company and a worse deal for the customer. Some in the government are now looking at ways to force credit companies to simplify their contracts. They are, obviously, facing stiff opposition from lobbyist groups. Question, why isn’t the free market working for the poor and feeble minded?

To address this point and the frontline video I must cover the subject of banking and credit which I have much to say about. A little more about this at the end.

Because resources are scarce and finite ... will inevitably result in some individuals being forced to have what they value less.

I’ve never met someone who would not go to the doctor if there was a serious medical concern (although there may be a few…but I haven’t met one). The reason millions of American’s don’t go isn’t because they value something more, it’s because they can’t afford it. If you said to me “I’ll give you 10 million dollars if you first give me 1 million” I couldn’t take you up on the offer even if I wanted to. 10 million obviously has a higher value than
one million but I don’t have the 1 million dollars to give you.

The only practical reason a doctor charges a price unaffordable to some is that he does has other customers who do have the means to pay what he is asking for his services - and do so. For, if no one at all could afford the doctors services his income would be zero. A doctor might choose to work only a few hours per week, and demand a very high price that only a few could afford - this is fine. What is not fine, however, is if the doctor prevents other individuals from selling their medial services when he refuses to do so. It is only through the power of government (coercion) that he can accomplish this. This is the purpose of government licensing - although, despite much lip service that is paid to 'enhanced quality', etc,. , the real reason for licensing is to restrict the number of providers in order that a higher price can be obtained.

A person certainly can and does value things that he does not have the means to obtain. Especially so in the case of a seriously unhealthy person who comes to the point of valuing treatment more than everything else that he has. Since there exist people who value receiving health care treatment at such a great magnitude, it is the case that at least some other individuals will elect to offer the treatment requested. In a free market, a range treatment options will be offered for sale by providers with a commensurate set of prices. The valuation of the buyers (sick) and sellers (providers) of the treatments will establish a market price. The bulk of health care needs should be satisfied in such a way, and charity can cover those few cases where a man has nothing at all to offer to receive any such help.

Just wondering, you said that criminal prosecution is the only thing a government should do. Do you consider it stealing when a government takes money from citizens to pay for judges, prosecutors, prisons etc,. 24 hour policing was first introduced by Benjamin Franklin (they generally didn’t work through the night before that) . If I, as a citizen, think this is excessive is the government to be considered criminal because it’s stealing money from me? What about police officers who, as a part of their job, are expected to assist injured or emotionally distraught people. Would you consider this to be stealing money as well since they are not dealing with criminal justice at that point?

We have no recommendation from scripture about what magnitude of expenditure is appropriate for the administration of criminal justice. Judges indeed have an appropriate role, and their wages is justly taxed for. Prison is something I see no biblical precedent for - in the law of Moses it is entirely absent - when a person committed a crime he bore an immediate penalty (e.g. death) or was required to making restitution. If our justice system likewise did not implement a prison system and instead required a penalty or restitution to the victim (not to the State) the tremendous costs of prisons would be of no concern. Where possible, the costs of prosecution should be recovered from the criminal, as a component of his making restitution.

The job of police is to enforce the law against those who violate it, thus I see their job function as covered by under the authority granted to Caesar to carry out criminal justice. When a crime is committed and police gather evidence and question people about events that just occurred they will be distraught - I would consider to the dealing with such people in such a situation to be a part of the administration of criminal justice. I have no particular concerns about the actions of an officer that engages in assisting the injured as his job duties place will frequently place him at the scene of accidents, etc,. By and large I would see these duties as minimal and consisting of contacting others who will handle the situation (e.g. an ambulance, next of kin, or hospital).

I actually find the argument unconvincing that if God never commanded a government to do a certain thing then it's wrong for them to do it. God didn’t command secular governments to take in refugees, have elections or create binding constitutions either. I see this as an argument from silence. There is no scripture that commands me to watch videos. Does this make it wrong for me to do so?

My position is not that "any action God has not authorized is prohibited". My position more along the lines that a person may not compel others to materially support or participation in an action God unless God has so authorized. So one can watch videos, but one ought not to compel another person to pay for making videos or force someone else to watch them - unless God authorized a person to do so.

Just so I understand you correctly. If you were the president and you had the opportunity to send the USS Comfort (a military medical ship that performs medical operations, search and rescue etc..) to Haiti you would say no. You would look the American public and Haiti people in the eye and say, "because I’m a Christian I cannot help you because I can’t use the public’s money. I realize that the people on this ship are available to provide immediate assistance but I cannot steal money from people in order to send them. I would have loved to help but I morally cannot do it. I also realize that many of your relatives and friends have died because of my decision". Did I get you right?

Yes. Frédéric Bastiat's quote comes to mind here: "Socialism, like the ancient ideas from which it springs, confuses the distinction between government and society. As a result of this, every time we object to a thing being done by government, the socialists conclude that we object to its being done at all.". People can and should build ships to be available to send to places where needed, but the government ought not be the means by which to carry it out.

I want to make sure we are talking about he same thing. When I say City Planner, I’m talking about the profession for which a Degree is required (I see it as a science). I can’t see how there can be a blueprint for a city without a central plan. They need to make decisions based on everything from the type of soil to the needs of the city generations from now.

Yes, we are talking about the same thing. I am unconvinced a central planner has superior insight relative to the decentralized "intellectual division of labor" that occurs among all citizens. Citizens are well aware of their needs, and those who are property owners have a very vested interest in looking out to the value of their property in the future. Members of a free society are able to buy, sell, build and tear down according their judgment. The money prices are offered by members of society communicates among its participants the valuation of resources (e.g. the giant plot of land) - thus allowing the valuations to be communicated and acted upon. It is the entrepreneurs function which judges future money prices and seeks to profit from the difference. Thus, an entreprenuer might recognize the value of the land as either and airport or garbage dump. He will judge whether his neighbors more urgently need an airport or a garbage dump. The money prices his neighbors are willing to pay for a certain amount of travel, or a certain amount of garbage removal are weighed and the entrepreneur will seek to create that which has the higher valuation. Entrepreneurs must endure the profit and loss test of whether or not their valuations of resource usage are indeed agreed upon by their neighbors who choose to buy or choose not to buy his services. A city planner faces not such vetting. The public voice is the voice of each individual voting with his purchases - and unlike an election where 50%+1 takes all - every vote counts.

land next to your house I can turn it into a garbage dump, an airport, a highway or build a skyscraper if I choose?

If A and B are neighbors, and A's use of his property infringes upon B's use of his property than A has violated B's property rights. For example, if A builds a garbage dump, and waste oil destroys the water supply of B's farm, then B has a just legal claim against A which can be resolved in a court of law. Likewise, if A builds an airport and emits noise at levels which inhibits B's use of his property the same applies. The judge and jury in such cases can use practical judgment as to the limits of infringement. If B's use of his property is not infringed by A's action, then B has not violated A's property rights. Namely, people do have a right to the use and physical integrity of their property but they do not have a right the value of their property (more on that here: http://mises.org/etexts/propertyexploitation.pdf)

Are you proposing a private organization to make decisions? If so, who would stop the individuals who won’t listen?

No. Each property owner develops or refrains from developing his property as he sees fit. A person who violates the right of a property owner, has committed a crime (e.g. theft) and should be punished via the government in the administration of criminal justice.

Thanks. I have no particular concerns if the owner is a citizen of any given nation. In any case, the mutually beneficial nature of trade is such that I can rest assured of a cooperative situation with the owner so long as the rule of law (the administration of criminal justice) remains operative in the land. I would face concerns over followers of Islam which who disregard property rights of those who do not adhere to their religion.

I want to make sure I understand you here. Are you saying that you would not allow an Islamic person to purchase your street or are you simply hopeful that your overlord would be benevolent?

I would not prevent an Islamic person from purchasing. My concerns with Islam or anyone else begins where their respect for the property rights of myself and my neighbor's ends - but I will respect their property rights.

I’m trying to understand what you’re saying here. I heard there are professionals who are stuck working at Wal-Mart so they can get health benefits. Apparently the line of work they are trained to do won’t always provide the benefits. How are you forced to take insurance through your company? Can’t you just pay for it yourself or seek out your own insurance policy? Here in Canada drugs are handled privately (except for seniors). Nobody makes you use the drug plans provided by your company.

The government has granted great tax privileges and subsidies to employer provide plans, which has all but driven out of business the non-employer provided market. One can still purchase a non-employer provided plan, but it is extremely expensive. Thus the impracticality of buying insurance or paying out of pocket for health care results in misallocation of people prepared for one job, but working in another. Thus yet another example of government intervention causing problems.

If only that’s how everyone made use of the stock market. For example, have you ever heard of Short Selling?

As far as I am aware short selling is good - and deserves no condemnation. Why do you believe it is bad?

Actually I didn’t bring this up to contest their wages, I brought this up to point out that those who are seeking fortunes and are smart are not going into medicine. They are going to Wall Street. I don’t want to divert into a discussion about whether certain wages are justified. I can say that in Canada most of the executives sit on each others boards and vote to approve each others bonuses. The average stock holder (owner) has very little say in the matter.

The average stock holder actually has a lot to say - he has the choice to not purchase the stock at all, or if he has to sell it. His participation in the situation is entirely voluntary.

If I understand you correctly, you’re saying that all of the Christian organizations that seek to restrict these rights from homosexuals through governmental means are in fact a tyranny of the majority**. Did I understand you correctly?

Perhaps. Remember, I am not contending that a homosexual has any particular rights, rather that the owner of property has rights over the use of his property (e.g. the hospital owners hold the right to decide if homosexual's can or cannot enter, or do certain things on their property).

Sorry, I have to disagree. For example, we have a large area of land north of the city called the Oak Ridges Moraine...

Were the owners of Oak Ridges Moraine permitted to sell their water to the residents of Toronto to drink at any price they chose? If the residents of toronto value the water, more than they value the homes, then how can it be that the owners do not find it more profitable to sell water, than to build homes? If, on the other hand, it was community or government owned then the classic 'tragedy of the commons' problem occurs, as you point out.

I’m finding it hard to see where you draw the line? Earlier you defined it as a powerful leader, or a majority of people can impose their values upon an unwilling minority" Wouldn’t these examples fit the bill?

I am saying they do fit the bill, but the magnitude of their abuse of power varies. As I said, I see a difference of degree but not of kind. I would certainly rather endure government control of street lights, paved roads, and a national park than one which takes nationalizes the entire economy as
in the case of Russia.

Israel - Judges 21:25. Could you explain your thoughts about this verse?

Israel had no political authority between the periodic time of a judge. And when a judge was in power, it seems to have been quite limited in scope (e.g. leading an army). Over these years, each Israelite acted using his own discretion of what was right and wrong. This seems very much like the situation of anarchy, which is not a bad state of affairs. But by anarchy I do not mean that people considered themselves free to plunder their neighbors property, but rather that there was no government power acting other than God himself, who seems to generally be quite passive.

There is one very big topic that we have not broached, but is I believe imperative to address in our discussion - and that is the topic of money itself. You have mentioned things like "The national debt tripled under Reagan.", "what about credit card companies and banks...", The Front Line video, etc,. The government imposed monetary system that exists in the USA and Canada is highly unethical and immoral. The origin of the problems you are citing here are all closely related the "ethics of money production". Jorg Guido Hulsmann has a very excellent book by the quoted title, and an understanding of how money is and ought to be produced, and its ethical implications, I believe, address your concerns about these areas. I will cover the mater in a separate post, (which I have yet to begin writing).

God Bless
Peter