Insurance for Healthcare

[steve]

One mustn't reply too quickly! My posts are a work in progress.

[SteveF]

thrombomodulin wrote:

However, it is not honoring to God to steal someone else's wealth in order to give their wealth to the poor. …..Thus, I do see merit where individuals give their own money voluntarily. I do not, however, see merit where people give (or rather expropriate) money that belongs to other people.

In Leviticus 19 God is not asking for voluntary giving, He’s ordering it. I’ve got to wonder, if private property is as sacred as you’re saying then why would God also order the year of Jubilee? I simply see God having a slightly different perspective than many Americans (and Canadians as well).

Steve Gregg well pointed out that the issue at hand is what God has authorized Caesar to do; rather than what God requires citizens to do. My present understanding is that Caesar is only authorized to do that which God has communicated that he has authority to do.

I see many of the arguments about what God has authorized government to do in a democracy as arguments from silence. To be honest, I think it would be presumptuous to say what Paul’s position on things like public fire hydrants would be if he were alive today. Therefore, I find it hard to say that a particular position on this issue is “Christian”.


Pete, I don't want to get away from the crux of the matter, which is the justice of certain government run programs. For example you said:

I don't agree with the statement "It’s the mandatory involvement that makes the system work and people don't want it changed."

I don't see that as the point though. You have a different view and that's fine. The point is the people in my province are in agreement and therefore, is it just to have the program if essentially everyone is in agreement? If you’ll notice in the article, they are auguring that private health care is hurting the system for everyone. That’s by far the predominate view in Canada. As I stated before, in all my life I’ve never met anyone who didn’t feel this way. Certainly there are some that have different views. In a similar way you might find individuals in the U.S. who would like to repeal the rights of women to vote but that would clearly not represent the strong position held be virtually all Americans.

I don’t want to get into comparing health systems because that will steer away from the larger question and is not in keeping with the purpose of this forum (Although I must say, it seems like you’d be a pretty interesting person to have a coffee with....if you're ever in the Toronto area PM me!). I will offer a couple of brief comments though.

I’m not sure I trust the information in the Fraser video. The Fraser Institute has a particular political agenda. If you notice, when showing the statistics, at the bottom it says “Fraser Institute Calculations” without showing actual numbers or who Canada is being compared to.

One thing to consider in your analysis is one of the costs/stresses on the Canadian system is that many Americans use fraudulent health cards to get free service in Canada. Canada is upgrading the security of our cards to help curb this issue.

That’s why our health care costs are half (per person) of the U.S’s


Can you please cite the source for this?

This was the first site that came up when I googled for the info you want. You’ll find the costs in the first few sentences. The whole article seems fairly decent.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison ... re_systems

On the contrary, we should be much less concerned here: For a government can fund its "company" regardless of the opinion of its customers. The only way for a private company to earn a profit is by providing a service which customers see as valuable. No health insurance company is in a position to force a vaccine on a person, although a company of course can charge a differential price or decline coverage. We need not, however, have any concern that all health insurance companies would decline coverage, for in an unhampered market economy entrepreneurs seek profit, and profit is readily available to any health insurance company dissenting from the rest.

Ok, I’ve heard that some people in the U.S. cannot get any company to insure them because they are considered too sick and thus, will hurt the profits of the Insurance Company. Or the cost ends up being so high (due to previous health issues) they can’t afford it. I’ve also heard that some people who are insured are sometimes refused coverage after a medical procedure because the Insurance Company scours the insurance agreement to look for a technicality which will nullify the agreement. Further, I’ve also heard that Insurance companies offer financial incentives to doctors for not recommending certain tests etc… Hence, the fewer procedures/tests a doctor recommends, the more kickbacks he gets.

I’m left with the impression that these situations are happening in the thousands. Are you saying it’s not true? If there is any truth to it, why would you not consider these to be forms of “death panels”? I’m asking this as a puzzled Canadian.

Btw…You may find this link interesting. It makes arguments from both sides.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Managed_care

Ok enough about that. Back to the question at hand. Justice. I think Steve G has a point when he says we’re looking at this issue differently. I don’t presently see the government (or if you prefer you can use the term “general public” instead of “government”) as stealing. I don’t think this is the intention of the word in scripture but I am trying to understand your position though. That’s why I’m asking questions, and proposing (what seems to me) the logical conclusions of your position. I want to make sure I understand what you’re saying.


Since it appears we are looking through different lenses it might be appropriate if I offered my thoughts on the justice of government programs. It’s more than likely you’ll find fault with my position (I’m not expecting you to agree) but at least you’ll know where I’m coming from. I’ll try and post my thoughts in the next day or two.

Blessings
Steve

[Homer]

Let us say that a small town has no "rescue" vehicle nor does it have any EMTs. A group of citizens believes lives can be saved by having this service, and they work to get a rescue van and EMTs. The money for this service will require a property tax levy, which requires a vote of the citizens. The vote takes place, and the supporters, group "A", win. They amount to 70% of the registered voters. Goup "B" vote no and compose 30% of the voters. The equipment is purchased and EMTs hired.

Questions:

1. Did group A "steal" from group B?

2. The rescue service is available to both group A and B. If a person who voted no is rescued by the new service, does the answer for #1 still apply in his case?

3. Which group loved their neighbor when they voted? Both? Neither?

4. Where does the law of love fit into this discussion?

This is an interesting discussion.

[darinhouston]

Why does it require a tax levy -- could they not have solicited contributions for the volunteer services, and if they love folks who didn't contribute enough to extend the service to them -- great -- if not, then let them maintain a list of contributors and keep it for their own use. Compulsion is compulsion no matter the motives. If some do-gooder wants to do good, that's great.

Use a more objectionable service -- say, abortion services -- should I be compelled to pay for that just because a majority thinks it's a public good?

[thrombomodulin]

SteveF

Lev 19

I agree that in Lev 19 God is ordering giving. The difference I see is that God did not here authorize one man (e.g. a magistrate) to utilize force against another when someone fails to obey this type of command.

The year of jubilee introduces no problems, for here God is stipulating that land outside of cities is to be traded in what we in modern terms call "a lease" rather than a full transfer of ownership rights. Recall that the price of the contract was to be discounted according to the number of years until jubilee. The contract gives the one who leases it rights of use until jubilee, at which point control over the property returns to the owner. Since both parties mutually agree to this at the time the contract is agreed to, it cannot* be said jubilee in anyway violates one property rights. If however, the owner attempted to seize the property before jubilee, or the tenant remained on the property after jubilee, then indeed property rights are violated - but this is consistent with the terms of the contract which everyone knew about when the agreement was made.

The point is the people in my province are in agreement and therefore, is it just to have the program if essentially everyone is in agreement?

No. If everyone is in agreement that the program is good, it follows that people do not need force imposed upon them to compel them to participate. A main point of my prior post was to use the information at http://www.profitisnotthecure.ca to show that it is false to say that everyone is hurt by the existance of competing systems. The essence of the mandatory nature of a government system is that it denies a patient in need of medical services which they are willing to pay for from making an agreement with a doctor who is willing to provide the needed services for a fee they are willing to work for. The proposition that denying a patient and doctor the ability to make a voluntarily and mutually benefical exchange is better for everyone is false. For at least these two individuals, they are worse off when denied the possibility of making a mutually beneficial exchange. The expansion of private service to the point where it is a major political concern is evidence enough that this situation is not limited to only a few cases. Hence, I cannot agree that "essentially everyone is in agreement" as demonstrated by the actual choices people in Canada are making. I will, however, grant that someone might inconsistently hold a political opinion contrary to what they show their values to be in their actions.

I'd be glad to get together when the occasion permits, and I'll send you a PM if I ever make it out towards your way. For now, I'm near detroit, and I hope to move to Chicago which will be a bit farther away. Please contact me if you come out to this area.

One thing to consider in your analysis is one of the costs/stresses on the Canadian system is that many Americans use fraudulent health cards to get free service in Canada. Canada is upgrading the security of our cards to help curb this issue.

Yes, we have this problem with Mexico. If the gov't wasn't in the business of giving out goods and services I think this problem would be greatly diminished.

My lunch break is over, I'll write more later, but may not be tonight.

Homer, Thanks for your messages, I will reply as soon as I can get time to do so.

*corrected 26-Dec-2009, "cannot" had formerly been "can".

[kaufmannphillips]

Why does it require a tax levy -- could they not have solicited contributions for the volunteer services, and if they love folks who didn't contribute enough to extend the service to them -- great -- if not, then let them maintain a list of contributors and keep it for their own use. Compulsion is compulsion no matter the motives. If some do-gooder wants to do good, that's great.

Taxation of Group "B" is legitimate because all of its constitutents are elective partners in the social corporation of the town. In order to have the privilege of participating in the township, its constituents have agreed to subordinate their personal preferences to the determinations of the township as a corporate entity. Group "B" has demonstrated its acceptance of this arrangement by its participation in the electoral process. Persons who do not regard the electoral process as legitimate should not participate in it, lest they become parties to a illegitimate system.

[steve]

Taxation of Group "B" is legitimate because all of its constitutents are elective partners in the social corporation of the town. In order to have the privilege of participating in the township, its constituents have agreed to subordinate their personal preferences to the determinations of the township as a corporate entity.

This seems very idealistic, and somewhat out of touch with the plight of real people. When I was young, and on road trips across the country, gas station attendants in the Mid-West would often see my California plates and say, "Boy, I would give anything to live out there on the West Coast." In my mind, I would think (as you would apparently think also), "Well, why don't you just uproot from your present location and move to the land of your dreams? That's what I would do, if I were you!" Of course, I was not thinking very empathetically of their circumstances. Perhaps they had no opportunity for employment in California, or they had aged relatives who could not be abandoned in Geary, Indiana, or their children lived with their ex-spouse in the area where they now lived, and could not be left behind. Not everyone is as footloose and fancy-free as us unmarried guys with portable incomes, Emmet.

Many live where they must—either because of calling, employment, family obligations, or lack of money to move and survive elsewhere—not because they voluntarily become "partners in the social corporation" of a town to which they have given a carte blanche permission to abuse them however the majority may choose.

It is not as though we have the power to choose either to live under a certain jurisdiction, or under none at all. Every spot on the planet is under some jurisdiction or other, and if a person wishes to live more-or-less aloof from excessive government interventions, it is not as though he can take a small group of like-minded folks to some corner of the world and set up a community free from the demands of whatever "social corporation" (town, city, county, province, nation, etc) may have planted its flag in that spot before their arrival. This was still possible to do three-hundred years ago (the Amish are among the few who appear to still enjoy some "grandfathered" exemptions from that era), but this is not an option anymore.

Since living under some jurisdiction is inevitable for all—and is not really or entirely an elective matter—it is important that those who govern a particular jurisdiction should not allow a tyranny of the majority to decide how many services may be forced upon the unwilling and how much the same unwilling will have confiscated from them for the unwanted services (This is most conspicuously the case when the majority that wishes to impose this tyranny is a slim one—or even an imaginary one—as in the matter of a public healthcare policy in the USA).

Your point would be well taken, I think, if there really were options available for people who did not wish to participate in the social corporation of a given political unit, and they could, instead, go out and homestead in some neutral territory. Since this is not the case, I believe governments, in order to be just, must be careful to not trample upon the rights of the dissenting minority in their midst.

[thrombomodulin]

some people in the U.S. cannot get any company to insure them because they are considered too sick and thus, will hurt the profits of the Insurance Company. Or the cost ends up being so high (due to previous health issues)...

Indeed, because insurance is a product which is purchased beforehand. It might be helpful here to make an analogy to a automobile insurance. One does not wait until after they have had an accident, then at that point seek out an insurance company to pay for the expenses which had been incurred.

I’ve also heard that some people who are insured are sometimes refused coverage after a medical procedure because the Insurance Company scours the insurance agreement to look for a technicality which will nullify the agreement.

Yes, this does happen. However, in a free market an insurance company doing so will learn that doing such is detrimental to their profits. They may profit for a few cases, but as soon as the customer base becomes aware of such, they will purchase their insurance elsewhere lest they also be defrauded. Unfortunately, the US health care market is not a free market.

I’ve also heard that Insurance companies offer financial incentives to doctors for not recommending certain tests etc… Hence, the fewer procedures/tests a doctor recommends, the more kickbacks he gets.

I haven't heard of this occurring myself, but again in a free market consumers the judge of those they purchase services from. If they are offered inferior service by a doctor or insurance company they will make their purchases elsewhere.

Why would you not consider these to be forms of “death panels”? I’m asking this as a puzzled Canadian.

I do, in so far as government interventions restricts consumer's choices among health care options and insurance. The key point to realize is that entrepreneurs are, almost without exception, entirely at the mercy of their consumers. If they do not offer that which consumer's want, the consumer's will not purchase from them - then the entrepreneur experiences great loss, and no profit at all. One might at first think that all entrepreneur's might collude until the consumer has no other choices, however, it must be recognized (1) that in a free market no one is prevented from leaving their present employment to become an entrepreneur competing with those colluding. In order to sustain the collusion, then they would have to 'buy out' this additional entrepreneur. This would in turn lead more to likewise follow in the same manner. If this process could be started at all, it would surely be unsustainable for any length of time. (2) in any case, consumers will reduce or even eliminate their overall spending in this area, and increase it in others - again contrary to the wishes of the colluding sellers.

I don’t presently see the government (or if you prefer you can use the term “general public” instead of “government”) as stealing. I don’t think this is the intention of the word in scripture but I am trying to understand your position though.

Thanks for asking the questions, I have been enjoying the discussion. I see it as stealing because the government utilizes force to take money from individuals to provide services outside it's jurisdiction. I prefer to focus on the spending side as oppose to the taxing side. The first question is really "what jurisdiction is Caesar's?". As I mentioned, I believe the correct answer for discerning the scope of anyone's authority is - "only that which God has communicated that He authorized" . I look forward to discussing and considering your thoughts. In the meantime, I hope to read through the links you sent - although I'm as skeptical of some parts wikipedia as you are of the Fraser institute .

[kaufmannphillips]

Hi, Steve -

Still working on my response to the prior posting. But some intervening comments here:

kaufmannphillips wrote:
Taxation of Group "B" is legitimate because all of its constitutents are elective partners in the social corporation of the town. In order to have the privilege of participating in the township, its constituents have agreed to subordinate their personal preferences to the determinations of the township as a corporate entity.

steve wrote:
This seems very idealistic, and somewhat out of touch with the plight of real people. When I was young, and on road trips across the country, gas station attendants in the Mid-West would often see my California plates and say, "Boy, I would give anything to live out there on the West Coast." In my mind, I would think (as you would apparently think also), "Well, why don't you just uproot from your present location and move to the land of your dreams? That's what I would do, if I were you!" Of course, I was not thinking very empathetically of their circumstances. Perhaps they had no opportunity for employment in California, or they had aged relatives who could not be abandoned in Geary, Indiana, or their children lived with their ex-spouse in the area where they now lived, and could not be left behind. Not everyone is as footloose and fancy-free as us unmarried guys with portable incomes, Emmet.

Many live where they must—either because of calling, employment, family obligations, or lack of money to move and survive elsewhere—not because they voluntarily become "partners in the social corporation" of a town to which they have given a carte blanche permission to abuse them however the majority may choose.

I am not so footloose and fancy-free as you might imagine, Steve. My employment is not easily portable (without losing my current level of income and benefits package), and I have significant financial obligations. I am not in much of a position to relocate without unpleasant consequences.

Be this as it may, life is frequently a matter of hard choices and unpalatable alternatives, and I suppose you have experienced this. A person may choose to ignore a calling, brave unemployment, abandon relationships, and/or freeboot it hobostyle. That they might prefer to live in a particular place to avoid such developments is just part of their cost-analysis. It is not the responsibility of a society to structure itself so that every aspiring resident can participate on their own self-selected terms. It is the responsibility of society to structure itself according to its eminent values, and persons who are unwilling to participate in accordance with those values do not have a right to cohabit with the society.

steve wrote:
It is not as though we have the power to choose either to live under a certain jurisdiction, or under none at all. Every spot on the planet is under some jurisdiction or other, and if a person wishes to live more-or-less aloof from excessive government interventions, it is not as though he can take a small group of like-minded folks to some corner of the world and set up a community free from the demands of whatever "social corporation" (town, city, county, province, nation, etc) may have planted its flag in that spot before their arrival. This was still possible to do three-hundred years ago (the Amish are among the few who appear to still enjoy some "grandfathered" exemptions from that era), but this is not an option anymore.

Since living under some jurisdiction is inevitable for all—and is not really or entirely an elective matter—it is important that those who govern a particular jurisdiction should not allow a tyranny of the majority to decide how many services may be forced upon the unwilling and how much the same unwilling will have confiscated from them for the unwanted services (This is most conspicuously the case when the majority that wishes to impose this tyranny is a slim one—or even an imaginary one—as in the matter of a public healthcare policy in the USA).

Your point would be well taken, I think, if there really were options available for people who did not wish to participate in the social corporation of a given political unit, and they could, instead, go out and homestead in some neutral territory. Since this is not the case, I believe governments, in order to be just, must be careful to not trample upon the rights of the dissenting minority in their midst.

There are in fact options available for such persons. There are regions of the world where there is little or no effective intrusion by a society. Admittedly, many of these places are unpalatable to most persons for one or more reasons.

Most persons want the advantages of living within a society. But some of these persons are loath to accept the opportunity costs of doing so. Such persons want the milk without the cow. Or they want the milk and wish to incur only those aspects of living with a cow that they happen to like or appreciate. But real-world relationships are rarely so convenient as this. Much of the time, in order to incur the advantages of relationship, we must compromise on some of our preferences.

Now, I invoke the milk/cow iconography with a wink and a nod, for society is a domestic partnership. It may be quite the love-match, or it may be more like a marriage of necessity or even an arranged marriage. But in any case, the partnership almost certainly will involve some undertakings that are less palatable to one party, yet eminently important to another. Such is life, and for one partner to cry "abuse" simply because they feel imposed upon would be callow and unrealistic.

[thrombomodulin]

Let us say that a small town ...

A#1 - Yes, group B values uses of their resources for other purposes higher than receiving EMT service. Group B's ability to use their resources (property) in they way they value most has been violated.

A#2 - A#1 still applies. In such a case the person may change his value assessment, and cease participating in B, and begin to participate in A. If so, this only shows that people's value judgments change over time. The fact remains that for a certain period of time his property is being taken and used contrary to his wishes. On the other hand, he may not and still value the EMT service less than other alternative uses of his resources.

A#3 - Group A did not love their neighbor because they utilized force to take property away from their neighbors. Now it is true that Group A also provided a benefit to B in return for the property which was taken away, however, the fact remains that Group B does not value the benefit as much as the property which was taken.

A#4 - The only tool at Caesar's disposal to implement his will is the use of force. Applying force to coerce people to do what they do not wish to do is not loving, and hence Caesar cannot be the means of 'loving your neighbor'. One's duty to love one's neighbor necessarily takes place outside of government.

As Darin well noted, there are is no shortage of ways for a person to make voluntary contributions with his own money, or associate voluntarily with his neighbors to collectively provide a service.

In order to have the privilege of participating in the township

What exactly does "participation" include or exclude? Is it your opinion that any direct or indirect exchange of goods or services between any pair of consenting individuals constitutes a valid pretext for government to claim absolute authority over them?

its constituents have agreed to subordinate their personal preferences

When, where and how does this agreement happen? Speaking for myself, I cannot recall any prior personal experience where my township came to me and asked if I would or would not be willing to surrender everything I have to them in exchange for certain benefits of participating.

Group "B" has demonstrated its acceptance ... by its participation in the electoral process.

They have not. First, one does not become party to an illegitimate expansion of government power by voting in such a way as to oppose that expansion. Second, they will be unjustly subjected to the outcome of the electoral process regardless of whether or not they participate.

Peter