Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
About Me
- David M. Smith
- I grew up in Arkansas, spent four years in the Marine Corps, graduated from Pepperdine University, married a little late in life, and settled in Long Beach California. We are raising two daughters and I am working as Systems Analyst. I have a few strong beliefs, and many not so strong beliefs about God, but mostly I am thankful for all HE has done for my family and me.
12 comments:
Perhaps. But don't we already have a system where the insured are paying for the uninsuured? When an uninsured gets sick, the hospital still has to treat him and then pass the cost along to insured customers, who pass it to insurance companies, who pass it to premium payers.
Hi Rick,
I don’t like health insurance much better than government health care, but at least with health insurance, participation is optional. With National Health care, the payers don’t have the option of refusing to pay; hence, slavery.
Note: Slavery may be too strong of a term because nobody will get beat or hanged for not working and contributing to the system, but government will use it’s coercive power to take wages from those who choose to continue working.
Hey David!
I guess the question is, what should people who cannot (or have failed to) care for themselves do?
Would social security be significantly better if you paid for your own generation's rather than the past generation's retirement?, Or should it also be voluntary, in which case, would that make it irrelevant as a government program?
Ideally, individual foresight would obviate the dilemma. Failing that, I'd hope that one's family, church, community, and charitable organizations, would voluntarily work together to help the needy and deserving among us. But would the breadth and quality of coverage in such a voluntary system be as encompassing as a mandated program?
I'd like to think it could be, but I'm not sure. Libertarian solutions tend to be decentralized and thus have a sort of statistical basis to them that is not as clear or as comforting as fixed, central rules.
Kevin
Hi Kevin,
How are you doing?
I don’t have a “one size, fits all” recommendation for what the people who cannot afford or don’t want to pay for their own health care or retirement should do. However, what they shouldn’t do is expect others to pay the bill for what they decide they want or what they think they need.
Like most people, I want good health and security in old age, but since I value your liberty more than I value my own health or retirement, I don’t think it is moral or right to make you pay for what I want.
David,
I'm okiedokie. Time flies but I don't, yet. It's good to talk with you again. How are you doing?
(1) Do you think there are extreme scenarios where theft of basic necessities (for self or others) to survive could be justified?
(2) Don't all taxes constrain liberty? By what criteria do you distinguish the good and the bad taxes, given that both are involuntary?
Kevin
Hi Kevin,
I am mostly good. My family had a tough summer with the passing of my Father-In-Law, but we are getting back on track.
I am a minimalist when it comes to the Federal government as I think the founders were. We have to have a national defense and we have to have a Federal court system to resolve disputes between State interests, but most everything else should be left to State and local governments.
I am also a minimalist when it comes to State and local government. The way I would describe my philosophy is that if a law increases freedom, it is good, but if it decreases freedom, it is usually bad. I tried to described my views on government here.
Could theft ever be morally condoned? Probably, but we are not at a time in history where people are dying because there is not enough theft. We are at a time in history where voters are ambivalent towards the theft of taxpayers as long as the voters get what they want.
David,
I'm so sorry to hear about your Father-In-Law. I lost my father a couple of years ago. I'm still adjusting, too. It's good to hear your family's getting back on track.
I agree with the principles of federalism but I get lost in the specific balance, given the continuum and breadth of our common interests, and in the fact that we are so very far away from that minimal purpose for government.
To get from here to there not only seems to require more explicit limits on government, but also relatively effective outlets for problems currently routed to the federal level. It is difficult to argue against a federal solution that seems to have a better outcome than other solutions or no solution, even if it does impact our liberties at a higher level of government.
Kevin
Hi again Kevin,
I have no illusion as a country we will ever return to the principles of the Constitution. In fact, I don’t think as a country we ever completely practiced the principles as articulated in the Constitution.
I can understand and accept pragmatic arguments for why government should regulate many things, but I tend to reject pragmatic arguments in favor of principled arguments. I prefer to fight back against BIG government than join BIG government even if it seems BIG government may be more efficient than the private sector like with health care.
Again, I am more concerned with individual liberty than I am concerned with individual health, so I reject proposals that restrict liberty in favor of health.
David,
It does seem harder to prove compared to the simple logic of central government solutions, but I believe that there is a pragmatic argument that a better society can result from maximizing individual freedom, which would hopefully appeal to those who don't yet share our valuation of freedom.
I'm just not sure how a principled argument will convince those who don't already share our principles? How do you convince people that, in principle, freedom is more important than health?
Kevin
Hi again Kevin,
I don’t think I could convince anyone who values health more than freedom that freedom should be a higher value for them.
Since my highest value is truth and my second highest value is freedom, I try to appeal to people who also place high importance on truth and freedom. I can understand how a single mom who was abandoned by her child’s father would place a higher value on security and the health of her child than she would place on freedom. I can understand how a person with diabetes or Parkinson’s disease or multiple other health problems would desire better health more than more freedom. I feel for all of these groups of people. However, I can’t advocate for a solution that restricts the free choices of others because of how much I value liberty.
The best I can do is to try to make a political subject clear in terms of how liberty will be affected.
BTW, I also believe God created us to be free, but part of our sinful nature is a strong desire to control the behavior of others, so I do my best to resist the desire to control others and I do my best to argue for a government that will protect the liberty of its citizens.
Wow ... no posts for, like, a year ... and now several in a week ...
Hey as long as the government can buy our votes with our own money, they will propose extravagant solutions.
Remember when charity was a function of the church and not the government ...
Maybe that is the way to get rid of federal give-away programs ... label them as religion and they will be proscribed by the ACLU as a violation of the separation of church and state ...
Buz
Hi Buz,
I’ve been busy with work and life. Writing has taken a back seat.
There are a lot of cultural beliefs, even cultural beliefs called science by some, that are more akin to a religion.
The folks who want a 10 foot brick wall between state and religion don’t consider their religion to be religion though.
Post a Comment