| I'm surprised that this point hasn't come up yet in this conversation: the whole point of insurance is to pool risk. The basic principle is that of everyone who pays in, the lucky ones subsidize the unlucky ones. Obviously, this works best the more people who pay in. When people don't get insurance until they need it, it raises the cost for everyone. When people don't get insurance and still end up burdening those who did (by going bankrupt when faced with monstrous E.R. bills, for a common example), costs go up for everyone. In these situations, there's only way to make the system work: enforce that everyone buys in. That's why I support single-payer. Here's another car analogy: car insurance is mandatory for drivers in the U.S., and most countries. Because the system only works when everyone buys in. Of course it offends the libertarian sensibility to force people to buy something. How barbaric! Personally, I'm a libertarian-to-leftist convert. I think society needs a monopoly on force, and that monopoly goes to the government. The use of that force should be minimized, but one of reasons we need it is to force people to chip in for the common good. When it comes to pooled risk for catastrophic events, it's worth it. I have no moral qualms. It's not a matter of who's doing the planning, it's a matter of societal choices that just plain don't work if not everyone's on board. You're right that central planning is not voluntary. That's the whole point. > But outside of "character" or other intangibles, there's no incentive to avoid the safety nets—in fact there's every incentive to use them, lest you be a sucker. Only suckers pay for things. "Yeah, look at all those suckers, paying for things, how stupid. Why bother trying to make more money? It's not like I value character-building."
- single mom making $12,000/year, and (gasp) receiving government assistance Do you really think government assistance makes poverty appealing? |