From: brownfield!jbrow (Jim Brownfield)
Subject: Re: National Health Care
Reply-To: <jbrow@glv.com>
Organization: Encompass
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 01:22:53 GMT

In article <1992Aug26.163918.20761@mdivax1.uucp> robinson@mdivax1.uucp (Jim  
Robinson) writes:
> 
> I think that there are two separate debates going on here. One is the
> libertarian taxation-is-theft vs the non-libertarian
> taxation-is-payment-for-services-received. And the other is national
> health care vs private health care.
> 
> If one accepts the necessity of taxation for at least some services, as do
> the vast majority of people, the relevant question in a thread entitled
> "National Health Care" should be whether a national health care system is a
> more effective and efficient means of providing health care to the
> citizenry than is a private health care system. I am not meaning to
> belittle Jim's libertarian views, but, quite frankly, libertarianism is not
> the issue here.

You have a good point. and while I've certainly pushed the libertarian point of  
view, I didn't mean to make this into a purely libertarian debate.

I have to disagree, however, that accepting the necessity of taxation for some  
services negates the argument for not taking any more tax money.  If a bully  
comes up to me and takes my change one day (he would, you understand, have to  
be a very large bully :-) ), and then the next day comes after my wallet, I  
would still protest.  I would consider the bullies' argument "Well, hey,  
yesterday I took your change!" to be irrelevant to the morality of taking my  
wallet.

> 
> BTW, just for the record I consider myself to be one of those
> "social-liberal/fiscal-conservative" types that Gary alludes to above, and
> although I know Canada's system is not perfect I still believe that it is
> both more efficient and effective as well as less costly at providing
> health care than is the US system. Gary and Gerald have already in previous
> articles made the points that provide the basis for this belief.
> 

Although I don't believe the Canadian system is more efficient (and if it is, I  
don't believe it is because of the NHI, I believe American problems lie in too  
much government interference), my arguments are based on the morality of the  
system.  

My reason for framing the debate in this manner is that I don't believe the  
oppositions' numbers, and they wouldn't believe mine (from foundations like the  
Cato Institute/Reason which at least one person posting in this debate has said  
he/she didn't trust).  Fair enough.  If we try to argue pure numbers, we get  
into a sort of "did not!/did too!" style argument.  I would just like to get  
proponents of Nationalized Health Insurance to at least admit to themselves  
that they are attempting to force their morality on those of us who oppose it  
(and some may literally just want to force more benefits for themselves than  
they pay for).  Certainly this argument is not limited to Health Care, but it  
is valid in an argument about Health Care.

I also do not mean to pick on Canada (at least most of the time :-) ), and I  
appologize if some people have taken offense at my postings.  However, American  
liberals have chosen the Canadian system as the main argument for American  
Nationalized Health Care (whether their proposals are like the Canadian system,  
or not).  Also several Canadians posting here have insinuated that America is  
somehow "behind the times" for not already having a system like Canada or  
Europe.  I do not believe this.  I believe that a nationalized system would  
provide us with an even larger, more uncaring bureaucracy than exists in  
today's system (at least today's insurance companies pay attention to you when  
you get a lawyer, this won't be so when the government takes over).

> 
> -- 
> Jim Robinson
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.mideast,misc.headlines