From: clamen+@CS.CMU.EDU (Stewart Clamen)
Subject: Re: The Morality of Minimal Requirements on Health Insurance Payments (was: National Health Care)
Originator: clamen@BYRON.SP.CS.CMU.EDU
Reply-To: clamen+@CS.CMU.EDU
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon University
	<1992Aug26.211242.2930@brownfield.glv.com>
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 01:26:09 GMT

In article <1992Aug26.211242.2930@brownfield.glv.com> brownfield!jbrow (Jim Brownfield) writes:

   In article <BtKMnK.9nx.1@cs.cmu.edu> clamen@CS.CMU.EDU (Stewart Clamen) writes:
   > In article <1992Aug25.232017.6291@brownfield.glv.com> brownfield!jbrow (Jim  
   Brownfield) writes:

   [stuff deleted]
   > 
   >    Whether its 51% to 49% or 90% to 10%, its still theft.  When you
   >    have a system where people can opt out on the payment side as well
   >    as the service side, you will have a moral system.
   > 
   > Is a national health insurance plan less moral than general taxation?
   > forced military service? gun controls? seatbelt regulation?
   > minimal auto insurance requirements?
   > 
   > I'm not arguing with you; I am just trying to understand your
   > viewpoint.
   > 
   > --
   > Stewart M. Clamen

   I feel that all the above things are immoral.  

Hmmm.  You mean if someone without much capital and without liability
insurance runs me down in their car, I should be expected to pay for
it?  (I guess I am arguing with you now.)

   However, I grant that argument that at least some general taxation
   is needed currently for national defence (although I think the
   country could be defended better with a lot less money).

Why?  Maybe some people are not worried about being overrun by
Communists or terrorists.  And why should everyone be obliged to pay
for police protection in neighbourhoods they never visit?

   The reason I'm arguing so vehemently against national health
   insurance is that I think it will eventually have exactly the
   opposite effect that the proponents claim.  In the long run, it
   will lead to poorer health care for everyone, and by the increase
   in taxation (theft), it will also hurt everyones' standard of
   living.  I prefer correcting the problems that government
   regulation and monopolistic protection have caused as opposed to
   introducing more control (and problems).

Oh.  So you don't believe the reports that predict a SAVINGS in the
money spent on health care upon the introduction of a national
insurance plan?

   I generally do not believe the argument that you can help society
   by forcing individuals - at gun point - to give up their earnings.
   While many of the modern day American liberals criticize American
   conservatives (correctly) of wanting to force their morality on
   people, the liberals are guilty of the same thing.  Their forced
   morality is just different and usually involves taking your
   property to make *them* feel better.

Personally, that criticism does not embarrass me.  I'll go even
further: Personal property is a remnant of the feudal system.  The
"Right to Property" is a societal convention, nothing more.

Some basic level of health care will not only improve the general
health (in my opinion), it will free people who would like to quit
their current jobs, but are afraid of being without health insurance.

One more survey question if you don't mind: What would your opinion be
on providing health insurance to minors and (perhaps) pregnant women?


--
Stewart M. Clamen			Internet:    clamen@cs.cmu.edu
School of Computer Science		UUCP: 	     uunet!"clamen@cs.cmu.edu"
Carnegie Mellon University		Phone: 	     +1 412 268 2145
5000 Forbes Avenue			Fax:	     +1 412 268 5739
Pittsburgh, PA 15213-3891, USA
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc