So a human being has a right to be born but not to healthcare

[Sketcher]

If the productive activity results in negative externalities that impose an added social cost upon the public then yes there is a need to tax in order to mitigate the effect of market failure.

And if high taxes and more entitlements and regulations result in yet more negative externalities?

 

[lordbt]

And if high taxes and more entitlements and regulations result in yet more negative externalities?

Then we simply need to raise taxes, impose more regulations, and create new entitlements to address these negative externalities. You repeat this process until all human freedom has disappeared and the state is in total control of our lives. Simple.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

And if high taxes and more entitlements and regulations result in yet more negative externalities?

Then we simply need to raise taxes, impose more regulations, and create new entitlements to address these negative externalities. You repeat this process until all human freedom has disappeared and the state is in total control of our lives. Simple.

Why would that be the case? The purpose of Pivogian taxation is to mitigate the social costs that negative externalities impose (i.e. to repair the damage of market failure; or at least reduce it).

Besides which, it is a bit of a slippery slope fallacy to say that mitigating the burden of market failure on society will ultimately result in total State domination over the lives of every person. Negative externalities from particular production or consumption activities impose costs on you the person and the public in general, either directly or indirectly. The market is there to make a profit, not to bother itself with concerns about the wider social and environmental implications of its enterprises. So unless the market suddenly decides to concern itself with such matters of public interest who else is going to address them?

 

[JustOneWay]

Well that is terrific. I stand corrected. One cant get enough allies. I look forward to reading each and every one of your future posts that champion individual rights, human liberty, limited government and defend against the statist takeover of the free market and private health insurance.

I am not your ally. I will probably argue your position just because that's the kind of guy I am. I will play the devil's advocate every time.

 

[lordbt]

Why would that be the case? The purpose of Pivogian taxation is to mitigate the social costs that negative externalities impose (i.e. to repair the damage of market failure; or at least reduce it).

What if those taxes and regulations cause damage to the market and cause the very externalities that you claim they are there to prevent or repair? That is clearly the case with health care in the US today. We do not have a free market system, but one that is heavily regulated and partially socialized. Rather than blame state involvement for the health care problems, people blame what is left of the market and call for greater government regulation and greater control--that is what caused the problem in the first place.

Besides which, it is a bit of a slippery slope fallacy to say that mitigating the burden of market failure on society will ultimately result in total State domination over the lives of every person.

No its not. If you back to the 60's when the US did have a largely free market system, you can watch the progression of greater and greater government control and interference cause externalities leading to ever greater state interference and control. Today we have the culmination of that interference leading to the argument that nothing short of complete government control is the only answer. The slippery slope was letting the government interfere in the first place.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

What if those taxes and regulations cause damage to the market and cause the very externalities that you claim they are there to prevent or repair? That is clearly the case with health care in the US today. We do not have a free market system, but one that is heavily regulated and partially socialized. Rather than blame state involvement for the health care problems, people blame what is left of the market and call for greater government regulation and greater control--that is what caused the problem in the first place.

If a measure of regulation happened to cause the externality that it sought to reduce than it simply wouldn't be a good measure of regulation. That does not mean that there should not be regulation to mitigate the burden of market failure, but rather, that the mechanism for this must change.

No its not. If you back to the 60's when the US did have a largely free market system, you can watch the progression of greater and greater government control and interference cause externalities leading to ever greater state interference and control. Today we have the culmination of that interference leading to the argument that nothing short of complete government control is the only answer. The slippery slope was letting the government interfere in the first place.

What I am actually talking about is a slippery slope argument: seeing Americans carrying signs proclaiming that they are on the march towards a 'Communist Dictatorship' or a new US Soviet Union or that Obama is really a national socialist Hitler reincarnate who will take away your guns in Nazi-style fashion and enforce 'death panels'. And all this on the slippery slope of healthcare reform. This kind of change, some say, will lead ultimately to a Communist US.

Not only is it absurd, but as a person who has experienced socialized healthcare I find it demeaning to suggest that I might be living under a 'Communist Dictatorship' simply because I have the legitimate option of choosing between coverage schemes.

 

[lordbt]

If a measure of regulation happened to cause the externality that it sought to reduce than it simply wouldn't be a good measure of regulation. That does not mean that there should not be regulation to mitigate the burden of market failure, but rather, that the mechanism for this must change.

It is not that it caused the externality that it sought to reduce, but caused an externality that it did not foresee. Every introduction of force by the state into the free market causes a distortion. What happens is that the politicians, rather than acknowledge that it was their legislation that caused the distortion, blame the market for the failure and enact new legislation, leading to greater state involvement and less individual freedom.

What I am actually talking about is a slippery slope argument: seeing Americans carrying signs proclaiming that they are on the march towards a 'Communist Dictatorship' or a new US Soviet Union or that Obama is really a national socialist Hitler reincarnate who will take away your guns in Nazi-style fashion and enforce 'death panels'. And all this on the slippery slope of healthcare reform. This kind of change, some say, will lead ultimately to a Communist US.

Not only is it absurd, but as a person who has experienced socialized healthcare I find it demeaning to suggest that I might be living under a 'Communist Dictatorship' simply because I have the legitimate option of choosing between coverage schemes.

I dont make those arguments. I believe socialism and socialized medicine are immoral, destroy the principles of liberty, pervert the concept of justice, and run counter to the Constitution. Will they lead to communism? I doubt it. But they dont need to. There is enough in simple socialism to object to.

 

[keryakos]

I am curious as to what you will do when we actually do have universal care in America will you move away will you refuse to pay your taxes what will you do ?

 

[lordbt]

I am curious as to what you will do when we actually do have universal care in America will you move away will you refuse to pay your taxes what will you do ?

When it comes, and it is a matter of when, not if, I will continue as I do now. I will continue to live in the US and will continue to pay my taxes.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

It is not that it caused the externality that it sought to reduce, but caused an externality that it did not foresee. Every introduction of force by the state into the free market causes a distortion. What happens is that the politicians, rather than acknowledge that it was their legislation that caused the distortion, blame the market for the failure and enact new legislation, leading to greater state involvement and less individual freedom.

Then the regulation mechanisms require modification. If a regulatory framework 'caused an externality that it did not foresee' then it was never an appropriate response to begin with. Whilst saying much about the specific response to market failure, this still says nothing about regulation in general.

I dont make those arguments. I believe socialism and socialized medicine are immoral, destroy the principles of liberty, pervert the concept of justice, and run counter to the Constitution. Will they lead to communism? I doubt it. But they dont need to. There is enough in simple socialism to object to.

If it is immoral, then why aren't you objecting to some simple socialized defense? Or your police force? Or any other service that is 'socialized' and public? Does your military also 'pervert the concept of justice' and 'destroy the principles of liberty'? If it is immoral, then relinquish your public defense and hire a private contractor to defend you in a war instead of relying on some 'socialized' services. Don't use public roads or infrastructure or parks and beaches for it might be 'immoral' to participate in receiving the benefits of socialized goods and services - or otherwise, the abundant benefits you retain from some 'simple socialism'.

 

[lordbt]

Then the regulation mechanisms require modification.

Exactly my point. Every regulation causes a market distortion, leading to an inevitable modification of that regulation. Since you cannot get rid of the initial distortion without getting rid of the initial regulation, more regulations are added--causing more distortions, causing more regulations, and on and on. This happened in medical insurance in the country. Look where it has led us.

If it is immoral, then why aren't you objecting to some simple socialized defense? Or your police force? Or any other service that is 'socialized' and public? Does your military also 'pervert the concept of justice' and 'destroy the principles of liberty'? If it is immoral, then relinquish your public defense and hire a private contractor to defend you in a war instead of relying on some 'socialized' services. Don't use public roads or infrastructure or parks and beaches for it might be 'immoral' to participate in receiving the benefits of socialized goods and services - or otherwise, the abundant benefits you retain from some 'simple socialism'.

Government exists to secure the rights of its citizens. So police and the military are essential. That does not, however make them socialist in nature. How they are funded might, but their existence does not.

 

[keryakos]

When it comes, and it is a matter of when, not if, I will continue as I do now. I will continue to live in the US and will continue to pay my taxes.

Then all of this talk is useless if you feel that you are being robbed and yet you continue to pay your robber what is the logic in that ,,, im being serious not antagonistic ...

 

[lordbt]

Then all of this talk is useless if you feel that you are being robbed and yet you continue to pay your robber what is the logic in that ,,, im being serious not antagonistic ...

Because if I dont pay my robber I am thrown in prison--thus losing my freedom and my property. I value my freedom more than the money that is being confiscated from me.

 

[keryakos]

Because if I dont pay my robber I am thrown in prison--thus losing my freedom and my property. I value my freedom more than the money that is being confiscated from me.

And i value my health more than i do your money so if you have the right to be free i have the right to health care there is no real difference ,,

 

[lordbt]

There is a big difference. If I say I value my money more than your life, does that give me the right to take it? No. The same holds true for your example. Just because you value your health more than you value my money does not mean you have the right to take it either. The idea of civilized society is that we respect each others rights. If you change that to "my needs come before your rights" then none of us have rights.

 

[TheNewWorldMan]

There is a big difference. If I say I value my money more than your life, does that give me the right to take it? No. The same holds true for your example. Just because you value your health more than you value my money does not mean you have the right to take it either. The idea of civilized society is that we respect each others rights. If you change that to "my needs come before your rights" then none of us have rights.

Except that in the plutocracy that you propose, only the rich effectively have rights. If everything is allocated by ability to pay, and you're not able to pay, you get to die from some easily treatable disease, or starve to death. That's not freedom. That's tyranny of the wealthy elite.

 

[keryakos]

There is a big difference. If I say I value my money more than your life, does that give me the right to take it? No. The same holds true for your example. Just because you value your health more than you value my money does not mean you have the right to take it either. The idea of civilized society is that we respect each others rights. If you change that to "my needs come before your rights" then none of us have rights.

Well i value your life more than my money does that give me the right to save your life if the need arises ? .....It gives me more than a right it gives me an obligation

My needs do come before your rights and vice versa We are not dealing with whose philosophy of rights is better than the other we are dealing with life and death here . The idea of civilized society is that we are civil rather than animals .You cannot be civil towards anyone if you hold your petty pride regarding what is yours over the health of your neighbor ... Your money is nothing compared to the lives of others your personal liberties that you enjoy in this country are yours only because someone died for them someone went to prison for them someone was black listed humiliated and because someone gave their lives by working themselves into an early grave just so that you have the libeties that you enjoy .you are living off of their efforts and so am i ..As Americans we rise together or we fall together The American Dream is a shared dream There really is no one American We are America as one .

 

[annrobert]

Well i value your life more than my money does that give me the right to save your life if the need arises ? .....It gives me more than a right it gives me an obligation

My needs do come before your rights and vice versa We are not dealing with whose philosophy of rights is better than the other we are dealing with life and death here . The idea of civilized society is that we are civil rather than animals .You cannot be civil towards anyone if you hold your petty pride regarding what is yours over the health of your neighbor ... Your money is nothing compared to the lives of others your personal liberties that you enjoy in this country are yours only because someone died for them someone went to prison for them someone was black listed humiliated and because someone gave their lives by working themselves into an early grave just so that you have the libeties that you enjoy .you are living off of their efforts and so am i ..As Americans we rise together or we fall together The American Dream is a shared dream There really is no one American We are America as one .

great post and the truth that people need to think about and remember.

 

[D'Ann]

Well i value your life more than my money does that give me the right to save your life if the need arises ? .....It gives me more than a right it gives me an obligation

My needs do come before your rights and vice versa We are not dealing with whose philosophy of rights is better than the other we are dealing with life and death here . The idea of civilized society is that we are civil rather than animals .You cannot be civil towards anyone if you hold your petty pride regarding what is yours over the health of your neighbor ... Your money is nothing compared to the lives of others your personal liberties that you enjoy in this country are yours only because someone died for them someone went to prison for them someone was black listed humiliated and because someone gave their lives by working themselves into an early grave just so that you have the libeties that you enjoy .you are living off of their efforts and so am i ..As Americans we rise together or we fall together The American Dream is a shared dream There really is no one American We are America as one .

I don't have medical insurance. I believe that our country does have a need to fix and/or reform the health care. I just believe we have to be really careful in how we accomplish doing so.

I have no problem helping in paying for health care via tax dollars... I just want to make sure that it's a good health care program that really helps those who are in need of health care.

I think the government should not have their own health care program option... but open up the door to national health insurance competition so that the companies and the employees can get the best price for their insurance.

Those who do not have health insurance for various reasons, they are the ones we need to really focus on and figure out how to help provide health care for, without taking away from medicare or medicaid... senior citizens who we owe a peace of mind to.

Keep what works, get rid of the expensive extras that do not work and add what we need to make it work for those who are in desperate need of health care insurance. Keep it simple and basic.

 

[LJSGM]

Our health insurance companies already do recieve a far amount of competition in some respects. They have to compete for your employer's buisness. With government Paid healthcare, you drop 1/10 to 1/3 of healthcare costs. The government would "run" healthcare about as much as insurance companies do but with more sympathy and better regulation.