Seriously thoughtful US/Europe Cultural Divide -- Musings

[nekokami]

Originally Posted by slayda

In a like manner, I can pick one type of justice, i.e. "Justice = lawfulness" as defined by the American College Dictionary. So in a dictatorship (where the bulk of the people are now free) the dictator makes the law and justice is what he says it is.

But looking at your freedom example; I realize that just as I am free to bash your head in, so also are you free to bash my head in. If we're both smart, we will sit down and discuss whether to mutually bash heads and probably agree not to. However wars get started when we can not agree and it is usually because we can't agree on what is fair.
...

When I first read this, I was puzzled about how a friendly exchange in this forum had devolved to us wanting to bash each other's heads in, but then I realized what you meant by this example.

I agree that the comparison between the values of freedom and justice is meaningless without first defining what we mean by "freedom" and "justice." I also agree that disagreements are often over what is "fair."

To me, it is fair that the strong help the weak. I suppose partly this is because I am convinced that the starting conditions (in the US and around the world) are highly unfair; again, there are people who have managed to overcome all kinds of obstacles to achieve "success" however you want to define it, but a great many people never even have a realistic chance at accomplishing their goals, often due to circumstances completely out of their control. Similarly, a great many people who have resources have them because of events in their lives which they had no control over (i.e. luck), whether birth, chance opportunity, or whatever. I don't mean to devalue hard work, which does make a difference, but I don't think it makes as much of a difference as many people seem to assume. (That's probably where I part ways with many of the Americans here.)

Oddly enough, I had a similar conversation about the fairness of biological aspects of being male or female with my 14 year old daughter a couple of months ago, with much the same conclusions-- the advantages and disadvantages probably even out.

[Nate the great]

Originally Posted by tirsales

And I do hope that you never have an accident (this is NOT ironic).
I really needed my insurance at the age of 16 - not because I was ill, simply because I had a .. can-it-become-more-annoying accident.

Real question: What means "adopting a school"?

Just one accident, and since he ran me down with his car I never worried about it. (That, and my uncle is a lawyer.)

Adopting school means I donate school supplies and books. Most of the schools have rather sad libraries.

Originally Posted by zerospinboson

I see. But then you would also, out of principle, need to refuse any treatment that costs more than the total amount you've paid in insurance premiums by the time you get sick.

Um, no. That has nothing to do with it.

When I finally get insurance, I will be betting that my medical costs will be higher than the cost of insurance. Right now I am betting that my expenses will be less than the cost of insurance. I've won that bet for 12 years running.

Originally Posted by zerospinboson

And considering any hospital stay (including freak car accidents and appendicitis etc.) will easily set you back 20-40.000$, I doubt you will want to get sick, as there is almost no way you could've "paid" for that by the time you got sick. Or will you then rationalize the fact that others are paying part of your health care by saying "but now that I've bought this "insurance" thing it doesn't matter that I'm still receiving more than is my "due""? Or will you rationalize it by saying "hospital costs are unreasonably high"?

Any complications, and.. well, there's your first chapter 7 bankruptcy filing.

I have no idea what you are basing your argument on. It makes no sense whatsoever, nor is it in any way related to my previous post..

[tirsales]

Originally Posted by Nate the great

Just one accident, and since he ran me down with his car I never worried about it. (That, and my uncle is a lawyer.)

Oh my accident hasn't been related to cars or something "suable". I simply had a little accident - nothing dramatic. Some blue-lighted cars, some emergency surgery, a little rehabilitation medicine. It's been less fun then I would have wanted it to be. But its neither my intention nor my job to convince you about the pros and cons of insurances (apart from that its not the topic).

Adopting school means I donate school supplies and books. Most of the schools have rather sad libraries.

Thanks.

When I finally get insurance, I will be betting that my medical costs will be higher than the cost of insurance. Right now I am betting that my expenses will be less than the cost of insurance. I've won that bet for 12 years running

So - you are not paying for what you get (and btw it contradicts your previous statement why you dont have a medical insurance or alternatively it sheds some egoistic light on your reasoning ("I wont pay for anybody else, but I will happily accept anything that is given to me"). Oh well, again: OT. Sorry.

[zerospinboson]

Originally Posted by Nate the great

I have no idea what you are basing your argument on. It makes no sense whatsoever, nor is it in any way related to my previous post..

It isn't? What exactly is the difference between "not paying for your own medical costs" when you're not insured at all and "not paying" while being insured, but only after you've been uninsured for the maximum time period, and only starting to pay premiums when you're statistically likely to become sick?
The whole point of an premium-based insurance system that it's the equivalent of being forced to save for later (even if that money is spent on other people in the meantime, and you might not become sick until very late in life, in which case you might not be getting it all back).

However, there is no qualitative difference between not being insured at all (and incurring bills that "the system" will need to pay for you), and only starting to pay insurance premiums when you're likely to need it.
In both cases you are taking money out of the system without compensating for it or making up for it by paying your premiums, so in both cases you're "getting more than you deserve".
How is this any different from what Xenophon said about that Californian girl who was abusing the system for her own benefit?

[Nate the great]

Originally Posted by tirsales

So - you are not paying for what you get (and btw it contradicts your previous statement why you dont have a medical insurance or alternatively it sheds some egoistic light on your reasoning ("I wont pay for anybody else, but I will happily accept anything that is given to me"). Oh well, again: OT. Sorry.

I don't see it as a contradiction, so perhaps I should have phrased it better. When I said I was betting, I was referring to my personal motivation, which is financial.

When I do get insurance, I will be paying a monthly fee to have most of my medical costs covered. I will be paying for the services I receive; I don't see the contradiction.

Now, what you guys might be referring to is the fact that when I get insurance, a hypothetical 30 year old will be supplementing my rate (becuase he is low cost and I am high cost). This is true. Without the low cost people, my rate would go up. This is also true. So what? 1+1=2 If my rates go up, I pay more. If they go down, I pay less.

[wodin]

Originally Posted by nekokami

When I first read this, I was puzzled about how a friendly exchange in this forum had devolved to us wanting to bash each other's heads in, but then I realized what you meant by this example.

I agree that the comparison between the values of freedom and justice is meaningless without first defining what we mean by "freedom" and "justice." I also agree that disagreements are often over what is "fair."

To me, it is fair that the strong help the weak. I suppose partly this is because I am convinced that the starting conditions (in the US and around the world) are highly unfair; again, there are people who have managed to overcome all kinds of obstacles to achieve "success" however you want to define it, but a great many people never even have a realistic chance at accomplishing their goals, often due to circumstances completely out of their control. Similarly, a great many people who have resources have them because of events in their lives which they had no control over (i.e. luck), whether birth, chance opportunity, or whatever. I don't mean to devalue hard work, which does make a difference, but I don't think it makes as much of a difference as many people seem to assume. (That's probably where I part ways with many of the Americans here.)

Oddly enough, I had a similar conversation about the fairness of biological aspects of being male or female with my 14 year old daughter a couple of months ago, with much the same conclusions-- the advantages and disadvantages probably even out.

For me, one of the rites of passage into adulthood was the realization and acceptance of the fact the LIFE IS NOT FAIR. And that whatever I receive in this lifetime, whether for good or ill is dependent on my own efforts and luck, not in that order.

Any attempt by society or government to alter this fact is not only futile, but unnatural.

[tirsales]

Originally Posted by Nate the great

Now, what you guys might be referring to is the fact that when I get insurance, a hypothetical 30 year old will be supplementing my rate (becuase he is low cost and I am high cost). This is true.

So - you are speculating that someone else is paying for you?

@wodin: Unnatural? So you are living in a tree and eat your meat and grass raw?

[zerospinboson]

Originally Posted by Nate the great

I believe one should pay for what one receives.

Very well, if you insist. Let me spell it out for you then: Why do you object on "principled grounds" to the free-riding of others, (per above)

Originally Posted by Nate the great

I don't see it as a contradiction, so perhaps I should have phrased it better. When I said I was betting, I was referring to my personal motivation, which is financial.
Without the low cost people, my rate would go up. This is also true. So what? If my rates go up, I pay more. If they go down, I pay less.

but don't you when it comes to your own free-riding?

[wodin]

Originally Posted by Nate the great

Now, what you guys might be referring to is the fact that when I get insurance, a hypothetical 30 year old will be supplementing my rate (becuase he is low cost and I am high cost). This is true. Without the low cost people, my rate would go up. This is also true. So what? 1+1=2 If my rates go up, I pay more. If they go down, I pay less.

Is that like when I go to a casino and hit the mega-quid jackpot on the slot machine, everyone else who ever dropped a coin in that casino is supplementing my good fortune?

Oh, yeah, I forgot, they are also supplementing the dealers’, wait persons’, janitors’, slot mechanics’, … casino owner’s net worths.

How many lose so how many can win?

[wodin]

Originally Posted by tirsales

@wodin: Unnatural? So you are living in a tree and eat your meat and grass raw?

Naw, I live Hawaii! We eat coconuts and raw fish here. A little shoyu and a little wasabe ... mmmmmm

[Nate the great]

Originally Posted by zerospinboson

It isn't? What exactly is the difference between "not paying for your own medical costs" when you're not insured at all and "not paying" while being insured, but only after you've been uninsured for the maximum time period, and only starting to pay premiums when you're statistically likely to become sick?
The whole point of an premium-based insurance system that it's the equivalent of being forced to save for later (even if that money is spent on other people in the meantime, and you might not become sick until very late in life, in which case you might not be getting it all back).

However, there is no qualitative difference between not being insured at all (and incurring bills that "the system" will need to pay for you), and only starting to pay insurance premiums when you're likely to need it.
In both cases you are taking money out of the system without compensating for it or making up for it by paying your premiums, so in both cases you're "getting more than you deserve".
How is this any different from what Xenophon said about that Californian girl who was abusing the system for her own benefit?

This I can respond to.

First of all, where are you located, ZSB? I want to understand your viewpoint.

You're upset becuase you think I'm gaming the system. You think I should pay at 30 becuase I will need it at 50. I disagree. In a given year, I pay for insurance based on the probability of needing it. I do not pay for it based on whether I will need it 10 years from now.

I do not pay to support a "system", I pay based on the probability of my own need.

[tirsales]

Originally Posted by Nate the great

I do not pay to support a "system", I pay based on the probability of my own need.

Originally Posted by Tirsales

So - you are speculating that someone else is paying for you?

.....

[zerospinboson]

Originally Posted by Nate the great

I disagree. In a given year, I pay for insurance based on the probability of needing it.

There is absolutely nothing for you to disagree with. Look up any introductory economics textbook, and it will tell you that the "system" you supposedly pay for by paying only when you think you'll need it is untenable. You're not paying for anything, you're just paying an entrance fee so that the owners will be forced to pick up the tab once you're inside.
Paying is "providing the amount owed," which is rather a lot more than you'd be "paying".
How exactly do you figure the system will sustain itself when everyone puts in $5k and takes out $40k? I mean, you've made it abundantly clear that you couldn't give a rodent's behind about the others, but that just strengthens my case in favor of a system where having health insurance is mandatory.
I guess stealing from others is easy to rationalise when you can rephrase it as "using legal loopholes," but it really is no different. You're still forcing the insureres to raise the premiums for everyone in order to compensate for people like you.

[Nate the great]

Originally Posted by zerospinboson

Very well, if you insist. Let me spell it out for you then: Why do you object on "principled grounds" to the free-riding of others, (per above)

but don't you when it comes to your own free-riding?

When I pay for insurance, I will not be a free rider; I will be paying for myself. Nor am I a free rider right now; I do not need medical care. (If I did, I would be up s*** creek; but I don't.) BTW, if I did incur costs I would pay for them out of my own pocket.

Now, what if everyone copied my behavior? All those in the system would be high cost patients. My cost would go up. So what? I'd still pay it.

[pilotbob]

Originally Posted by Nate the great

When I pay for insurance, I will not be a free rider; I will be paying for myself. Nor am I a free rider right now; I do not need medical care. (If I did, I would be up s*** creek; but I don't.) BTW, if I did incur costs I would pay for them out of my own pocket.

I don't think that it matters what we do about health insurance until we can lower health care costs. For example, malpractice insurance that Drs pays keeps rates very high. There's got to be a better way to protect people from quacks without using the legal system. Here in FLA we put a cap on litigation a few years ago... but I don't see that it has done anything for our health care costs.

If health care is more affordable more people would be able to afford it.

Another thought is that preventive care could be subsidized where emergency care would be insured. Emergency care insurance is usually much cheaper. Also, if people are getting regular check-ups and such then things don't become worse and more expensive to deal with. Also, we perhaps could encorage people to stay healthy. If you smoke, drink or are over weight you pay a higher co-pay or something.

I don't know, it is not an easy problem to solve.

BOb