Replies

T-C:Indeed, I was generalizing in some of my statements; I tend to broad-brush because I'm always in a hurry to find out what sort of disaster has occured while I didn't have my 2-year-old in sight :-). G_W: I do not look on Medicaid, Medicare, etc. as a "subsidy" as such. T-C:Okay, I'll drop the word rather than argue over it. Don't do that. Yours is a perfectly acceptable alternative usage. And, come to think of it, you are right!

T-C:However, Medicare and Medicaid are systems under which taxpayers are forced to pay for (overwhelmingly) non-taxpayers' medical care, regardless of whether the non-taxpayers live responsibly or idiotically. This leads both to economically irresponsible use of medical care by the recipients, and to hostility on the part of taxpayers. G_W: Agree wholeheartedly. Someday if you have the chance to read it (between all the chickadees and Freeping, it might be a while?), try a copy of The Servile State by Hilaire Belloc. It was written in 1913 and predicted the modern welfare state (as you describe above) as the inevitable consequence of the collision of captialism and communism...

T-C: These systems, along with others that provide money and free services to those who make counterproductive choices in life, are a huge part of our economy. Eliminating them, making people financially responsible for their decisions, would have an enormous positive effect. G_W: As the mathematicians say, "If and only if" people also change their behaviour at the same time. Between the power-grubbing "bread and circuses" politicians, and those on the dole, and the bureaucrats and companies who *administer* the programs, there are many vested interests who would love to see the present system continue...or even expand.

But yes, you Absolutely have the right goal in mind!

T-C:I hope to continue this discussion later, if other duties permit. It is an interesting subject, and you are a very reasonable person with whom to exchange conflicting positions :-).

Thank you! We aim to please :-)

Cheers!

G_W: As the mathematicians say, "If and only if" people also change their behaviour at the same time.

I have to disagree with that. Whether the people changed their behavior or not, their choices would be their own financial responsibility, not the taxpayers'.

One obvious means to accomplish this would be to genuinely privatize health insurance. Give the tax deduction to the taxpayer, not the employer, and make the insured, not the employer, the contracting party. I predict that this change would quickly produce a variety of "insurance" options (most "health insurance plans" are prepayment plans already, anyway). For those with healthy habits, there would be affinity groups such as the Christian cost-sharing plans already in existence.

(On a side note, as a former life-and-health actuarial employee, I'd question whether riding a bicycle to work would lead to mortality/morbidity savings. Yes, the exercise is good, but the exposure to weather, accident, and auto pollution might cancel out any cost savings, in the context of an insurance group. At least I'd want to run the numbers, before giving a discount :-)

In general, I agree with your points. It's always easier to add on something to the mountain of already-existing government programs than it is to eliminate what is not working. Your suggestion of a new government subsidy for certain products and activities would certainly benefit the immediate recipients of the subsidy, but would there be any benefit beyond that, to the taxpayer? I doubt it. We have to remember that the main beneficiaries of any government program are the bureaucrats who run it, and the "providers" (manufacturers, etc.) who pay the politicians and bureaucrats to keep the money flowing their way. There's a very interesting discussion about the money behind the "Morning After Pill" in this week's "Human Events."