I wonder if they realize that “government-subsidized” is the same as ‘taxpayer-subsidized‘?
Related posts:
- Health care and health insurance are not the same
- "I challenge anyone to show me people dying on the streets because they don’t have health insurance"
- Health insurance doesn’t automatically lead to health care
- Why this private health insurance CEO is against a public plan
- Unemployed health insurance workers
- Do people need comprehensive health insurance?
- Health insurance like auto insurance?
KevinMD.com on Facebook
{ 10 comments }
Well, we’re subsidizing it anyway, aren’t we? When uninsured and/or low-income patients can’t pay their bill, the cost gets shifted to everyone else. When people don’t get care because they can’t afford it, and then present with conditions that are serious or advanced, the cost is higher. We’re already paying for it indirectly; might as well let the providers recoup at least some of their costs and reduce some of the cost-shifting on everyone else.
If you really want to get technical, the entire concept of insurance is one giant subsidy. When I pay my premiums and deductibles and co-pays, I’m subsidizing everyone else in the risk pool. It may not be fair, but right now it’s how the system works.
BTW, the working poor who are the most likely to qualify for subsidized insurance are paying taxes too.
There’s some truth there, but “subsidies” via voluntarily paid insurance are vastly different both in principle and in practice from involuntary ones through coercive government action.
It’s funny how much of politics is terminology. Are they “late term abortions” or “partial-birth” abortions? Is it a tax or is it a revenue enhancement? Can I convince someone that government health care is “free” because you don’t get billed at the time of service?
It’s all trickeration, as the phrase goes.
Trickeration indeed.
I could argue that my health insurance premium is in fact not voluntary. I have no say in the dollar amount nor in my co-pay and deductibles; my employer offers one option, take it or leave it.
If I opt not to enroll, then my “choice” is to be uninsured, with everything that entails.
So theoretically and in principle, it’s voluntary… but in practice it’s not.
Just for the sake of argument.
I disagree… the fact that one of the options is unpalatable doesn’t make it involuntary. Brute force (usually in the form of government) is the only way choices are genuinely involuntary. Purchasing health insurance is voluntary both in principle and in practice, although it seems clearly wiser to purchase it if it’s available. Things like giving your money to someone who has a gun to your head, or on a related note, paying taxes to a government are genuinely not voluntary. Coercion is used. It’s a very clear and real difference.
Thank you Matthew, well said. Correct me if I’m wrong, but it sounds like you’ve read Atlas Shrugged . . .
It’s me again. And I hate Ayn Rand.
But I always appreciate hearing other people’s well-reasoned opinions.
I knew Montana was going down the slippery slope when it got rid of the “reasonable and prudent” speed limit.
It’s the free lunch thing.
The majority of people pay less than the arithmetic mean amount of taxes; that is, taxation is skewed toward higher absolute amounts for higher earners.
Thus it is no surprize that the majority would want government/taxpayer subsidized because it works out to be a bargain, pawning the full cost off on someone else.
Well Said Gasman, I didn’t think about it like that. But that begs the question, do you think they realize their pawning it off on other people? Is it a class-envy thing where its ok to tax the rich?
from their perspective, of course it is ok to soak the rich; they’re not you.
Comments on this entry are closed.