Re: Obamacare Only Looks Worse Upon Further Review
The notion that “We the people” collectively own something nullifies the necessity of freedom of contract because in the instance where everything is held collectively, the distribution of wealth lacks gradient and therefore deteriorates the concepts of wealth and poverty and all the associated strengths and weaknesses of human character.
Authorizing the government authority in privatizing an institution thus nullifies the institution, and the institution becomes “community wealth” to be dispersed; providing low quality, insufficient services or goods uniformly.
So the real question is: Do we want to acknowledge the government’s authority to own an institution that is created and operated by private citizens as legitimate?
There is a real danger in saying “yes”.
Thanks for your reply.
I can comment on what I refer to in the original post. It is noted that the community (We the people) and the recipients are one and the same. The intent was not to suggest that the government form any kind of private sector entity. The intent was to highlight the irony of a simple landlord or lending institution having the common sense to protect themselves from unanticipated damages from a client /agent, while the case of the American people who are in effect acting as both customer and litigants in a liability, are apparently unable and unwilling to take simple steps to protect themselves.
The point is that there would be few, if any businesses or private agents dumb enough to conduct business in this fashion.
The simple, plain English example put forth by Machinehead to propose a simple mandated, minimum universal liability health insurance policy with high liabilities, and as put forth by me, administrated in a system much like California’s auto insurance system would be a straightforward, cost effective way of limiting liability exposure to the well meaning and responsible population that does pay for insurance, instead of foisting these costs to the common wealth while enjoying the cost savings and exportation of risk.
Shows inequivocably that government mandates fail to make any real impact in the persecution of the unwanted offense; in this case, armed robbery, which is still endemic in our society, despite governmental jurisdiction declaring it illegal. [/quote]
I’m going to take a harder position on this comment, it’s just plain false. The objective of any enforcement initiative is not 100% compliance, it is deterrence, and deterrence is a numerical quantity expressed by the number of violations before and after the legislation.
The argument that if a behavior cannot be totally eliminated by a law that the legislation is ineffective and unnecessary is fatally flawed.
The correct calculus is to examine the number of violations pre-legislation as compared to post legislation to determine the efficacy of the deterrent component. It will never be 100%. A simple cost/benefit table can then be constructed to overlay the cost with societal benefit.
In the case of matters that transcend cost/benefit analysis, some type of moral or ethical judgment must be added to this equation. To that end, I’d be most interested in your comments on this earlier reduction of the health insurance quandary:
Simply said, does the “right” for a citizen to go without insurance and save the money for himself, subsequently passing inevitable costs onto their fellow responsible citizens, override the “right” of the insurance paying citizen to be responsible for only their costs and no others?