a no-brainer?
Massachusetts will soon require (and enable) all of its residents to have health insurance.
I think I should be psyched, but I have to say, I don't know how I feel about that.
More later.
hot tempered
dear valued customers,
thank you so much for your years of patronage. unfortunately, this blog is now closed. we have enjoyed serving you! yours, the managementwe exist
friendly places
- end of the line
- what do you want?
- the bright aisles of c-town
- you've got to hide your love away
- nothing rhymes with orange
- food disc sox brooklyn
- influx
- in the pearl of africa>
- geek tome
interesting places
- arts & letters daily
- drudge report
- eric umansky
- overheard in new york
- pitchfork
- savage love
- slate
- the morning news
- this modern world
- urban dictionary
- wikipedia
- wil wheaton in exile
previous posts
- yuppie + hipster = new york city
- you break it, you buy it.
- the minds of madmen: riddles at best?
- chaos, minus order
- it even cures warts!
- you mean there are LOOPHOLES in tax laws?
- bizarre
- The writer is Secretary of State.
- not encouraging
- office spaces
4.05.2006
I think I should be psyched, but I have to say, I don't know how I feel about that.
More later.
3 Comments:
massachusetts is awesome.
Meh.
Certainly a step in the right direction, but seems severely lacking in many aspects. A $295 fee for businesses which do not provide health care? That MIGHT cover one month of health insurance costs. Health care is tricky, because changing it has all kinds of externalities that are impossible to predict, but here comes the idealistic rant:
The main problem, which cannot be addressed without thoroughly overhauling the entire country's health system, is that health care is a for-profit business with massive barriers to entry. The result is something close to an oligopoly, in which supply is artificially low and prices artificially high. And that's not even mentioning the moral implications of running a business based on the hope that people will get sick.
So what's the solution? Perhaps the business could be run in the same general way, but with a requirement that any profits are reinvested to provide additional coverage or other benefits. But then what sort of a stupid company would run a business if it has no profit, and only helps people??? Sounds like something a group of representatives of the public might be interested. Some sort of governmental body. For lack of a better word, I'll call this business "The Government" from here on out.
Damn. Out of time. Hopefully I'll manage to continue this shortly.
Now, let’s see if I can get my momentum back…
Vast amounts of information are available on the advantages of The Government providing health care, so I won’t get into that. Most attacks on universal coverage seem to revolve around taxes. That is, who pays for it? Many are concerned that people might take advantage of the system; they might see the doctor for frivolous reasons, or might be less inclined to take care of themselves. The crux of the matter then, is fairness. We would like for everyone to pay their share.
As I see it, there are two aspects to fairness. The first is culpability. You should be held responsible for your choices; if you behave in a manner detrimental to the whole, you should bear an increased burden. The second is capability. If you have more, you should give more.* This aspect is already somewhat covered by the current tax code. (Plenty of ranting could be done about that system, but I’ll try to maintain focus).
So then, how do we see to it that everyone pays his share? Make health care free. Cover the fairness elsewhere. Attack the source. Anything which can be expected to increase health care costs should be taxed proportionally. Suppose smoking-related illnesses account for 10% of all health costs. Taxes on cigarettes should provide 10% of the revenue for the system. Shootings, stabbings? Taxes on the bullets and knives. Car accident? Tax driving. And so forth. If it causes costs to increase, make the people who do it pay for it. If I’m engaging in all sorts of risky activities, I should have to pay for the associated increases in health costs. If I avoid these activities, I should not have to pay so much.
The rest of the costs can be covered by the standard progressive tax system. If only it was quite so progressive.
*For reasons that baffle me, this seems only controversial when it comes to money. If I am taller than most, I am happy to help those who are shorter reach the top shelves in grocery stores. If I am stronger than most, I am happy to help those who are weak carry heavy objects. If I am smarter than most, I am happy to help those who are less intelligent reason things out. Why is the same not true of money?
Post a Comment
<< Home