CentralCaliBike said:
True -but, just because the government provides it does not mean it will cost less (or, as a lot of people think = Free). Everyone will pay for this, and it will cost more for the same individuals as it does today.
Of course everyone will pay for it, that's the beauty of it.
First of all, no one will even 'know' or financially feel it. If every citizen in the US spares a dime, you'd amass a great amount of money. That's also how charity works, and obviously capitalism. If you can sell each Chinese a white t-shirt for a buck....
The generated money under a collective insurance system can then be 'redistributed' - I am aware you don't like that word - to those who need it (most). If no one is exempted from participation and everyone is obligated to take out insurance, you'd pool a lot more money together not with an eye on profit. In good capitalist reasoning, you'd have:
- economies of scale
- greater wealth accumulates more wealth (look at hedge funds)
Insurance thrives on spreading risks, so pooling as many people together as possible could potentially be a great thing.
Besides not having to pay for something leads to a lack of value and responsibility.
1) I don't think that applies to health care now. People who have the most/more expensive (valuable) packages apparently go to a doctor as often as possible when they feel the slightest tingling in their big toe.
They want to get their value's worth, because they pay a 'premium' price, and therewith become irresponsible consumers.
2) What about a gift. When you get a gift from someone - i.e. it's free - you treat it like junk? Of course not. So the perceived 'monetary' lack of value does not render something invaluable nor make someone irresponsible. According to your statement, we'd rather ban charity as well from the US society, because people are seriously inclined treat these 'charitable contribution' irresponsibly.
3) Look at environmental degradation. A mining company purchases a piece of land, the rights to a section of the sea for oil etc, exploits till it can bear no more and then leaves it. Without government regulation, they would be very irresponsible, since being responsible is not as 'efficient'.
4) Commoners in 17th century and before kept pastures 'in common', they shared it with other shepherds for example. The land was 'free' and 'shared', and they acted quite responsibly because they knew how valuable it was to all of them and their existence. Originally, in Asia, in the rice cultivation agriculture, people were dependent on each other, because of the communal irrigation system that they had to maintain to keep the rice plants watered. The system emerged through cooperation and mutual dependency, and in essence was 'free'. Everyone however chipped (labor/money/time) in to maintain it, because they depended on it.
For more info, check Elinor Ostrom
Nobel Prize Winner 2009
Capitalist's tendency to posit man against himself and society, seems to have fostered a culture of individualism and irresponsibility, because everyone - as a consumer - perceives himself of being in control of his life without the need of others for his existence under the motto "If I want it, I can buy it, and when it's mine I can do with it whatever I want"