Weird Americans...

[Jonas]

Not very interested in a decent health care, isn't it?

[Scott of Hyperborea]

It's a little more complicated...

[Jonas]

It's a little[/i[ more complicated...

Yeah, yeah. Paying billions of dollars to develop an army to defend the nation, but no-one who cares about the health situation of the people in the nation.
Don,'t think I want to criticise the U.S. as a whole, Americans think different then Europeans and have there own habits and believes. But it's weird to see people 'fighting' for the status-quo, while hundreds of people who can't pay are dying. I can assure you that I'm not a socialist (my choice goes to the Christian Democrats) but even I see the advantage of health care for everyone. I get the impression that a part of the American people would make a dictature of the U.S., just because they are scared for the word 'socialism'.

To be honest: I don't really care, if you permit that your government lets die those who aren't lucky enough to be rich, I will not get tears in my eyes. The less Americans, the more European power.

[dr-spangle]

I love what some of the news agencies have said in america lately

"If stephen hawking were british he would have been left to die of motor neurone disease"

hint: he is british. :P he is not dead.

[Scott of Hyperborea]

Yeah, yeah. Paying billions of dollars to develop an army to defend the nation, but no-one who cares about the health situation of the people in the nation. Don,'t think I want to criticise the U.S. as a whole, Americans think different then Europeans and have there own habits and believes. But it's weird to see people 'fighting' for the status-quo, while hundreds of people who can't pay are dying. I can assure you that I'm not a socialist (my choice goes to the Christian Democrats) but even I see the advantage of health care for everyone. I get the impression that a part of the American people would make a dictature of the U.S., just because they are scared for the word 'socialism'. To be honest: I don't really care, if you permit that your government lets die those who aren't lucky enough to be rich, I will not get tears in my eyes. The less Americans, the more European power.

Jonas, on the one hand I agree with you. There are many people in the US who are treating this issue very irrationally, and I think when everything is taken into account, having national health care will choose to be a slightly better policy than not. On the other hand, you're oversimplifying things and making the choice look black and white, which is one of my pet peeves. So I will argue with you anyway.

You Belgians also leave people who aren't lucky enough to be rich to die. They're called Africans. Millions of Africans die of easily treatable diseases each year, and the people of your country do nothing about it. Let's consider Rwanda, your former colony. It's one of the world hot spots for malaria, AIDS, ebola, parasites, and other infectious diseases which can easily be cured by modern medicines which the Rwandans, unfortunately, cannot afford. You completely ignore their plight and leave them to die, because they're not rich enough to buy the medicines your country produces. If the Belgian government were to raise taxes by even a thousand euro per person, this would produce ten billion euro, easily enough to provide world-class health care to all sick Rwandans, and probably to feed the starving ones as well. Because the incredibly rich (by African standards) Belgians object to paying merely a thousand euro extra taxes to save the lives of Rwandans, thousands of them die painfully and needlessly every year. Obviously, Belgians don't believe all people have a universal right to health care or even food, and are terribly callous people.

Go ahead. Say "Why should I be forced to pay thousands of euro to help the poor Rwandans, even if I am much richer than they are?" A whole bunch of Americans are asking "Why should I be forced to pay thousands of dollars to help poor Americans, even if I am much richer than they are?" The only difference is that we're not being hypocrites about it. We're correctly applying the principle of "We believe everyone must take care of themselves", instead of providing world class health care to people on one side of an imaginary line, and watching people even a centimeter on the other side die of preventable disease without sparing them a second thought.

...I personally think that probably we should be paying for health care for both Rwandans and Americans, but preferentially for Rwandans. But my reasons are, as you might guess, complicated.

[Scott of Hyperborea]

I love what some of the news agencies have said in america lately
"If stephen hawking were british he would have been left to die of motor neurone disease"
hint: he is british. :P he is not dead.

This is actually a myth. Stephen Hawking died in 2003. His body was stuffed and placed back on its wheelchair, which was refitted to operate by remote control. When he "speaks", the electronically synthesized voice is reading characters sent to it by text message by the government officials maintaining the deception. Every so often, one of Britain's leading physicists publishes a paper under the name "Stephen Hawking" in a leading journal to keep up the impression that he continues doing research.

I don't know why exactly such an elaborate ruse is being perpetrated, but it probably has something to do with greed for his lucrative video game and t-shirt merchandising deals.

[dr-spangle]

*reads both of scott's posts*

Darn how did you figure out about hawking! we were keeping that a secret from everyone, soon everyone will know!


also, with your post before, thank god Britain doesn't have any former colonies that you can say that about... serves you belgians right for conquering places like the evil imperialists you are!

[Jonas]

Scott, the taxes in Belgium are already the highest within Europe. Every human being, even illegals, get health care and an accommodation (indeed, this situation ends up in tensions).
You don't have to forget that Belgium, as rich country, is already paying millions of euro's to help these people you're talking about. Congo for example, where the 'Damiaan Actie' (called after the Belgian priest Damiaan) fights against leprosy and gets its money via donations (so, isn't even counted with government support). It would also help those people in Rwanda (a former mandate, not really a colony) if they didn't kill the nurses and doctors we sent to them. And the money we send to establish a better health care ends up in the purchase of weapons.
As far as I know, a (pretty large) part of the Americans isn't even interested in paying one dime for its own people, though America isn't a war zone.
I can honestly say that Obama is no socialist (in Europe he would probably seen as a centre conservative) and that I'm happy that the money we pay for taxes ends up in the health care (for us, and for the poor), education,... and not all for weapons.

It's indeed a complicated matter, but you would never convince me of abandoning my health system. Our social system is pretty complicated and, indeed, somewhat expensive. But that's the price we have to pay for a better community (something I would defend as Christian and Catholic). I'm happy to know that they will not throw me out of the hospital without getting an operation when I need it.

And then saying I'm a conservative guy.

I really hope that I don't hurt the feelings of Americans who read this, it's a delicate matter. A hundred year ago, we had the same problems.

[Scott of Hyperborea]

As far as I know, a (pretty large) part of the Americans isn't even interested in paying one dime for its own people.

The poor in America get free education, free food, several years of welfare (free money), free job training, in some cities there is some free housing available, and free health care if they're poor enough. The only people who don't get free government-provided health care are those who make enough money to afford health insurance (but some of them still don't buy it, sometimes the government overestimates people's ability to afford health insurance, sometimes people get health insurance but it's not enough to cover a particularly expensive disease, and sometimes people get health insurance but the insurance companies use some trick to get out of paying). Even people without health insurance will still receive health care during emergencies, but not during everyday events, routine checkups, or for long term diseases.

The total amount Americans spend on free health care for the needy is $440 billion ("Medicare", for the old) plus $204 billion ("Medicaid", for the poor) = $644 billion. In other words, the American people spend about twice the entire GNP of Belgium paying for health care for those who can't already afford it.

Some Americans want to increase this amount. Others think their our taxes are already too high, that they're already paying millions of dollars to give people health care, and that the people involved will make poor choices if we give them any more money. Those are exactly the reasons you list why you're not giving more health care to the Rwandans.

would also help those people in Rwanda (a former mandate, not really a colony) if they didn't kill the nurses and doctors we sent to them.

The reason I chose Rwanda rather than Congo is that the fighting and gratuitous murdering in Rwanda is mostly over now. If you don't believe that, feel free to replace "Rwanda" with "Botswana" or any other country with a stable government, little violence, but very poor people.

But that's the price we have to pay for a better community (something I would defend as Christian and Catholic). I'm happy to know that they will not throw me out of the hospital without getting an operation when I need it.

I live in a rich community in America. Likely no one in my community has health insurance problems or is going to get thrown out of the hospital. Smugly knowing my community is okay isn't the point. The point is: do you want health care for really poor people, or not? And are you willing to pay for it, or not? Apparently my community doesn't care enough about people in the slums of Baltimore to give them enough to afford excellent health care, and Belgium doesn't care about enough about people in Botswana and India to give them excellent free health care. It's still unclear why you think one form of not caring is okay, but the other isn't.

(sorry to pick on Belgium so much, but I need some example.)

[Jonas]

No problem, Scott. I'm the one who started the 'attack'.

The total amount Americans spend on free health care for the needy is $440 billion ("Medicare", for the old) plus $204 billion ("Medicaid", for the poor) = $644 billion. In other words, the American people spend about twice the entire GNP of Belgium paying for health care for those who can't already afford it.

Just twice the GNP? We are a small country, with 10 million citizens. We just spend more in comparison (I'm seeking an other word...).

sometimes people get health insurance but it's not enough to cover a particularly expensive disease, and sometimes people get health insurance but the insurance companies use some trick to get out of paying).

That's the problem.

The reason I chose Rwanda rather than Congo is that the fighting and gratuitous murdering in Rwanda is mostly over now. If you don't believe that, feel free to replace "Rwanda" with "Botswana" or any other country with a stable government, little violence, but very poor people.

That's a wrong conclusion. At the border between Congo and Rwanda, Rwandese soldiers take advantage to invade Congo and attack the villages. These 'rebel' armies are sponsored by the Rwandese, with the money we send them for health care. Not to forget that they threaten us whole the time. You can call it a miracle that we still talk to them.

The point is: do you want health care for really poor people, or not? And are you willing to pay for it, or not? Apparently my community doesn't care enough about people in the slums of Baltimore to give them enough to afford excellent health care, and Belgium doesn't care about enough about people in Botswana and India to give them excellent free health care. It's still unclear why you think one form of not caring is okay, but the other isn't.

How do you mean? I have just mentioned our efforts to help those people. We're a small country that tries to make a better world (I agree, the stupid Utopia ideal ). We can't beat the U.S. in numbers, as you told: you can pay much more
then our GNP.
You don't have to forget that we don't rule those lands you mentioned. This could sound egoistical but we can't make a whole health system for those who don't recognise our laws: why should the rich Africans have the advantage to use the system, while not paying? In our system, everyone pays (and the rich people don't get any advantages ), and everyone can use it. If they decide to be part of Belgium, it could be agreed and you would see there life standards go up.
Problem with India: even with our GNP, we can't pay enough to get the situation right (how many citizens do they have? A billion?).

[Scott of Hyperborea]

You don't have to forget that we don't rule those lands you mentioned. This could sound egoistical but we can't make a whole health system for those who don't recognise our laws: why should the rich Africans have the advantage to use the system, while not paying? In our system, everyone pays (and the rich people don't get any advantages ), and everyone can use it.

Again, this is exactly the argument American conservatives are using, except you're doing it on a governmental level instead of a personal level.

You're arguing that Belgium shouldn't have to pay for Africa's health care because Belgium doesn't control Africa. Africans may behave in ways Belgians don't like, they might waste the money, and they don't contribute anything to Belgium, so why should you have to spend your money to help them?

A rich American believes he shouldn't have to pay for a poor American's health care because the rich American doesn't control the poor American. The poor American may behave in ways the rich American doesn't like, the poor American might waste the money, and the poor American doesn't contribute anything to the rich American, so why should he have to spend his money to help them?

This seems to be a big difference in the way Americans and Europeans think. Americans think the fundamental unit of politics is the individual, and Europeans think it's the state. I (predictably) think it's more complicated, but I sympathize with the American view. In the American view, it's not a question of whether "America" has a duty to provide health care for "Americans". It's a question of whether Bob in Seattle should be forced to give his money to Sam in Baltimore who can't afford his own health care.

Viewed on this level, the question becomes why, exactly, if Bob doesn't want Sam to have free health care, and you (Jonas) do want Sam to have free health care, Bob should be forced to pay for Bob's health care and you shouldn't.

Or, to put it another way, the question becomes - if you want poor Americans to have free health care, why haven't you donated money to charities giving free health to poor Americans? Because you don't think that poor Americans are your responsibility? Well, apparently rich Americans also don't think poor Americans are their responsibility. It's unclear why you're right and they're wrong, except maybe that they were born on one side of an imaginary line and you were born on the other.

This is what I've been trying to get at. Why do you believe that your (Jonas') money should go to give health care to a poor Belgian you've never met and have no connection with besides the same color passport, but not that your money should go to give health care to poor Africans you've never met? Is the life of a Belgian worth more than the life of a Rwandan?

In fact, since people in the first world tend to have expensive, chronic diseases like AIDS or cancer, and people in the third world tend to have cheap, acute diseases like malaria or parasites, most likely the amount of money you pay into the Belgian health care system could save far more Africans than it could Belgians. In first world countries, it costs between $1 to $6 million to save one life (source: long story, and I might be wrong). In Africa, it costs about $800 to save one life (source: Population Services International). Unless you think a Belgian life is worth about a thousand times more than a African one, you should give the money you want to spend on health care to Africa instead of Belgium, so as to save a thousand times more lives. Unfortunately, you're forced to spend it on Belgium, and if you didn't, you'd be thrown in jail for refusing to pay taxes.

If they decide to be part of Belgium, it could be agreed and you would see there life standards go up.

The Africans might be forgiven for not believing that joining Belgium would make their life standards go up.

Problem with India: even with our GNP, we can't pay enough to get the situation right (how many citizens do they have? A billion?).

Of course you couldn't make it perfect. You could still probably save the lives of a few million people, though, which I'm sure would help. See a cliched story about starfish. But if you insist on a country that's both peaceful and small enough that you could fix it completely, Botswana is just one of many possibilities.

[Jonas]

This seems to be a big difference in the way Americans and Europeans think. Americans think the fundamental unit of politics is the individual, and Europeans think it's the state.

Indeed. But you're wrong about one thing, it's not the state but the community. The state is a way, but not necessary, to help the community.
I, not surprisingly, am in favour of the European principles.

About what you all told here: why does an American have to pay for the upkeep of an army, and not for health care? "America" doesn't need to have the duty of providing an army, as you use the same arguments.

It's a question of whether Bob in Seattle should be forced to give his money to Sam in Baltimore who can't afford his own health care.

I assume the U.S. has very complicated tax forms: if someone doesn't go to school, he hasn't to pay for it; if someone is pacifist, he doesn't have to pay for the upkeep of his troops (or will he be arrested by the FBI and qualified as 'possibly dangerous'?).
I don't know how you guys do it precisely, but in our system the poor guy would have to pay less then the rich one.

Or, to put it another way, the question becomes - if you want poor Americans to have free health care, why haven't you donated money to charities giving free health to poor Americans? Because you don't think that poor Americans are your responsibility? Well, apparently rich Americans also don't think poor Americans are their responsibility. It's unclear why you're right and they're wrong, except maybe that they were born on one side of an imaginary line and you were born on the other.

Because, Scott, Americans can pay for their health care if they would reorganise it. With the Africans this is mostly not the case.
Americans are full of patriotism and want to fight for their nation, they form one front (so the others are born on the other side of the line), but when it comes to help each other, then you prefer to let each other die. You can't say that you don't feel a connection with your people (or is it the nation, and not the people, who gets adored?). There is indeed an imaginary line, caused by the selfishness of the people. You can say what you want, but with our system there are more people saved then with yours: we help our own people and the same time help others, where you give support to the Africans but forget that there are Americans who also need it.

Remembers me of something... hehehe.

The Africans might be forgiven for not believing that joining Belgium would make their life standards go up.

You make the fatal error by looking to Congo as personal colony of the king for whole its existence. That's wrong to do, as the Belgian government (who wasn't interested but took the responsibility eventually) took control of the country. After that happened, Congo became one of the richer colonies in Africa. There were, funny enough, British and Dutch (and Americans!) who worked for the king and did these terrible things. Life standard became better after Belgian rule was established.

I hope you will hold in mind that a lot of the stories were exaggerated by the socialists (who hated the king) and protestants (who hated the catholic king). And a lot of nations were annoyed by the amount of land he hold in Africa. Nonetheless, there happened terrible things.

And something else: the whole economy collapsed and life standards collapsed when Congo became independent. This says enough.

You could still probably save the lives of a few million people, though, which I'm sure would help

Or it would be like in America: less taxes to help the poor Americans, the same % of amount of money would be donated to poor countries, and the money goes to luxury you don't need.


Interesting discussion by the way.

[Jacobus Loki]

Random thoughts---

We Americans do end up paying for poor peoples health care. That's one reason why a 2 cent aspirin cost $20 in the hospital is so that the hospital can afford to take care of the people who can't pay.

....and it makes sense to take care of those around us, even illegals. Communicable disease, well, communicates. The germ does not check your D&B rating before it jumps on you.

.....and that pregnant Latino lady could stand some good pre-natal care. Her baby may very well become the doctor that is going to do my kidney transplant in 2028 , (God forbid that I need it).

As usual, it come down to power and money. 1/7th of the total economy.

What scares the living crap out of me is having the government (or worse, the Block Constructive Group Leader) come into my house, look in my fridge, and tell me what and how much I can and can't eat or drink, and coerce me in to Group Exercise in the town square.

Admittedly, that's hyperbole, but only by degree. People love to run other people's lives, usually because they can't run there own.

........Rwanda was part of a UN (formerly League of Nations) Mandate, not a colony. Gotta blame the Germans for colonizing the place. The kind-hearted Belgians just agreed to take care of them. (WW I war booty. England got Tanganyika out of that slice.)

[Scott of Hyperborea]

What scares the living crap out of me is having the government (or worse, the Block Constructive Group Leader) come into my house, look in my fridge, and tell me what and how much I can and can't eat or drink, and coerce me in to Group Exercise in the town square.

I read an interesting article about this. The worry is that once the government is paying for your health care, it will force you to be healthy to save money.

But in fact, people who eat poorly, smoke, and never exercise cost health care systems less money in the long run than people who are very healthy, because they die earlier. A disproportionate amount of health care is consumed by old people. If you die of a heart attack at sixty, your health care provider will be thrilled, from an economic point of view.

[Scott of Hyperborea]

About what you all told here: why does an American have to pay for the upkeep of an army, and not for health care? "America" doesn't need to have the duty of providing an army, as you use the same arguments.

Not so. The idea with health care is that whoever wants health care pays for it, whoever doesn't want health care doesn't pay for it, and then everyone enjoys or suffers the consequences of their own decision. If I want to buy very good health insurance, I pay more money but have better care. If you want to buy cheap health insurance, you pay less money but have worse care. Whoever pays for the health care gets the health care. This is "fair".

But let's say everyone in America pays for the army except me. Then the Russians invade, and the army fights off the Russians. Everyone in America has been saved, including me. This is "unfair", because I didn't pay for the army, but I got the benefits of it anyway. There's no way to run an army such that only the people who pay for it benefit from it; ie the army can't choose to protect all of America except me from the Russians. Therefore, most conservatives accept that we've got to pay for the army on a state level.

I assume the U.S. has very complicated tax forms: if someone doesn't go to school, he hasn't to pay for it; if someone is pacifist, he doesn't have to pay for the upkeep of his troops (or will he be arrested by the FBI and qualified as 'possibly dangerous'?). I don't know how you guys do it precisely, but in our system the poor guy would have to pay less then the rich one.

Yes and no. Sometimes the liberals get their way, and everyone pays for community services. This is the way our schools are run right now. Sometimes the conservatives get their way, and people pay only for the services they personally want.

This wouldn't be handled by tax forms, though. If the libertarians had their way on the schools, then the government would stop providing free education, and people would pay for private schools. If people wanted poor people to go to school, they would donate money to charities that would help put poor people through school. Because everyone's taxes would be lower, if you wanted to help poor people go to school you could just pay for the charity out of the money you saved on taxes, and pay exactly as much as you would have if the whole thing was centralized by the government. If someone else had different views about poor people, and wanted to pay more or less than the previous tax rate, they could do that too.

Because, Scott, Americans can pay for their health care if they would reorganise it. With the Africans this is mostly not the case.

Again, you're thinking of the state (or community) as a natural unit. The unit consisting of Jonas + one American poor person who needs $100 for a medication could also pay for their health care if they just reorganized it. Likewise, the unit consisting of Bill Gates plus five hundred people from India could pay for their medication if they just reorganized it.

I'm not sure why the unit consisting of a few hundred million American rich people plus a few hundred million American poor people should have to redistribute its resources to pay for health care, but the unit consisting of Jonas and one American poor person shouldn't.

Americans are full of patriotism and want to fight for their nation, they form one front (so the others are born on the other side of the line), but when it comes to help each other, then you prefer to let each other die.

Not really. I mean, we were willing to fight for the Bosnians, who were born on the other side of an imaginary line. We have lots of troops stationed in Europe and Japan in order to defend them. We spend a lot of our time and resources defending Israel, too, though it's never come to a full war. Although we started the Afghan war to defend Americans from al-Qaeda, now we're mostly staying there because we want to defend the Afghans against the people who might take over if we left. I think we were right to do most of these things. I also wish we had been more willing to fight for the Rwandans in 1992, and for the Jews in 1944.

Insofar as we do fight more to protect Americans than to protect others, I think this is not morally justifiable.

You can't say that you don't feel a connection with your people (or is it the nation, and not the people, who gets adored?).

You mean me, personally? I live in Ireland, I worked in Japan the past few years, I'm a citizen of Shireroth, and culturally I'm more Hyperborean than anything else. I think America is one of the world's better-run and more liveable countries, although I think a few others like the ones in Scandinavia are better run and more liveable still. I think America has excellent ideals, but that most Americans don't follow them, and that some other countries also have some pretty good ideals. But generally I agree with someone (possibly Mark Twain?) who said that patriotism is the belief that your country is the best in the world, just because you were born there.

I feel vastly more connection with most Shirerithians, who I know and like, than I do with some random guy from Texas or something. If some Shirerithian was sick and couldn't afford the hospital bill, I might even chip in to help them. But I don't think I should be forced to.

There is indeed an imaginary line, caused by the selfishness of the people. You can say what you want, but with our system there are more people saved then with yours: we help our own people and the same time help others, where you give support to the Africans but forget that there are Americans who also need it.

It's true that with the Belgian system, more people get saved than with the American system. This is why I support nationalized health care for America. But with the system where we don't give health care to other Americans, and instead spend the money we would've used on that for health care for Africans, more people would get saved still, which is why I would support that instead if it were an option, which it isn't.

You make the fatal error by looking to Congo as personal colony of the king for whole its existence. That's wrong to do, as the Belgian government (who wasn't interested but took the responsibility eventually) took control of the country. After that happened, Congo became one of the richer colonies in Africa. There were, funny enough, British and Dutch (and Americans!) who worked for the king and did these terrible things. Life standard became better after Belgian rule was established.

I'm not going to argue with you on this, because it would make me too angry. But have you ever read Heart of Darkness by Joseph Conrad?

Or it would be like in America: less taxes to help the poor Americans, the same % of amount of money would be donated to poor countries, and the money goes to luxury you don't need.

Oh, no. I'm talking about taxing Belgians exactly the same amount, but sending the money the government makes to India instead of spending it on Belgians.

[Andreas the Wise]

I find this a fascinating topic, for two reasons.
1. I can explain at least half of it in fancy technical terms from what I've been learning in the my microeconomic policy course this semester + what I've learnt in politics over the last year and a half. (the phrases "Moral Hazard" "Adverse Selection" "Willing, but unable to pay" "Social Welfare Function" "Mechanistic vs Organic conception of the State", and of course "Utilitarianism" all spring to mind).
2. I find it quite interesting what Scott's arguing. Scott, I expect you're playing devil's advocate deliberately. If I'd been asked to say what you'd say on this topic without looking at it, I'd have said your person views would be to help everyone with basic healthcare, regardless of nation ... which I think has come out in the later posts, but you came at it from the roundabout way of arguing for individual rights. Your problem, as always, is arguing as if people are anywhere near fundamentally good. Though I must say I know you're well aware of the answer to your question of "Why should we care about Americans and not other humans?" *cough*Evolutionary Psychology*cough*

Well, there's my two cents. I may or may not actually contribute something to the discussion later. If I did, it'll probably focus on moral hazard, aid fungability and social welfare functions, and a disputation of Mill's belief that people should be allowed to harm themselves in any significant way.

[Scott of Hyperborea]

Andreas, yes, I'm playing devil's advocate. As I said above, I thought Jonas' conception of the problem as "Americans don't care if the poor have health care" was too simplistic. I tried to give two arguments to show how other views were possible - one, the standard libertarian argument that American conservatives are actually giving, and two, trying to point out a position where I think Jonas and the Belgians are making exactly the same mistake as the Americans are, on a different level, and so sort of agree with the American conservative position.

As you've guessed, my real view is that we should give health care both to poor Americans and to poor Africans, but the latter is so politically infeasible as to be irrelevant right now. I do believe that Jonas' view that Americans have a responsibility to give it to Americans but not Africans is inconsistent.

Though I must say I know you're well aware of the answer to your question of "Why should we care about Americans and not other humans?"

Oh, no no no. I'm well aware of the answer to the question of "Why do we care about Americans and not other humans." I believe that the answer to "Why should we care about Americans and not other humans?" is "We shouldn't."

I can explain at least half of it in fancy technical terms from what I've been learning in the my microeconomic policy course this semester + what I've learnt in politics over the last year and a half. (the phrases "Moral Hazard" "Adverse Selection" "Willing, but unable to pay" "Social Welfare Function" "Mechanistic vs Organic conception of the State", and of course "Utilitarianism" all spring to mind).

I've heard of two of those, and would be very interested in learning about the others.

[Andreas the Wise]

Ah, can't resist a chance to discuss economic theory ...

Adverse Selection: In insurance terminology, it's when there are both high and low risk individuals in a market; but the insurance company can't determine which is which. So it's forced to charge both an average premium, which is too high for the low risk individuals, but cheap for the high risk. So the low risk individuals leave the market, and only the high risk individuals get insurance (and premiums have to rise as a result). The selection is adverse from the perspective of the insurance company.

Moral Hazard: In insurance terminology, moral hazard is when you change your behaviour after you've got insurance (eg you take more risks when driving now you're insured, as opposed to adverse selection, where you're at risk and so get insurance). However, it now has broader connotations, such as the argument that forgiving third world debt creates a moral hazard (those governments then have an incentive to borrow lots in the future, hoping that they'll have their debt forgiven again).

Willing, but unable to pay: Not an actual economic 'term' as such, but useful to draw out. The idea that everyone should pay for insurance as they want it is all well and good when everyone has money. It's not much help if there are people who would like to pay a lot for insurance but are desperately poor and so cannot. Its more of a problem if you believe that people born into bad circumstances generally don't have much chance to escape from them (as opposed to the idea that everyone could get insurance if they worked hard enough; and that the unemployed are just lazy). Markets work efficiently in allocating preferences, certainly, but from a social perspective you have to admit that they are weighted towards the preferences of those with money.

Social Welfare Function: I assume you're already familiar with the concept of a Utility Function (eg. U=I^0.5 where I is income would mean that people's utility is the square root of their income. Yes, it assumes that you can measure utility mathematically, which you can't; but you can work out the rough shape of an average person's curve to help you get general results). A social welfare function is like a utility function for society; and it works out how much society values the utility of all its individual members. There are several famous ones
-A Utilitarian (or Additive) SWF is one that just adds the utility of everyone up and says that's society's utility. Advantages: Easy, and weights everyone evenly. Disadvantages: Ignores the distribution of utility.
-A Rawlsian SWF says that society's utility is the utility of the lowest utility member (mathematically, its the minimum of all individual utilities). Advantages: It's apparently the function we would pick if were didn't know where we'd be born in society. And it looks after the poor but doesn't impose strict equality like Socialism. Disadvantages: Something that takes huge amounts of utility from a lot of people to raise the lowest person a little is a good deal.
-A Multiplicative SWF is one that raises everyone's utility to a power and then multiplies them. I could draw you one but it's hard to describe the function in words (x^0.5 times y^0.5 = 5 would be an example, if you have a program to graph that). Advantages: Takes account of distribution (so if someone has zero utility, then society says that's really bad). Disadvantages: It seems an odd way to combine utilities of more than two people ...

If you know the shape of society's SWF, then you can use this to look at the distributional aspects of any government policy. You can also weight the above functions (so you could use an additive function but weight a dollar to a poor person more) as needed.

Mechanistic vs Organic conception of the State: This is more political science but I came across the explanation in my economics textbook so ...
Pre, oh, 1700's, people viewed the state as organic. It was thought to arise naturally, and to a degree the goals of the state trump the goals of individuals (eg in the middle ages, peasants thought they were helping serve the King who was God's representative on earth). Later, the idea grew that the State was constructed by a group of individuals to better fulfil their individual goals. It's the 'mechanistic' conception of the state - its a machine you can take apart and put back together in different ways. It's clearly a popular view in places like America now.

[Jonas]

Short answer:

I'm not going to argue with you on this, because it would make me too angry. But have you ever read Heart of Darkness by Joseph Conrad?

That's a book of 1899. So it was written in the years it was the king his personal colony. In 1908 Leopold was forced by the government to donate it to the state. From then, the situation became actually better. You really need to separate these periods.
And about Rwanda: that's right, it was a mandate. But we can honestly say that's almost the same as a colony.

[Erik Mortis]

*Has no Health Insurance*

[Gman Russell]

I, too, find this interesting. This is an argument that has a serious, deadly impact on my own health.

I have severe asthma. I've had bad lungs since birth. I have to puff a long-term inhaler once a day, or my bronchial tubes will shut and i'll suffocate. FUN!

Anyway, point is, I pay 200 dollars a month, so I can afford the privilege of staying alive.

I better not here anyone talk about universal health care being evil!

(not that anyone here IS, i'm just saying...)

[Ari Rahikkala]

The bleeding heart liberal in me thinks that if the US government spent maybe about half of his military budget on going around providing healthcare to to world instead of shooting at people, it would probably not be any more popular but it'd do a hell of a lot more good.

The disinterested Scandinavian in me thinks universal health care is just more efficient than the US's current system, and is amused that the US already pays more just in *public* funds for healthcare than Canada but somehow manages to screw up and suffer things like hundreds of thousands of medical bankruptcies a year.

The LW rationalist in me just continues to be astonished every time someone like Scott points out how bloody insane people are so much of the time

[dr-spangle]

I haven't read the whole of this thread because of mainly laziness but I'll say it's because I was busy.

But America spends more than most european countries on it's healthcare, and still manages to have worse life expectancy and quality of life than most european nations... to be honest, sucks to be america.

The effect apparently comes from a higher uptake of smoking and a more restricted diet than europeans, which sort of sucks for you I suppose but leaves me to point out

Who's food is bad now! *feels happy about apparently awesome british food*

[Scott of Hyperborea]

Our food is so good that we can't stop eating it

[andelarion]

Greg -

Sorry to hear about your asthma...

My meds, I pay 200 dollars for, too. But that's a year. Everything above that is paid for by the State. And I don't have a medical insurance. It's written in the law.

Greg. Come to Sweden, I'll marry ya :P

[Erik Mortis]

I pay $100/month for my meds.. but I can get away (if you wanna say I do) with not having to always take them....

[Gman Russell]

200 a year? I'm not gay, but i'm willing to work the system for that.

[Jacobus Loki]

*Has no Health Insurance*

But is young, and more bulletproof, therefore should pay a large tax to pay for me.

(OOPS, is already paying for Medicare and lots of other stuff.)

My wife and I pay over $20,000 a year for health insurance. I have asthma (not severe, but annoying) and my wife is diabetic. I could fake it without it (insurance), but she also had a brain tumor many moons ago.

My (deceased) mom's husband has cancer that is alternately annoying and terrifying.

****************************************************************

One of the reasons that Europe was able to build welfare states is that the American taxpayer (and the people we borrow money from) paid for the Cold War. And the Marshall Plan. And a lot of the Allied side of WWII, etc.

I wouldn't have had it the other way, though, because paying to rebuild civilization after global nuclear war (against a victorious Nazi Reich OR the Soviets) would have cost a lot more. Not to mention all of the radiation, and , oh, yeah, 500,000,000 or so dead people. We got off cheap.

Yes, yes, I know that's simplistic and a long time ago.

Aren't we glad we're Shirithian and don't have to deal with all the problems of imaginary parallel universes?
*****************
And, yes, of course,
argkernmoof, blagaertain, CAT!

[Käthbad jënRöijanin]

there are a multitude of things i could say in this topic, so instead, i will post a convenient link to a "relevant" video

Click it, you know you want to

[dr-spangle]

The way to convince americans to agree with public healthcare has been found!