Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post - National Healthcare

BigBen · 02-17-2006, 10:16 AM

Okay, but what I am saying is

What if the 50 new people in the insurance plan consume the same amount as the last 50? Instead of them consuming half, they consume an equal portion?

Your example has them consuming half as much. What do the numbers look like if they consumed MORE?

What if we insured the people that had higher risk factors? They consume double?! Uh oh, those numbers don't look so good anymore.

Insuring everyone (even the really, really sick and 'expensive' ones) means that the rich people who can afford lots of bells and whistles in their coverage will actually get WORSE care. We don't allow them to buy their way to the front of the line, and we make them wait with the dregs.

Now, this is kind of the classic trade off, and Vilfredo Pareto talked about the optimisation process. Take one dollar away from Bill Gates, and give it to a starving guy so he can buy a meal. Bill doesn't miss one dollar, and the starving guy is infinitely more happy, because he got fed... Keep doing that, across the board, until people's marginal utility rates are equal.

If me taking something away from you does not make you unhappy, but makes someone else happy, I have created happiness by re-distributing the wealth between the participants, in a closed system. Hmmmm. This is a lot easier to say this than it is to tell you "You have to wait for your hip surgery because a small boy needs the funds so he can breathe. You will get your hip fixed, just not right now."

Who wants the job to tell rich people that theydon't get to buy healthcare anymore?
That is almost Un-American!

02-17-2006, 10:16 AM	#38 (permalink)
BigBen Comedian Location: Use the search button	Okay, but what I am saying is What if the 50 new people in the insurance plan consume the same amount as the last 50? Instead of them consuming half, they consume an equal portion? Your example has them consuming half as much. What do the numbers look like if they consumed MORE? What if we insured the people that had higher risk factors? They consume double?! Uh oh, those numbers don't look so good anymore. Insuring everyone (even the really, really sick and 'expensive' ones) means that the rich people who can afford lots of bells and whistles in their coverage will actually get WORSE care. We don't allow them to buy their way to the front of the line, and we make them wait with the dregs. Now, this is kind of the classic trade off, and Vilfredo Pareto talked about the optimisation process. Take one dollar away from Bill Gates, and give it to a starving guy so he can buy a meal. Bill doesn't miss one dollar, and the starving guy is infinitely more happy, because he got fed... Keep doing that, across the board, until people's marginal utility rates are equal. If me taking something away from you does not make you unhappy, but makes someone else happy, I have created happiness by re-distributing the wealth between the participants, in a closed system. Hmmmm. This is a lot easier to say this than it is to tell you "You have to wait for your hip surgery because a small boy needs the funds so he can breathe. You will get your hip fixed, just not right now." Who wants the job to tell rich people that theydon't get to buy healthcare anymore? That is almost Un-American! __________________ 3.141592654 Hey, if you are impressed with my memorizing pi to 10 digits, you should see the size of my penis.