Quote:
|
Originally Posted by BigBen
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.
|
I think we have young healthy adults who avoid health insurance because they don't think they need it or would rather spend the money on other things. Then you have the people who really need it now and if it is available they will make sure they have it. Then there are the people you know they are close to really needing it and they make sure they have it if it is available. There is a tendancy for adverse selection when it comes to insurance. Perhaps, that is one of the bigger problems with premiums in this country.
Quote:
|
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.
|
Very theoretical. What if Bill Gate values his dollar more than his time, and you take his dollar, he wastes his time, and the guy you feed values wine more than food. It is possible that marginal utility rates don't change or actually worsen. Where on the otherhand Bill Gates would have happily given his time to train the individual who would have been happier receiving the training and then be in a situation where he could buy his own food and wine. I don't think you can manage marginal utility, I think each person has to be free to make choice, both the giver and reciever. I think any time you "take" it is a net bad thing.
Quote:
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!
|
Why not look at it on an individual level. If I stop doing X and it doesn't make me unhappy, and therefore I can do Y, which does make me happy, I have created happiness. You do this without taking from another. Would this be the most effecient way to generate increased happiness? I say yes, otherwise how do you determine what will make someone happy or unhappy. I don't think you can, you can only do that for yourself. It begs the question do we want a central committee somewhere deciding on what makes people happy and unhappy? I think those kinds of systems have always failed.