Waldemar Ingdahl wrote:
> >From: James Rogers <email@example.com>
> >On Thu, 29 Jun 2000, Damien Broderick wrote:
> > >
> > > (Major treatment
> > > would require a trip to the hospital, of course, and attendant tedium.
> >But there's nothing stopping people here from buying insurance and getting
> > > swifter treatment.)
> >Nothing stopping people, except perhaps that they've already been taxed for
> >as much money as they can afford to support the less responsive government
> >system. All this does is allow a narrower segment of the well-off to be
> >able to afford high-quality treatment than would otherwise be the case.
> The welfare state is strangely enough more beneficial to the wealthiest in
> society. They can still choose and demand quality, since they have the money
> to pay for the service twice. Once for the coertive service, that they don't
> use, and second for the REAL service.
> The rest of us are stuck with whatever we're given.
If you didn't pay for it, you really can't complain whats given you, can you?
BTW: The wealthy in welfare state countries typically don't get their quality
health care there, they fly to the US and get it here, where they know people
understand the link between quality service and the quantity of their pay. Even
people who AREN'T wealthy typically come here to get treatment that is normally
rationed in welfare states, whenever their life expectancy is anywhere near or
longer than the average wait time (typically in years) for a procedure, they
scrounge up the money wherever they can, come here, and get the work done on
demand. Thus your welfare state health systems are externalizing the cost of the
most expensive cases onto the consumer, much like any monopolist/mercantilist
tries to externalize his costs onto the rest of society.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Oct 02 2000 - 17:34:36 MDT