> Having basics is a good thing (clean drinking water, police/fire). Too many of these things means there is less freedom for the people putting money into the system and less incentive for the people utilizing these services to get a job. There needs to be a balance. Too little or too much is a bad thing.
I agree with you 100%. I also think that it's an area that people (and countries) can and do have reasonable disagreements regarding where that balance point should be.
> I also enjoy the freedom. It's something you seem to have trouble understanding.
No, believe me, I understand; I think that you and I place different value on that level of freedom. For me, the freedom isn't necessarily an end in and of itself- it's one of many different means to an end. In other words, the freedom isn't valuable; it's what that freedom allows us to do, and how it allows us to live our lives, that's important.
Furthermore, I think of freedom as a vector, not a scalar- there are multiple dimensions to it. Simply talking about "more" or "less" freedom isn't very meaningful. Sometimes, trading one kind of freedom for another makes sense. For example, I generally try and follow traffic laws when driving. This is a constraint on my freedom to drive as fast as I want, wherever I want. However, by accepting this constraint, I experience a net gain in total freedom (i.e., the magnitude of my freedom vector increases overall), since by buying into the system of traffic laws, I get to enjoy a traffic and road system that lets us all have cars and use them to go wherever we want to go without having to worry (too much) about somebody driving the wrong way down our lane of traffic, and so on. I value that quite a bit- enough to follow rules that are sometimes suboptimal, or downright annoying.
Personally, I would feel a lot more free and happy if I knew that my friends all had health insurance, and there have been times in my life when it would have been very nice to be able to find a different job without worrying about what the effects would be on my partner's access to health care. I also feel like the overall societal benefits to everybody's friends having health insurance and what-not would result in a net increase in the magnitude of my personal freedom vector, to the extent that I'm willing to accept a hit to one or another of my vector's dimensions in terms of paying higher taxes, etc.. Obviously, you disagree with me on this count, and that's fine- but let's make sure we understand precisely what it is that we're disagreeing about.
It seems to me that one way to think about our difference of opinion is that, when you and I calculate the magnitude our freedom vector, we're placing different weights on the various dimensions--- in other words, some dimensions are more important to you than others. Heck, we might even be calculating our freedom vectors in entirely different spaces- our dimensions themselves might be different, which would make it very hard to compare how you think about and value these things to how I think about and value them. Can you tell I'm in the final throes of dissertation writing? :-)
> Why does it matter to you? It's my money. 5 or 6 million per year really isn't that much anymore.
Well, it actually doesn't matter to me personally; I just have a hard time getting my head around the concept that, past that point, another million would have any net effect on my personal happiness level. However, as I said before, this could totally be an artifact of the fact that I'm not in that position. Maybe if I were, I'd feel differently. Note that the exact amount isn't really so important- just the idea that there's a point past which it doesn't matter. Maybe the real point is 10 million, maybe it's only 1 or 2. Obviously, it'll be different for everybody, but I don't think it'll differ by all that much, once all is said and done.
BTW, I disagree that 5 or 6 million/year "isn't that much anymore." First of all, in most of the world, that's such a fantastical amount that you might as well as be talking about being paid in unicorn horns; however, we're not talking about living in Botswana- we're talking about living somewhere like the US. So, here in the US, 5/6 m/year is way more than enough to live in incredibly decadent luxury in any city in the country. I suppose it might not enough to actually own and operate a private jet, but it's certainly enough for NetJets; it's probably not enough to buy one's own island, but short of that sort of thing, I'm having a hard time imagining something I'd like to do that I couldn't do easily on that kind of income.[1] Again, maybe my imagination is too limited, here, but I kind of don't think so- I've certainly got a taste for creature comforts, and enjoy luxuries as much as anybody else. Remember, I'm not saying that people shouldn't earn tons of money- just that, after a point, what does it matter? And, if it doesn't matter, why not use it supporting a system that efficiently makes life comfortable for people that don't have as much as you do?
> The US already has Medicade and Medicare. Over 70% of people are covered in some way or another by their employer.
First of all, that still leaves 30% of the country that isn't covered, which is way too damn many. Second of all, what most people call "Medicaid" is actually a patchwork of different programs that vary widely in terms of coverage requirements and services from state to state, and is far from an ideal system, although it is better than nothing. As to the fact that most people who are covered are covered through their employers, doesn't that strike you as a major dent in their freedom? How many potential entrepreneurs do you think don't bother simply because they can't risk losing their (or their family's) health insurance? In my mind, this represents a major hit to personal liberty, and as such seems like exactly the sort of thing that a system intent on maximizing individual freedom would be attempting to fix.
> You haven't talked about the negative effects of a socialized healthcare system and you are trying to use sympathy to get me to agree with you.
Well, I haven't talked about it, because I didn't see it as relevant to the discussion- most of the rest of the world's countries employ some form of government-funded universal healthcare, and even though there certainly are negatives, I gotta say- I've traveled a fair bit, and due to my work, wherever I go I end up talking to people about healthcare. I've never- not once- heard somebody tell me that they'd rather have the US's system than their own country's, even if they've spent the last half-hour enumerating their system's problems. That says something, in my mind. Furthermore, there are a lot of different kinds of "socialized healthcare systems." Some of them have usage limits, etc.; some are surprisingly market-driven (e.g., Switzerland). That's not really what we're talking about, though. No system is going to be perfect; the question is whether a government-run system that guarantees a certain level of coverage to all citizens would be better or worse than our current system (or lack of system).
> Healthcare is a finite resource. We need some way to limit usage. There needs to be a hybrid system in place that limits total visits per year (and charges fees after that) or it will eventually collapse. Unlimited anything is a bad idea.
All 100% true points. "Rationing" is a really dirty word when it comes to health care, but it's an absolute necessity, if for no other reason than resources are ultimately finite. Right now, one of the ways we limit usage is by limiting access, which I personally view as unjust. If everybody had equal access, maybe we could figure out a better way (not bloody likely, IMHO, but it can't be worse than what we've got now). Note that I'm personally extremely pessimistic about health care in the US, even if we somehow were able to get a better system into place, but I don't think that means that we shouldn't try.
At any rate, this is all kind of off-topic from our original discussion.
[1]: Exception: massive-scale philanthropy, along the lines of the Gates Foundation.
I agree with you 100%. I also think that it's an area that people (and countries) can and do have reasonable disagreements regarding where that balance point should be.
> I also enjoy the freedom. It's something you seem to have trouble understanding.
No, believe me, I understand; I think that you and I place different value on that level of freedom. For me, the freedom isn't necessarily an end in and of itself- it's one of many different means to an end. In other words, the freedom isn't valuable; it's what that freedom allows us to do, and how it allows us to live our lives, that's important.
Furthermore, I think of freedom as a vector, not a scalar- there are multiple dimensions to it. Simply talking about "more" or "less" freedom isn't very meaningful. Sometimes, trading one kind of freedom for another makes sense. For example, I generally try and follow traffic laws when driving. This is a constraint on my freedom to drive as fast as I want, wherever I want. However, by accepting this constraint, I experience a net gain in total freedom (i.e., the magnitude of my freedom vector increases overall), since by buying into the system of traffic laws, I get to enjoy a traffic and road system that lets us all have cars and use them to go wherever we want to go without having to worry (too much) about somebody driving the wrong way down our lane of traffic, and so on. I value that quite a bit- enough to follow rules that are sometimes suboptimal, or downright annoying.
Personally, I would feel a lot more free and happy if I knew that my friends all had health insurance, and there have been times in my life when it would have been very nice to be able to find a different job without worrying about what the effects would be on my partner's access to health care. I also feel like the overall societal benefits to everybody's friends having health insurance and what-not would result in a net increase in the magnitude of my personal freedom vector, to the extent that I'm willing to accept a hit to one or another of my vector's dimensions in terms of paying higher taxes, etc.. Obviously, you disagree with me on this count, and that's fine- but let's make sure we understand precisely what it is that we're disagreeing about.
It seems to me that one way to think about our difference of opinion is that, when you and I calculate the magnitude our freedom vector, we're placing different weights on the various dimensions--- in other words, some dimensions are more important to you than others. Heck, we might even be calculating our freedom vectors in entirely different spaces- our dimensions themselves might be different, which would make it very hard to compare how you think about and value these things to how I think about and value them. Can you tell I'm in the final throes of dissertation writing? :-)
> Why does it matter to you? It's my money. 5 or 6 million per year really isn't that much anymore.
Well, it actually doesn't matter to me personally; I just have a hard time getting my head around the concept that, past that point, another million would have any net effect on my personal happiness level. However, as I said before, this could totally be an artifact of the fact that I'm not in that position. Maybe if I were, I'd feel differently. Note that the exact amount isn't really so important- just the idea that there's a point past which it doesn't matter. Maybe the real point is 10 million, maybe it's only 1 or 2. Obviously, it'll be different for everybody, but I don't think it'll differ by all that much, once all is said and done.
BTW, I disagree that 5 or 6 million/year "isn't that much anymore." First of all, in most of the world, that's such a fantastical amount that you might as well as be talking about being paid in unicorn horns; however, we're not talking about living in Botswana- we're talking about living somewhere like the US. So, here in the US, 5/6 m/year is way more than enough to live in incredibly decadent luxury in any city in the country. I suppose it might not enough to actually own and operate a private jet, but it's certainly enough for NetJets; it's probably not enough to buy one's own island, but short of that sort of thing, I'm having a hard time imagining something I'd like to do that I couldn't do easily on that kind of income.[1] Again, maybe my imagination is too limited, here, but I kind of don't think so- I've certainly got a taste for creature comforts, and enjoy luxuries as much as anybody else. Remember, I'm not saying that people shouldn't earn tons of money- just that, after a point, what does it matter? And, if it doesn't matter, why not use it supporting a system that efficiently makes life comfortable for people that don't have as much as you do?
> The US already has Medicade and Medicare. Over 70% of people are covered in some way or another by their employer.
First of all, that still leaves 30% of the country that isn't covered, which is way too damn many. Second of all, what most people call "Medicaid" is actually a patchwork of different programs that vary widely in terms of coverage requirements and services from state to state, and is far from an ideal system, although it is better than nothing. As to the fact that most people who are covered are covered through their employers, doesn't that strike you as a major dent in their freedom? How many potential entrepreneurs do you think don't bother simply because they can't risk losing their (or their family's) health insurance? In my mind, this represents a major hit to personal liberty, and as such seems like exactly the sort of thing that a system intent on maximizing individual freedom would be attempting to fix.
> You haven't talked about the negative effects of a socialized healthcare system and you are trying to use sympathy to get me to agree with you.
Well, I haven't talked about it, because I didn't see it as relevant to the discussion- most of the rest of the world's countries employ some form of government-funded universal healthcare, and even though there certainly are negatives, I gotta say- I've traveled a fair bit, and due to my work, wherever I go I end up talking to people about healthcare. I've never- not once- heard somebody tell me that they'd rather have the US's system than their own country's, even if they've spent the last half-hour enumerating their system's problems. That says something, in my mind. Furthermore, there are a lot of different kinds of "socialized healthcare systems." Some of them have usage limits, etc.; some are surprisingly market-driven (e.g., Switzerland). That's not really what we're talking about, though. No system is going to be perfect; the question is whether a government-run system that guarantees a certain level of coverage to all citizens would be better or worse than our current system (or lack of system).
> Healthcare is a finite resource. We need some way to limit usage. There needs to be a hybrid system in place that limits total visits per year (and charges fees after that) or it will eventually collapse. Unlimited anything is a bad idea.
All 100% true points. "Rationing" is a really dirty word when it comes to health care, but it's an absolute necessity, if for no other reason than resources are ultimately finite. Right now, one of the ways we limit usage is by limiting access, which I personally view as unjust. If everybody had equal access, maybe we could figure out a better way (not bloody likely, IMHO, but it can't be worse than what we've got now). Note that I'm personally extremely pessimistic about health care in the US, even if we somehow were able to get a better system into place, but I don't think that means that we shouldn't try.
At any rate, this is all kind of off-topic from our original discussion.
[1]: Exception: massive-scale philanthropy, along the lines of the Gates Foundation.