[ExI] Healthcare and governments thinking long range
painlord2k at libero.it
Tue Jun 23 22:15:28 UTC 2009
Stathis Papaioannou ha scritto:
> 2009/6/24 Rafal Smigrodzki <rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com>
>> ### Read "The state is very powerful, and whoever influences it, will
>> force their will to the detriment of others". Still love the
> No, I hate the government. But worse than government is unfettered
> private corporations who could ultimately enslave me.
So you prefer to be a slave of the government because you fear to be a
slave of a worse master.
>>> Would the "compulsory savings from payroll deductions" count as a tax?
>> ### No. Savings are yours, whether voluntary or not, as long as *you*
>> get to use them, on yourself.
> But if the savings are compulsory, kept in trust by the government,
> have to be used only for particular purposes, can't be cashed in
> whenever you feel like it, and so on, then it is just like a tax.
The Singaporeans can use them at the hospital or at the clinic they
prefer. This is different from a tax, because the wealth extracted by
the government with taxes become government's wealth. It is not yours
any more. You, as a single, have no power to decide how use it. The
government decide (for you or against you).
Do you have any link to info saying that the savings are really in the
hands of the government of Singapore? That people can not retire them
when needed, for health purposes? If a person die before exhausting the
savings, who will get the money?
Obviously, the system is a bit more complex that how is depict here:
>> Fairness and potential disadvantages
>> The system will be predominantly funded by taxation and in essence
>> will be as fair as is the taxation system. Those who pay no tax will still have
>> a access to a “free” health system. Nevertheless, there will still be strong
>> financial incentives for them not to use health services unnecessarily.
>> It could be argued that patients with chronic illnesses, like those
>> requiring renal dialysis or organ transplantations, will be disadvantaged.
>> They will undoubtedly run up large negative balances. If they have sufficient
>> income they will be required to pay marginally higher taxes. If they are
>> below the income threshold they will not be financially disadvantaged
>> during their lifetime (with the exception that health dividend bonuses will
>> not be available to them), but their estates will be diminished.
>> In essence, their relatives who might be expected to inherit the
>> estate will be contributing indirectly to their health costs. For some patients
>> the negative health balance will exceed the value of their estate, in which
>> case the excess will be met by the general tax-paying population.
>> Nevertheless, in this system, the number of people subsidised by the
>> taxpayer and the amounts involved will be considerably less than they are
>> now. Importantly, in this system, no-one’s health need be compromised by
>> their financial status
People with relatives they care will have a strong incentive to not use
public wealth for their health care as whatever they could leave to
their heirs will be used first to pay for the expenses the government
incurred to fund their health care. Practically, the government will
become the owner of their homes, if they spend too much money in health
care. This force people to evaluate if, when and how much care use.
This, obviously, imply that the public hospitals and the public health
care system will only give a limited set of services. For the others,
the people will use their saving accounts or their money.
> alternative of just letting people keep the money means having no
> public health system at all, and the Singaporean government (Lee Kuan
> Yew, in effect) did not see this as a good idea.
People is, often, not good to plan many years ahead. We must remember
how many of them have less than 100 of IQ and how many are under 90 and
80. So, it is not a bad idea to require them to save for their future or
More information about the extropy-chat