[ExI] Was medical marijuana. On Insurance
dan_ust at yahoo.com
Wed Jul 21 17:40:24 UTC 2010
Yes, the choice isn't between everyone gets what she or he wants or only a
select few get what they want.
Add to this, we don't have a free market in healthcare. We have basically a
highly regulated and subsidized market in it and this has been the case for a
long, long time. In the US, contrary to the views of many uninformed people, the
actual government involvement in healthcare has been quite high for decades,
even surpassing the so called "socialist" nations of Europe in terms of
percentage of government money devoted to healthcare versus private spending on
the same. (This goes along with, too, the mislabeling of many European nations
as socialist, including those in Scandinavia; those particular nations actually
tend to have less government intervention in the economy than other European
And the issue of force comes in as always. If someone is going to get something
that she or he wouldn't get via voluntary exchange, this means it's going to
have to be taken or paid for by someone else. Why should this be allowed or
advocated? Why is it seen as ethical to use force?
From: Dave Sill <sparge at gmail.com>
To: ExI chat list <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
Sent: Tue, July 20, 2010 9:50:02 PM
Subject: Re: [ExI] Was medical marijuana. On Insurance
2010/7/20 Colin D <colin.dodson at gmail.com>
May I be so egalitarian as to suggest that perhaps the so-called 'free market'
isn't the best solution for all problems, and that just maybe everyone who wants
it deserves suitable and appropriate health-care, regardless of their material
Suggest away. And while you're at it, suggest a way to pay for all that
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the extropy-chat