Why doesn't the government nationalize every insurance industry? If justice demands that society bear the consequences of an individual's misfortune, why stop at their health? Why does the same rationale not apply to their car? Their home? Their life?
If a man is hit by a bus at the age of 32, his wife and children - through no fault of their own - are deprived of his income for life. The burden of supporting them will likely fall on society. Couldn't this tragic and costly result be averted by simply mandating a national life insurance system? Not only is it a moral imperative, it would also reduce costs in the long run by keeping the insured's survivors off welfare.
True, the man in the above hypothetical probably had the option of purchasing life insurance for himself and decided against it - possibly to pay for additional schooling to expand his future earning capacity. But this was clearly a bad choice, and should never have been left to his (obviously flawed) judgment in the first place.
More importantly, many people can't afford to pay for life insurance. They're forced to go through life simply hoping that nothing bad happens! Isn't it our duty to insulate them from chance? To make them immune to the challenges and uncertainties of life? Of course it is.
So, we're agreed - life insurance coverage for all!
What? You don't agree? Well, you're cleary selfish and unconcerned for the well-being of others.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
The weirder thing to me is that fascists think health care is "right", so government should completely take it over. Well if healthcare is a "right", then shouldn't eating also be a right? So why don't the fascists socialize the food industry in this country?
ReplyDeleteMao did that in Red China with spectacular results. And by spectacular, I mean that 100 million Chinese people starved to death.
Here's where our philosophies diverge, Johnny. I really don't have a problem saying that food, clothing, shelter, and basic care are fundamental human rights. The problem arises when people somehow conclude that government is the best way to provide those things.
ReplyDeleteThe market provides them cheaply and efficiently, so that vast numbers of people can get them. And for the small percentage of people in any society that are incapable of providing for themselves, private charities, churches, and family units have a moral duty to step in and help.
I think this is why I consider myself a christian conservative, rather than a libertarian. I think a person should always be willing to sacrifice their own rights to protect the rights of others. But that can only be a private decision. A government can never make it for you, but can only protect your freedom to make it for yourself.
I'm opposed to expansive government, not because people have no right to food, clothing and shelter, but because they do have a right to those things...and government sucks at providing them. The existence of basic human rights is the whole justification for capitalism. A person who claims that conservatives must not care about the the poorest in society because they favor markets over government is totally ignorant of economic history.
I don't think we differ as much as you think. Arguing whether or not we consider food to be a right is like arguing if the thigh of the wing of the chicken is better...we would both in that instance like chicken. I make regular donations to the SA food bank, but not because eating is a right, but because its the right thing to do. So where you think its a right and I don't, poor people still get fed.
ReplyDeleteI would say access to food is a right, but if you spend all of your money on crack instead of green beans, you should starve.
Yeah, I agree with that totally.
ReplyDelete