Health Care

Tue Sep 12 17:03:26 MDT 1995

>Date: Tue, 12 Sep 1995 10:35:24 -0400
>From: Willaim Thurber - PhD Student <thurber at FMGMT.MGMT.UTORONTO.CA>
>Subject: Re: Health Care
>Are you getting as big a kick out of the fact that we are on the opposite
>sides of the same argument in two areas.
>I say that individuals are too dumb to arrange for something as important
>as their own health care and you disagree citing an unreasonable
>infringement of freedom.
>You say that individuals are too dumb to set awards in civil suits and
>I disagree citing an unreasonable infringement of freedom.  Bruce must
>love this.  Preference reversals are a litmus test of rational consumers,
>we both fail.
>For the record, the sky is blue.....    :)
        Well, I thought it was more an argument of what government should and
        shouldn't do!  My treatment on the matter was that government should
        take care of things "for the masses" and not those things "for the
        Specifically, government should set the limits for awards in civil
        suits as they benefit the masses (and consistency in application is
        the major benefit here); while the government should not set the
        limits for my individual health care (by implementing a government
        administrated/controlled health care system and mandating membership).
        In these, I thought I was consistent.
        We give up certain individual freedoms to those governing to receive
        benefits for all governed, not so that an individual may benefit.  (Ah,
        social contract philosophy and the basic political social contract!)
        Maybe that's where some crossed swords originate:  you argue from
        the stand of individuals, I from the stand of government.
        Check your record for scratches . . . the sky is devoid of color--
        the blue appearance is an optical illusion!  ;-D

More information about the Rushtalk mailing list