Renegade

It would depend upon the circumstances. If I'm overseas, I may educate them in a private school there. If I'm here I may send them to public or private shool depending upon what is available. If they have aptitutde they may go to a specialized school. There are too many variables to answer your question hypothetically on an event a some time in the future. Yes, or look for handouts. Please clarify what you mean by "cannot" save. Cannot because they don't have the money, or cannot because they don't have the willpower? Because Canada has a sense of entitlement from me. It feels entitled to forcibly take my tax dollars to support its school system. If Canada feels entitled to take my money to support its school system, I should feel entitled to ask for it back if I don't use that system under your "deferred benefit" concept. For the same reason I should give a fat fig about paying for Canada's public education system. It depends upon the circumstances when I'm sick. Same answer as to the first question. Whoa! Whoa! Whoa! Whoa! Now you are calling it insurance?? All this time you have called it a deferred benefit. In a deferred benefit system I am entitled to my contribution back. In an insurance system I am not because it is a premium. I have explained that to you already. The fact that you use the two interchangeably shows that you are completely confused about the difference. So which is it an insurance or deferred benefit? I will agree with you medicare is somewhat akin to insurance, but that is a reversal of your previous position. See my response above.

They paid very little taxes, as they took leaves of absences from employment and as such showed little income. Of course they displayed their character. In their minds, they were doing what was best for their child. You may see it as no big deal, but I see it as just a way to hoist a financial burden on the Canadian taxpayer. I gave this example to dispute Wilber's notion of the program as a deferred benefit, not to demonstrate the holes in our benefit eligibilty system.

Hmmm. What about things that COULD be done privately, but which either: a- are massively less expensive if done governmentally; or b- would never get organized initially without government? Such as?

Now you are finally on to a good idea.

I aree. But what you can do is put checks in place so that the majority doesn't bully the minority. Some of these are in the Charter of Rights. For example the majority cannot pass laws which override the right of the minority to freedom of religion, unless they override the Charter. Similarily there can be checks in place to prevent the majority from plundering the wealth of the minority. I disagee. If as you say, seniors will become the majority, it will matter very little if eveyone votes in their own interest. A majority of 51% will override the interest of a miniority of 49%, 100% of the time. I also disagree that people should simply vote according to their own interests. Personally I vote according to my own set of values and what I think is fair. Sometimes it goes along with my interests, sometimes it doesn't.

IMV, according to the Libertarian ideal, the only actions which should be left to government are those which cannot be done any other way. If you can show that all individual's property can be protected by some other means than government, then that obligation should not lie with govenment.

I don't know what further point you are trying to make. I've already said that as long as welfare is provided then I can see why you woudl force someone to save for retirement. If you did away with welfare, you could also do away with forced retirement savings. Thanks for at least agreeing that your statemetn is contradictory. Let me show you that I am not. The education of kids is not the obligation of kids. It is the obligtation of parents. They take on that obligation when they decide to be parents. Not just to educate them, but to feed, clothe and care for them. My primary education was paid for by my parent's taxes. It was never my obligation. My obligation is to to pay for my kids in the same way. If I have no kids, I have no such obligation. If I pay to have a private education , then I immigrate to Canada after my education is completed, then continue my working life in Canada, paying school taxes along the way, and I have no kids, who owes me my money back? That is a niave statement. Do you really think top-tier athletes wait the same as the rest of us to have sports injuries treated, do you really think medical staff do not promote themselves and their families to the front of the line. Connections make all the difference. I think you have bought the party line. So, you ok to give them a cost break since they are so healthy? I care to show you that you deferred benefit theory is completely fulll of holes. There are so many exceptions to who does or does not recieve "deferred benefit" that it makes no sense to call it deferred benefit. I care because I could someday be one of those leaving. I effect I could be the one paying but not receiving benefit. I know a set of parents who earned great salaries working overseas as expats. They paid no taxes to Canada. The had a daughter who was severely disabled. They rushed back to Canada, to establish residence and take advantage of the healthcare system. They ended up leaving again to work overseas but left the disabled child in Canada in the care of the grandmother and the "free" medical system. Remind me again how they paid and got a deferred benefit? Your terms are completely mixed up because an insurance policy and deferred benefit are completely different things. You aren't using deferred benefit the same as the standard use in the benefits industry. A deferred benefit scheme is one where you pay into and you recieve a benefit or payment at a later time. The benefit or payment is proportional to what was contributed. To know what as contributed it must be tracked. CPP is an example of such a program. I have repeatedly shown that in all of your examples there is no traceability between contribution and payout hence it is not a deferred benefit scheme as all the world except you define it. An insurance scheme is one which transfers risk for a price. You pay a premium and if the event you insure agains happens, you collect a payout usually far in excess of your premium. It make no difference for how long you have been insured, simply that you are insured at the time the event happened. EI is an example of such a program. See the difference? OAS is neither an insurance nor a deferred benefit as I have defined them above. It is simply a general benefit program similar to welfare. There is no tracking of contributions and there is no event which is being insured against.

But that is no different than if the poor are in the majority and vote themselves big benefits at the expense of the rich. If parents were in the majority, they would vote themselves generous childcare programs at the expense of non-parents. Virtually every group is looking out for its own self-interest, and will support policies that in effect transfer wealth to itself, despite its "fairness" or lack thereof. Every group can define as "what is good for my group is "fair". The fault lies not in the groups themselves but in the system which makes that possible. In essence democracy lets the majority rob the minority.

I guess it depends upon what you mean by affordable. IMV only two extremes of the population would not be able to afford it. Those with very low incomes, and those with serious medical condiitons. If anything only those two groups should be subsidized. I have posted the average amount that is spent provincially per person on healthcare. Even if you assume the spread in risk-based premiums is between 50% of the average, to 200% of the average, IMV it is very affordable. I disagree. If there is an objective corelation, regardless of past behaviour, then that factor should be included. Why do you think male drivers under 25 pay higher rates regardless of their driving behaviour?

Can you please enlighten us on what government pension benefits a retiree is eligible to recieve in the UK? Also is it available to all retirees or just a subset?

Saturn and myata, a question for the two of you. Suppose in the future the over-65 crowd is the majority of the voting population. Do they have the right to elect a government which will increase benefits to themselves at the expense of increased taxes to those still woking? In a democracy, what would stop them from doing so?

No it is not the goal. The goal, at least as I see it, is a system which pools health care risks so that on an individual basis heath care costs are affordable to the vast majority. Minimizing use of the system (or more correctly stated, minimizing the cost incured by the system) is one factor which can help achieve the goal. The protection of individual rights. I never stated it was universal. Universal health-care is a myth. Even in our system healthcare is rationed and some people never get it, and die waiting. So how is any other system universal? In the face of infinite demand, and finite resources, no system can ever be truly universal and every system must constrain demand and ration resources.

Where did you come up with this? You get vastly different numbers using this calcualtion than if you used 39% of provincial taxes paid.

To give users incentive to minimize use of the system. If the cost to the user is zero, they have every incentive to overuse the system. Yes but that is not one of my statist goals. I don't think the state shoudl have any part in wealth redistribution. Sure it can. The state ultimately has control over the cap and the low-income threshold which determine how much state subsidy is put in. If the public purse is going empty because of escalating costs, it simply can raise the bar on the cap, or lower the income threshold at which it subsidizes.

Is this $875 for healthcare insurance? Or does that include a new pair of glasses every month? Or are you on a really expensive medication? There is no way that your health premiums are $875 a month. This is an exageration. I used to pay $93 per month for my son and I. $63 when I was considered "low income". So $875 is kinda high IMO. Here's an estimate of how much is spent provincially on healthcare: linkOne way to estimate how much of your tax goes on healthcare is take 39% of your provincial tax bill. (primairly income and PST).

Paid how much? If I've paid $1 into the system is it enough? If I'm a Canadian and I haven't paid into the system, do I still get to collect medical benefits?

As CA has pointed out, your proposed system of incentives factors into the overall cost many of the same factors which would go into a risk-based pricing system. I agree with user fees and users having to share some of the cost similar in concept to a deductable. Where you and I differ is I don't see income as a factor which should affect one's healthcare insurance cost. Above a certain threshold income and wealth, people should have to bear the full burden of their health insurance. Now I do realize that there are cases of serious conditions which would cause some individuals to expend a huge component of their income on health insurance. That can be handled by putting a cap on the insurance cost as a % of income, but I would set the cap very high so that large majority of the population doesn't reach that cap. You have raised this objection before as an argument for government run insurance, with the assumption being that insurance companies will unfairly differentiate against individuals where as the government would not. I've already said, I'm fine with the government running the health insurance, so I don't see this as a valid objection.

By whatever name you want to call it, the concept is the same. You seem to be contradicting yourself philosophically. You say if I was educated elsewhere, Canada shoudl not reimburse me, yet I should reimburse whomever paid for my education? To be consistent either both parties are reimbursed or none. What do you call it if I never pay for a benefit I got? What do you call it if I paid but never got the benefit? The sentiment may not have changed but the access has changed. All Canadians do not have access to healthcare, since healthcare is rationed. I'm not sure that is true, since the affluent tend to indulge in excesses and vices beyond what others could afford. Even assuming it is true and there is a correlation between income and health, that woudl say we should be giving a cost break to those with higher incomes, since they are less of a burden on the system. Those that leave aren't necessarily transferring the burden to someone else's system. It may be that someone elses system doesn't provide the benefit, and basically they have to provide it for themselves. For example not every country has public healthcare. Not every country has an OAS program or if they do there is usually a long-term residency requirement. I'm not following you. Who said anything about a private plan? Maybe you should define for me what you mean by "deffered benefit" because I believe we are taking about different things.

I think you misunderstood the question. It is not to simply save a life. It is to provide a cure. In essence, would you improvish yourself to provide a cure for someone and save their life.

Of course I agree, there is no objective way of determining that a premium is "fair". The only factor that is used today to set the premium is income. The linkage between income and health is tenous at best. I would say that it is infinitely "fairer" to use criteria which can be objectively linked to health. The high-risk group which cannot afford to pay is a small minority of the population similar to those on welfare today. There are many options to mininmize the impact on the low-risk taxpayer and also reduce the incentive for others to join this group. Rationing coverage to this group is one option. Rationing is not necessary to the rest of the population which pays their own premium. Of course. They do it for their own self-interest. The more employees they lock down, especially low-risk ones, the higher their profitability. Nevertheless, the low risk employee is basicly trapped in that his premium is subsidizing the high risk employee. The US is not a free market system when it comes to healthcare. The fact that employees are trapped behind rules negotiated between carriers and employeers should dispel the notion that it is a free market. The US is also not an efficient market. It spends far more per person for less coverage. I understand that there is an efficiency argument to minimize bureaucracy, however a system which does no risk assesment, uses only one factor (income) and then rations out care, seem to me to be in serious need of reform.

And if I didn't get a public primary education in this country, do I get a reimbursment from the state? For some people yes, for some people no. Some people have paid no taxes, yet get the benefit. Some people pay a lot of taxes and get no benefit ever. So it is hard to rationalize it as a deffered payment. No it is not nececessarily the same people who pay. Universal coverage means even those who don't pay taxes are still covered. Further the amount people pay will vary. If I keep myself healthy, I should pay less than someone who doesn't . My income is irrelevant to my state of health. See the thread where RW posted the link. Again only some people will be able to claim the benefit they paid for. Some may die, some may leave the country. Some will claim the benefit for which they have never paid, such as those who immigrate into the country. There will only be a small segment of the population who will get the same fair-value benefit as what they have paid. Most will either overpay or underpay, so it is mislabelling to call it a deferred benefit. I'm in a quandry about whether CPP should be a forced system. Ideally the libertarian in me, says it should be voluntary, however there should be no other support program provided (ie OAS, GIS). Given that we provide a welfare programs (GIS, OAS) to seniors, I can see an argument which says it should be mandatory, but it is a real problem for me to advocate removing choice from people.

Indeed. But the situation is very similar to life insurance which provides differentiated rates to smokers. It is usually a self-declaration, but there is a penalty for dishonesty (ie the coverage will be invalidated). I wasn't suggesting it be based upon short term costs and behaviour. I'd be perfectly ok with a single long-term insurer whether private or public. What I would expect is that they would have to resort to a carrier of last resort, similar to what is now done for high-risk auto insurance. Of course they would have high premiums, but a high-risk condition warrents a high permium. The cost of healthcare coverage does appear as a pay slip deduction. At least it was when I worked there. In a relative homogenous group, it doesn't make sense to spend a lot of time differentating within the group based upon risk. However if there are wide varations of risk in the group, it does make sense. The US cannot be used as a model because there is a barrier which prevents low-risk employess from fleeing the group. Their employer contributes toward their health coverage and thus choose the carrier. If the low-risk employee opted out of the coverage and went to another carrier who differentiated based upon risk, his employer contributions would not follow and woudl be lost. Thus there is a strong disincentive to leave the group even though it discrimminates aginst low risk employees.

Please explain why not. I don't hold out the US as a system which is one to emulate. There are numerous faults in it. Group coverage primarily initiated in the US because coverage was provided through the employer. Since the employer was looking to cover all employees, it made sense for the employer to cover them as a group. We have heard numerous stories in the past of employeers refusing employment to new high-risk employees if they expect that the group's premiums will change because of the additional risk. Where an individual health insurance policy is required, they very much do ask for, and may have a doctor verify, risk factors, and the premium based upon that assessment. I agree, and a more appropriate system would incent proper behaviour. ----------------- Is this the appropriate thread for this discussion? We discussed this before here: At what cost a human life?, How much should our healthcare pay?

A couple of things are different: In a (at least ours) progressive tax system, the taxes start at a low level and progress gradually in tiers to high income levels. I am proposing that eveyone above a fairly low threshold pay the "fair value" of the premium. I agree at the cutoff point, it is equivalent to a huge marginal tax rate just as it is with welfare. With a progressive tax system, the only thing that dictates your premium is you income. I suggest that with a medical type insurance, you medical risk, age, history, and other relevant factors determine your premium not your income. RW, I think this is a rehash of a discussion we have had some time ago.

Actually it would be more inclusive to charge everyone the same price regardless of age. Isn't it fairer to charge the same price without differentiating on age, then dangling some future discount which they may or may not get when they retire? As for children, I agree, they are discriminatory, no more or less so than senior's discounts. Yes it is true of any social program. That is why social programs cannot be considered as time deferred payments. That a social program is deferred payment plan (such as CPP) or strictly a social benefit (such as OAS) has got nothing to do with whether they are useful programs, so I don't see your logic in saying this is a good reason to make existing ones work. No they shouldn't recieve welfare type benefits. How far? All the way. Yes. Isn't that what we do for schools and welfare? IMV, "free" (ie paid for by the taxpayer) medical care, should only be provided to those in dire need (ie on welfare). Everyone else should have to purchase medical insurance. I'm not saying that the medical insurance should be privately run, but I am saying it should be an insurance-based system instead of a general social benefit. No actually I don't. It is unrealistic to get a guarantee and in any case I don't think a gurantee is possible. What I am saying is that without a guarantee, it is a poor deal for the payor. As a payor, I'd rather take no deal, than a poor deal. What I want is nothing at all. No guarantee. No forced payment.. No benefit. Simple isn't it?