HudsonHawk
I'll Lock Up
- Messages
- 4,380
Here the terms get grey. Insurance is a form of socialism (in the sense of pooling risk), but when it's in the private sector, an individual can chose to take it or not; hence, private insurance (with "mutualized" or, if you like, "socialized" risk) is fine IMHO as it doesn't infringe on individual choice. When it's done at the gov't level, my main issues are (1) it is forced on you as it is not a choice you can make of your own free will, (2) in many add on ways, it also infringes on individual freedom and (3) overall, I believe capitalism (not crony capitalism) - free markets - is immensely more efficient at providing services than the gov't.
This is really what I was interested in. I interpreted (incorrectly) your objection to "socialized medicine" to be the "social" aspect of it, ie that Person A ultimately subsidizes Person B's healthcare. I think for many, that *is* their main objection, at least on the face. I agree that there is a loss of personal choice no matter which direction we choose, but at least with private insurance there is the general choice to decline it. We still have the problem of many people *saying* they're willing to live in a "die in the streets" world, but few actually accepting it when it happens for real.
We're living in interesting times, with respect to healthcare and the free market. I guess historically there's always been some market aspect to it, but it's become so much more transactional and less personal in the last say 50 years.