Soaring costs force Canada to reassess health model

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Frazzled**

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20100531/hl_nm/us_health_3

Soaring costs force Canada to reassess health model
Buzz up!226 votes Send
Email IM Share
Facebook Twitter Delicious Digg Fark Newsvine Reddit StumbleUpon Technorati Yahoo! Bookmarks Print Reuters – A girl reacts while getting her H1N1 influenza vaccination in Vancouver, British Columbia October 26, … By Claire Sibonney - Analysis Claire Sibonney - Analysis – Mon May 31, 2:38 pm ET
TORONTO (Reuters) – Pressured by an aging population and the need to rein in budget deficits, Canada's provinces are taking tough measures to curb healthcare costs, a trend that could erode the principles of the popular state-funded system.

Ontario, Canada's most populous province, kicked off a fierce battle with drug companies and pharmacies when it said earlier this year it would halve generic drug prices and eliminate "incentive fees" to generic drug manufacturers.

British Columbia is replacing block grants to hospitals with fee-for-procedure payments and Quebec has a new flat health tax and a proposal for payments on each medical visit -- an idea that critics say is an illegal user fee.

And a few provinces are also experimenting with private funding for procedures such as hip, knee and cataract surgery.

It's likely just a start as the provinces, responsible for delivering healthcare, cope with the demands of a retiring baby-boom generation. Official figures show that senior citizens will make up 25 percent of the population by 2036.

"There's got to be some change to the status quo whether it happens in three years or 10 years," said Derek Burleton, senior economist at Toronto-Dominion Bank.

"We can't continually see health spending growing above and beyond the growth rate in the economy because, at some point, it means crowding out of all the other government services.

"At some stage we're going to hit a breaking point."

MIRROR IMAGE DEBATE

In some ways the Canadian debate is the mirror image of discussions going on in the United States.

Canada, fretting over budget strains, wants to prune its system, while the United States, worrying about an army of uninsured, aims to create a state-backed safety net.

Healthcare in Canada is delivered through a publicly funded system, which covers all "medically necessary" hospital and physician care and curbs the role of private medicine. It ate up about 40 percent of provincial budgets, or some C$183 billion ($174 billion) last year.

Spending has been rising 6 percent a year under a deal that added C$41.3 billion of federal funding over 10 years.

But that deal ends in 2013, and the federal government is unlikely to be as generous in future, especially for one-off projects.

"As Ottawa looks to repair its budget balance ... one could see these one-time allocations to specific health projects might be curtailed," said Mary Webb, senior economist at Scotia Capital.

Brian Golden, a professor at University of Toronto's Rotman School of Business, said provinces are weighing new sources of funding, including "means-testing" and moving toward evidence-based and pay-for-performance models.

"Why are we paying more or the same for cataract surgery when it costs substantially less today than it did 10 years ago? There's going to be a finer look at what we're paying for and, more importantly, what we're getting for it," he said.

Other problems include trying to control independently set salaries for top hospital executives and doctors and rein in spiraling costs for new medical technologies and drugs.

Ontario says healthcare could eat up 70 percent of its budget in 12 years, if all these costs are left unchecked.

"Our objective is to preserve the quality healthcare system we have and indeed to enhance it. But there are difficult decisions ahead and we will continue to make them," Ontario Finance Minister Dwight Duncan told Reuters.

The province has introduced legislation that ties hospital chief executive pay with the quality of patient care and says it wants to put more physicians on salary to save money.

In a report released last week, TD Bank said Ontario should consider other proposals to help cut costs, including scaling back drug coverage for affluent seniors and paying doctors according to quality and efficiency of care.

WINNERS AND LOSERS

The losers could be drug companies and pharmacies, both of which are getting increasingly nervous.

"Many of the advances in healthcare and life expectancy are due to the pharmaceutical industry so we should never demonize them," said U of T's Golden. "We need to ensure that they maintain a profitable business but our ability to make it very very profitable is constrained right now."

Scotia Capital's Webb said one cost-saving idea may be to make patients aware of how much it costs each time they visit a healthcare professional. "(The public) will use the services more wisely if they know how much it's costing," she said.

"If it's absolutely free with no information on the cost and the information of an alternative that would be have been more practical, then how can we expect the public to wisely use the service?"

But change may come slowly. Universal healthcare is central to Canada's national identity, and decisions are made as much on politics as economics.

"It's an area that Canadians don't want to see touched," said TD's Burleton. "Essentially it boils down the wishes of the population. But I think, from an economist's standpoint, we point to the fact that sometimes Canadians in the short term may not realize the cost."

($1=$1.05 Canadian)

(Reporting by Claire Sibonney; editing by Janet Guttsman and Peter Galloway)

**Kilkrazy**

Wasn't it soaring costs and dreadful public health statistics that forced the US to reassess their health model?

**filbert**

Kilkrazy wrote:Wasn't it soaring costs and dreadful public health statistics that forced the US to reassess their health model?

Zing!

**Grignard**

Reassessment doesn't mean they're going to drop universal coverage.

More important for us, this doesn't mean we should not pursue healthcare for all in the United States. How much are the states that are suing the federals spending on that, by the way?

**Khornholio**

Canuckistanis are too dependent/proud of their healthcare system. Any politician that tried to take it away would be hung, drawn and quartered.

As much as I enjoy dumping on Canuckistan, a little socialism goes along way. It's just when they unilaterally decide things along the lines of harmonizing sales taxes, provinically owned beer and liquor stores (yes, you have to go to 2 different places to buy a case of beer and a bottle of vodka...and the hours suck in some parts of Canadurr), no fault car insurance to name a few.

**Grignard**

Khornholio wrote:Canuckistanis are too dependent/proud of their healthcare system. Any politician that tried to take it away would be hung, drawn and quartered.

As much as I enjoy dumping on Canuckistan, a little socialism goes along way. It's just when they unilaterally decide things along the lines of harmonizing sales taxes, provinically owned beer and liquor stores (yes, you have to go to 2 different places to buy a case of beer and a bottle of vodka...and the hours suck in some parts of Canadurr), no fault car insurance to name a few.

Yes, I frankly don't know much about how the Canadians handle their healthcare, but I'm heading off the implied argument that universal coverage is too expensive, inefficient, non-innovative, impractical, etc. for the United States.

**Stormrider**

Grignard wrote:
Khornholio wrote:Canuckistanis are too dependent/proud of their healthcare system. Any politician that tried to take it away would be hung, drawn and quartered.

As much as I enjoy dumping on Canuckistan, a little socialism goes along way. It's just when they unilaterally decide things along the lines of harmonizing sales taxes, provinically owned beer and liquor stores (yes, you have to go to 2 different places to buy a case of beer and a bottle of vodka...and the hours suck in some parts of Canadurr), no fault car insurance to name a few.

Yes, I frankly don't know much about how the Canadians handle their healthcare, but I'm heading off the implied argument that universal coverage is too expensive, inefficient, non-innovative, impractical, etc. for the United States.

If it's inefficient for 30 million, imagine the mess with 300 million.

**Khornholio**

Yeah, but you've got to remember that while Canada was pumping huge amounts of cash into their healthcare system, they were putting hardly anything into the military. They just expected the US to protect them if/when the gak ever hit the fan, particularly during the Cold War. If the US toned down their military (ain't gonna happen/not suggesting it), then there would probably be cash for universal healthcare in the US. Canada's problem is that it became a 2nd rate socialist country over a few decades and now a fair amount of the population feels entitled to way too many things, IMHO.

That's why I live in self-imposed exile in the Archipeligo Cipangu.

**sebster**

Kilkrazy wrote:Wasn't it soaring costs and dreadful public health statistics that forced the US to reassess their health model?

Yes, and when costs begin to escalate due to poorly designed systems they begin to initiate reform to bring costs down, while increasing the quality and quantity of service. Then a range of special interests and ideologues come out the woodwork and start complaining about the proposed changes, with arguments ranging from true but of marginal relevance to complete gibberish.

The above is true for both the US and from the appearances of the article, for Canada.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Khornholio wrote:Yeah, but you've got to remember that while Canada was pumping huge amounts of cash into their healthcare system, they were putting hardly anything into the military. They just expected the US to protect them if/when the gak ever hit the fan, particularly during the Cold War. If the US toned down their military (ain't gonna happen/not suggesting it), then there would probably be cash for universal healthcare in the US.

That's nonsense, the US spends more on healthcare per capita than Canada.

**Khornholio**

^^ Maybe. Who cares? It's Canada. It's not even a real country anyway.

Besides: "while Canada was pumping huge amounts of cash into their healthcare system, they were putting hardly anything into the military"

True.

And: "They just expected the US to protect them if/when the gak ever hit the fan, particularly during the Cold War."

True.

Also: If the US toned down their military (ain't gonna happen/not suggesting it), then there would probably be cash for universal healthcare in the US.

I don't know the current US military's budget, but I'm sure it's a fair chunk of change. I'll give you a 1/2 "nonsense" on that.

So, really what I said was only 1/6 nonsense.

**Wrexasaur**

Khornholio wrote:^^ Maybe. Who cares?

I dunno, but it would appear that your premise is either heavily biased, or flat out wrong.

The Venture Bros. IS a relatively entertaining show, though.

It's Canada. It's not even a real country anyway.

Canuckistan... FOOL.

**Khornholio**

I blame it daily when facing Mecca.

**sebster**

Khornholio wrote:^^ Maybe. Who cares? It's Canada. It's not even a real country anyway.

Besides: "while Canada was pumping huge amounts of cash into their healthcare system, they were putting hardly anything into the military"

True.

No, it's rubbish. Relative to the US, Canada spent far less. The US spent almost twice as much. Whether they spent more or less on their military, Canada could not afford a US style healthcare system - no country can.

And arguments aren't based on listing mostly true things. If the conclusion relies on an assertion to be true, and that assertion isn't true, the conclusion isn't true either.

**Grignard**

sebster wrote:
Khornholio wrote:^^ Maybe. Who cares? It's Canada. It's not even a real country anyway.

Besides: "while Canada was pumping huge amounts of cash into their healthcare system, they were putting hardly anything into the military"

True.

No, it's rubbish. Relative to the US, Canada spent far less. The US spent almost twice as much. Whether they spent more or less on their military, Canada could not afford a US style healthcare system - no country can.

And arguments aren't based on listing mostly true things. If the conclusion relies on an assertion to be true, and that assertion isn't true, the conclusion isn't true either.

Another thing I can't get people to understand is that yes, while the government is "forcing", you to be insured now in the US, it is subsidized and theoretically if you're lowering the number of uninsured it will lower costs for all.

I don't quite understand the problem with universal coverage as we effectively have had it for many years, as in, if you are uninsured and have no money they have to treat you, they just won't get paid. We're all paying for that.

**Khornholio**

sebster wrote:
Khornholio wrote:^^ Maybe. Who cares? It's Canada. It's not even a real country anyway.

Besides: "while Canada was pumping huge amounts of cash into their healthcare system, they were putting hardly anything into the military"

True.

No, it's rubbish. Relative to the US, Canada spent far less. The US spent almost twice as much. Whether they spent more or less on their military, Canada could not afford a US style healthcare system - no country can.

And arguments aren't based on listing mostly true things. If the conclusion relies on an assertion to be true, and that assertion isn't true, the conclusion isn't true either.

Once more: while CANADA (not USA) was pumping huge amounts of cash into THEIR (CANADA's, not USA's), THEY (CANADA) were putting hardly anything into the military (the CANADIAN military)

How that is "rubbish", I don't see. It is TRUE. CANADA (not the USA) has spent more cash on THEIR (CANADA, not the USA) healthcare then on THEIR (CANADA's, not the USA's) military. The CANADIAN military (not the USA's) got somewhere in the realm of 10% in CANADIAN DOLLARS (NOT CANADIAN TIRE DOLLARS) budgeted during the 80s, 90s compared to the amount pumped into THEIR(CANADIAN, not USA's) healthcare.

All I am saying is what I said is TRUE. Whether the US spends $3 or $3,000,000,000,000,000,0000,00.00 on THEIR (USA's, not CANADA's), doesn't make what I said "rubbish". For example, in this article from the CBC, it states that the CANADIAN military's budget was estimated at $19.1 billion. http://www.cbc.ca/money/story/2009/01/20/f-militarybudget.html In this Wikipedia article on CANADA's Healthcare, the estimated budget in 2009 was $183.1 billion. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_in_Canada $183.1billion > $19.1billion.

You might be right about how much the US dropped on healthcare. That's great. But what I said is TRUE and not rubbish.

**Grignard**

sebster wrote:
Khornholio wrote:^^ Maybe. Who cares? It's Canada. It's not even a real country anyway.

Besides: "while Canada was pumping huge amounts of cash into their healthcare system, they were putting hardly anything into the military"

True.

No, it's rubbish. Relative to the US, Canada spent far less. The US spent almost twice as much. Whether they spent more or less on their military, Canada could not afford a US style healthcare system - no country can.

And arguments aren't based on listing mostly true things. If the conclusion relies on an assertion to be true, and that assertion isn't true, the conclusion isn't true either.

Yah, I don't think he mentioned anything about the situation being relative to the US. Its my fault for bringing up the US anyhow, as the article Frazz posted was about Canada and didn't mention a thing about us.

I was just heading that one off at the pass.

**Polonius**

Maybe I misread the article, but it seemed to me that they're looking at cutting administrative cost and vendor profits, not services. I'm not sure what part of that constitutes"reassessing the model", but maybe somebody can explain that to me.

**Bunker**

Khornholio wrote:^^ Maybe. Who cares? It's Canada. It's not even a real country anyway.

umad?

In all honesty, we'd be totally fethed without our healthcare system. There are so many families living so far below the poverty line in Canada that having to pay for health care would pretty much be the end of a lot of people.

Probably the worst thing about our healthcare system is the fact that it leads to increased immigration. Most people are content to come here from whatever hole in the wall country they live in and contribute absolutely nothing to our society while they leech off both out healthcare and social assistance programs. /rant

Seriously though, Canada getting rid of free health care? Never gonna happen. 2-tiered healthcare maybe, but we will never get rid of it.

**gorgon**

It took me about two years to fully rid one of my flower beds of Canada thistle. Bought the house in early spring, then found out by about May that the bed was absolutely infested with the stuff.

Talk about a noxious weed. It roots sideways, so it's almost impossible to tear out by hand. And the whole plant can regenerate from like 2 inches of thin root. I must have used 10 gallons of Roundup getting rid of it.

Thanks a lot for that, Canada. I've held a grudge against you ever since.

**agnosto**

Meh. I know people here in the states always want to bring up Canada when they talk about universal healthcare. The simple fact is, many nations in the world have existing, reasonably well-functioning, universal coverage systems. I lived in two such systems, South Korea and Japan; while neither system was perfect, they were both better, and cheaper, than the charlie foxtrot we call healthcare here in the U.S.

**Fateweaver**

Grignard wrote:
sebster wrote:
Khornholio wrote:^^ Maybe. Who cares? It's Canada. It's not even a real country anyway.

Besides: "while Canada was pumping huge amounts of cash into their healthcare system, they were putting hardly anything into the military"

True.

No, it's rubbish. Relative to the US, Canada spent far less. The US spent almost twice as much. Whether they spent more or less on their military, Canada could not afford a US style healthcare system - no country can.

And arguments aren't based on listing mostly true things. If the conclusion relies on an assertion to be true, and that assertion isn't true, the conclusion isn't true either.

Another thing I can't get people to understand is that yes, while the government is "forcing", you to be insured now in the US, it is subsidized and theoretically if you're lowering the number of uninsured it will lower costs for all.

I don't quite understand the problem with universal coverage as we effectively have had it for many years, as in, if you are uninsured and have no money they have to treat you, they just won't get paid. We're all paying for that.

The problem most have with the Universal health care is being forced to have coverage. If I want to risk paying a lot more for a doctor visit in the future but spend less now with not having insurance that should be my choice. Everyone acts like you are expected to pay for a doctor visit before you are allowed to leave the hospital. It can take up to 6 weeks for the bill to even arrive in the mailbox and you CAN make payment arrangements to pay a bill if you need to. Sure you might be paying for a broken arm over the course of 12 months or so if you have no insurance but it's not like the hospital/clinic takes you to court if the entire thing isn't paid in 30 days or 90 days even.

Over the course of my adult life I've paid out around $30k dollars for insurance. Over the course of my adult life I've been to the doctor 4 times and that was for sinus infections. Total cost for 4 visits and meds for sinus infection? Less than $1500. Now, I didn't HAVE to have the coverage but I wanted it. As you can see it hasn't been worth the expense. A trip to the doctor for sinus infection and meds is around $200-250. I pay about $2k/year in insurance costs (when I was working anyway and could afford it). In THEORY coverage premiums will go down for everyone but it's not about cheaper premiums. It's about making me buy something I don't want along with having to have coverage for certain things that may not make sense (single males needing prenatal care that aren't fathers. Where the feth is the logic in that?).

I think seatbelt and motorcycle laws are bs. I can also guarantee that if the FINE of not buying a health care plan is cheaper than having to buy a healthcare plan, than guess what is going to happen? People will still opt out and eat the fine as it'll be cheaper. It's not right but it'll happen. Same goes for employers. Right now there is talk of it costing employers $750/employee in fines if companies don't offer coverage. Most companies now pay on average of $2k/year per employee to offer coverage. Guess what option is cheaper? It's not option B, at least not according to my math.

Again, most people against it don't care if $10 a month gets them the same coverage as paying $120/month does now. The fact that you MUST buy something against your will because we need to help out the lazy welfare moms and illegals (who this HCR is targeted at helping) is not right.

**agnosto**

The problem with leaving things up to people is the intrinsic cost of covering people that decide not to cover themselves. Using your example, you choose to not have insurance then lose your job then you're in an accident and run up 10's of thousands in hospital bills that you can't pay. Who pays? Everybody else in the form of increased medical costs to cover the deadbeats because doctors and hospitals have to make up the difference somewhere.

**Grignard**

Fateweaver wrote:

The problem most have with the Universal health care is being forced to have coverage. If I want to risk paying a lot more for a doctor visit in the future but spend less now with not having insurance that should be my choice. Everyone acts like you are expected to pay for a doctor visit before you are allowed to leave the hospital. It can take up to 6 weeks for the bill to even arrive in the mailbox and you CAN make payment arrangements to pay a bill if you need to. Sure you might be paying for a broken arm over the course of 12 months or so if you have no insurance but it's not like the hospital/clinic takes you to court if the entire thing isn't paid in 30 days or 90 days even.

I'm sorry, but I do not think it is a matter of you choosing to take a risk. If you have a catastrophic health issue that you can't afford to pay, you're going to affect other people. In other words, being uninsured is a risk for everyone. Furthermore, no payment plan in the world is going to help most people if they have to pay for 100k of cancer treatment, or what not.

Fateweaver wrote:
Over the course of my adult life I've paid out around $30k dollars for insurance. Over the course of my adlt life I've been to the doctor 4 times and that was for sinus infections. Total cost for 4 visits and meds for sinus infection? Less than $2k dollars. Now, I didn't HAVE to have the coverage but I wanted it. As you can see it hasn't been worth the expense. A trip to the doctor for sinus infection and meds is around $200-250. I pay about $2k/year in insurance costs (when I was working anyway and could afford it). In THEORY coverage premiums will go down for everyone but it's not about cheaper premiums. It's about making me buy something I don't want along with having to have coverage for certain things that may not make sense (single males needing prenatal care that aren't fathers. Where the feth is the logic in that?).

You're only viewing it as not being cost effective in hindsight. You can't say it is not worth the expense because you can't know what is going to happen in the future.

Sometimes the government makes us pay money we don't want to because it benefits everyone. Again, you shouldn't look at it as being forced to buy something, but rather look at it as something everyone needs being subsidized.

Fateweaver wrote:
I think seatbelt and motorcycle laws are bs. I can also guarantee that if the FINE of not buying a health care plan is cheaper than having to buy a healthcare plan, than guess what is going to happen? People will still opt out and eat the fine as it'll be cheaper. It's not right but it'll happen. Same goes for employers. Right now there is talk of it costing employers $750/employee in fines if companies don't offer coverage. Most companies now pay on average of $2k/year per employee to offer coverage. Guess what option is cheaper? It's not option B, at least not according to my math.

Again, most people against it don't care if $10 a month gets me the same coverage as I was paying $120/month for. The fact that you MUST buy something against your will because we need to help out the lazy welfare moms and illegals (who this HCR is targeted at helping) is not right.

This gets back to the fact that the current healthcare reform is a compromise. Personally, I'd like to see fully taxpayer funded universal healthcare, but that isn't going to happen in the country.

It isn't about buying something against against your will to help out "welfare moms". It is about protecting everyone from the costs incurred when someone uninsured is treated for a catastrophic injury. What about people who could be excluded by insurance companies for preexisting conditions? Are you going to let concern about "welfare moms" and illegals prevent legislation that allows working americans who can't get health insurance receive the help they need?

**Polonius**

Fateweaver wrote:

I think seatbelt and motorcycle laws are bs.

Except for the fact that they lower overall medical costs, born by the public. Every person that breaks a neck and ends up in lifetime care is funded by the public. Virtually no culture has been comfortable allowing the disabled to die on the streets, so these laws prevent people from burdening the system.

Again, most people against it don't care if $10 a month gets them the same coverage as paying $120/month does now. The fact that you MUST buy something against your will because we need to help out the lazy welfare moms and illegals (who this HCR is targeted at helping) is not right.

Incorrect. Lazy welfare mothers are already perfectly covered by medicaid, and illegals get the same emergency treatment as any other indigent. I'm broke and unemployed right now, and I'm enjoying better health care than when I was working for peanuts.

**Fateweaver**

We'll agree to disagree because I've stated my opinion and it won't change.

It doesn't matter who or what it helps. Forcing me to buy something I don't want isn't right. What if Mr. Government tomorrow told you that you must buy a new car every 2 years because your old one is a gas guzzling, polluting POS. You would refuse I'm assuming? Then the government would say "well son, buying a new, cleaner running more efficient car every 2 years benefits everyone in the long run, not just you."

So would you still do what the government says and buy a new car every 2 years wether you can afford it or not or would you tell them to go feth themselves? If you would do the former than I'd tell you to put down the Kool-Aid and quit thinking the government always knows best and what's right.

**Polonius**

Government's exist for the benefit of everyone. Not equally, but humans form states to pool resources and reduce risks for everybody. Everything after that is a question of degrees.

Your view is that society shouldn't provide any sort of safety net to individuals. That's fine, I read Ayn Rand when I was in college and felt much the same way for a long time. That sort of individualism, like any similarly extreme form of collectivism, simply doesn't work in practice.

**agnosto**

Fateweaver wrote:We'll agree to disagree because I've stated my opinion and it won't change.

It doesn't matter who or what it helps. Forcing me to buy something I don't want isn't right. What if Mr. Government tomorrow told you that you must buy a new car every 2 years because your old one is a gas guzzling, polluting POS. You would refuse I'm assuming? Then the government would say "well son, buying a new, cleaner running more efficient car every 2 years benefits everyone in the long run, not just you."

So would you still do what the government says and buy a new car every 2 years wether you can afford it or not or would you tell them to go feth themselves? If you would do the former than I'd tell you to put down the Kool-Aid and quit thinking the government always knows best and what's right.

Meh again. We already pay for things we don't want/use that benefit society as a whole. I pay real estate taxes that are used by the city to fund schools; I don't have children nor plan to so why do I have to contribute? You're already paying for medicaid and social security and it's probably not going to be around when I retire much less those younger than me. You're forced to pay for a license plate on your car every year, maintenance on streets you don't use, water you don't drink, lakes and parks you'll never visit, etc.

You're right, we'll have to agree to disagree on this one.

**Fateweaver**

So being forced to buy something else improves the situation how?

Sorry but I don't agree that the goverment becoming more intrusive is a good thing.

**Polonius**

Fateweaver wrote:So being forced to buy something else improves the situation how?

Sorry but I don't agree that the goverment becoming more intrusive is a good thing.

and I think that's the crux: you're simply seeing government action, calling it bad, and moving on. You buy health insurance, or get it through a job, or pay cash for health right now, right? You are already subsidizing all uncovered people. You can't not buy health care, and you can't not subsidize those that can't afford it. It's the same thing with seat belt laws: if you pay taxes, or buy health care (or buy a car from a company that gets sued, or insurance from a company that covered somebody that paralyzed a person), you are paying for the cost of a person's decision to wear a seatbelt.

We don't allow people to do things that hurt others. You can't build a compost pile right next to your neighbors fence line in most cities. It's a nuisance, and the law has never allowed one persons actions, no matter how free, to add too much burden to others. Seat belt and helmet laws prevent it the same way. Just because I'm fine with the possibility of living in assisted care off another's dime for the rest of my life doesn't mean society is wild about the idea.

health coverage is similar. Those that aren't covered will, eventually, cost the rest money. Pooling risk and resources allows everybody to live better. It also can help prevent far more costly medical bills later by getting basic treatment to people now.

Government is more intrusive every generation because society is more interlinked every generation. There is the social contract theory of government, in which the idea is that the state acts for the best interests of the people. You're not going to please everybody, but you do the best you can.

Think of it this way: a lot of people don't like being forced to pay for the US military. They are comfortable with the risk of being attacked, but we ignore them because most people want security.

**Grignard**

Polonius wrote:Government's exist for the benefit of everyone. Not equally, but humans form states to pool resources and reduce risks for everybody. Everything after that is a question of degrees.

Your view is that society shouldn't provide any sort of safety net to individuals. That's fine, I read Ayn Rand when I was in college and felt much the same way for a long time. That sort of individualism, like any similarly extreme form of collectivism, simply doesn't work in practice.

I know what you mean. It sort of makes logical sense, and it is easy to feel that way until you go out and see that the market does not take care of itself and the best and most productive are not being rewarded, merely the crafty and the socially adept.

Fateweaver wrote:So being forced to buy something else improves the situation how?

Sorry but I don't agree that the goverment becoming more intrusive is a good thing.

Like Polonius said, you're seeing the intrusive part, instead of seeing the " I'm getting something subsidized that I need". We've explained how being forced to buy something helps everyone by reducing the amount of uninsured thus reducing the amount of medical care that isn't being paid for.

In the United States we value a less intrusive form of government than many states have. However, we still should expect to get government services, and sometimes that means paying for it. If I had my way, you *wouldn't* be forced to buy insurance, you would just have it from taxpayer funding if you couldn't get private insurance. But again, that isn't what happened.