Auto-SummaryThis forum post explores the differences between the Canadian healthcare system and the American healthcare system, as well as the broader implications of social welfare policies. The author, who identifies as a libertarian, argues that a mixed approach combining elements of both systems could be beneficial. They suggest that voluntary donations and private charities could fill the gaps left by a more capitalist healthcare system, potentially offering a comparable level of care. The post also delves into the challenges of implementing a voluntary tax-like system for social welfare, questioning whether private charities can effectively replace the role of government-funded welfare programs. Ultimately, the author suggests that the success of such a system would depend on public preference for voluntary contributions over mandated taxes. They conclude by proposing potential solutions to make healthcare insurance more affordable and customizable, aiming to create a more equitable system.
*Note: I think I was making a point here, but I'm not sure. Maybe many points. I'm probably not making any sense, but anyway, enjoy my rambling, stream-of-consciousness rant.
I notice that most Canadians on the board are perfectly happy with their national health care system and large social safety net. I don't think I'd want to live with that, but I have to recognize that it does work well enough that people are happy with it. Of course, the problem is that there are surely some Canadians out there who don't like it, and would prefer a more free market system, and their tax dollars are being unfairly extorted for the will of the majority. It seems that most Americans, on this forum are unhappy with our country one way or the other. Libertarians like myself believe the country should become more capitalist, while liberals and socialists want it to be less capitalist, and follow something similar to the Canadian model.
I personally think it would be nice if the US would become more libertarian, and had an open border policy with Canada. This way, each side has a country they can call their own. Socialist Americans could immigrate to Canada, and capitalist Canadians could immigrate to America.
No, wait--I take it back. What would be ideal would be if you could choose one system or another within the same area. But it seems that would be rather complicated. You'd practically need two governments for the same country. Or would you?
Perhaps in a Libertarian society, there could be some sort of pseudo-government which you could make payments to, similar how you pay taxes, and it would provide you with health care and a social safety net. But wait...isn't this basically what insurance is? I guess the distinction would be that the insurance agency doesn't hire the doctors or use your payments to help people who don't make payments. And when you get into voluntarily supporting a social safety net, then you just have private charity.
So it appears that pretty much all main the tax-funded features of a welfare state have their voluntary equivalent in a libertarian society. So is it enough? Would health insurance in a libertarian society(remember that many costly regulations would be repealed) provide the quality of health care that Canada's system does? Would voluntary donations support a sufficient social safety net?
If not, then doesn't it stand to reason that these things rely on funding from people who do not support them? Or would people who support their tax dollars going to these things be unwilling to pay that money voluntarily? Perhaps it's the manner in which payment is made. When you pay sales tax, you're paying a little bit at a time, and is factored into what you pay for the goods you buy, whereas income tax is a big chunk of your paycheck taken right out.
Perhaps, then, there might be ways of making charity donations work more like sales tax. A charity organization could sell products(or a business could set up a charity) and have half the proceeds go towards funding the charity. Several companies have done something like this. They could also solicit people for donations as well. Between voluntary donations and simple purchases of their products, such a charity might do quite well at reaching a large segment of the poor. Would it give the kind of safety net found in Canada? Doubtful. In the US? Maybe. Guess it depends on how popular their products are.
I guess one question here is: Can a charity market products well? Or can a business run a good charity? Maybe we need some sort of merger of the two. The charity would be good for the business's PR, and the business would give a decent share of its profits to that charity. Then again, large companies often already donate substantial amounts to charity. All this would seem to indicate to me that private charity could take over the role of of welfare. Then again, one must consider the fact that private charities are not exclusive to poverty at home. Some of them fight poverty overseas, and some are related to environmental and other non-humanitarian causes, so this would be a case of private welfare trying to cover the role of welfare, foreign aid, and various other forms of federal spending, and that's something I'm not quite so certain it could do.
So here we are, back at square one, pondering the question: If social democracies like Canada can manage to have universal health care and a major social safety net, and these things are so popular among the population, why do they seem so unattainable through voluntary transactions? Do people actually prefer having their money taken by force? Is it just plain easier to let the government take it than to give it up voluntarily? Perhaps charities should find a way to make donations similar to taxes, albeit voluntary. Maybe get people to sign up for a voluntary deduction from each paycheck that would go towards helping the poor. Organized charity like this could very well replace welfare.
Now, what about health care? As shown earlier, insurance companies in a capitalist health care system play a similar role to that of the government in a socialist health care system, except for the fact that they only cover those who can afford it. So is there a way to make a national health care plan for everyone voluntary? Well, the first step would be to make insurance cheaper. This could be accomplished by getting rid of several regulations telling insurance companies what coverage they have to give you, whether you like it or not, and instead let clients customize their own health insurance plan based on what they need and what they can afford. There, that was easy! Now, what to do with those fucking HMO's...
--------------------
|