|
At least with private, choice/opting out is always a choice even if a horribly expensive one. And it already happens to a large extent in private insurance and is the cause of much of the hue and cry over the evils of the letting the profit motive be involved in the health equation.
As I argued in our last go 'round, a government run system doesn't get rid of the profit motive, just shifts it to a different type of profit. Instead of balancing service against profit, you end up balancing service against not inciting a tax revolt. So eventually both health care managers eventually try to do the same thing: control the risk profiles of the covered pools.
And once the government is involved in pretty much every health expense in society they will use that that as the thin wedge to controlling every personal behavior than can be shown to have ties to those expenses.
So to me, it is pretty much inherent to whatever system is instituted but I'd still prefer that it be in the private sector where at least the issue of force isn't present. (As one of the comments on the story notes, people denied coverage for "unsafe" behaviors are surely going to still be required to pay into the system.) At least in teh private sector I at least either pay for and get service (though Moore's film rightly points out breaks in this) or I don't get service and don't pay for it.
|