Originally Posted by
IlPrincipeBrutto
Hi Jenni,,
To everyone according to their need (important note: it says need, not merit); from everyone according to their ability. It should be the bedrock of any society, and the natural order of things. The young helps the old, the strong helps the frail, the healthy helps the sick. And the rich helps the poor.
The last bit is a problem, especially for the rich, or those who think they are. Ideally, they would not like to help at all, and keep their riches for them, but that sounds just a bit too selfish. So the next best option is to choose whom to help, and it's still a very good deal for them, especially the richer they are.
Just by way of a simplified example, suppose you have ten people; the first nine, together, earn one million bucks. The tenth person earns one million bucks on their own. Also suppose that each of these ten people require the same surgical procedure, which costs X.
In a tax-funded system, the first nine individuals would pay 5X in total, and the tenth individual would pay the other 5X (because he earns as much as the other nine). In an insurance-based system, all ten individuals will pay X each. It's not difficult to see why rich people prefer the insurance system, especially those who earn like a thousand normal individuals. It's logical; insurance is a mechanism that lowers payments for the few high-risk people, by rising it for the vast majority of low-risk individuals. Here, the risk insured against is *not* the risk of getting sick, but the risk of having to fund the system. So, health insurance is a way for the rich to avoid having to fund the health system as they should.
Consumption-based taxation is the same thing. In the example above, one person earns as much as the other nine, but doesn't consume like the other nine. If you tax him on consumption, he will pay proportionally much less tax than the rest.
In a general way, every time you move a service from tax-funded to voluntary-funded, you allow rich people to avoid having to pay their fair share for it. No wonder they invest quite a considerable effort in propaganda for this sort of arrangements. One of their best weapon is the rhetoric of merit; why should I pay for the smokers? For the lazy? For the diabetics? For the non-vaccinated, even (refusing a transplant is only a logical consequence of all the rest)? Let's make it general: why should I pay for the poor? This is an irresistible message, as you can always find someone you consider beneath you, someone you consider undeserving.
It's a message that I think gnaws at the bedrock of society, but you got to admit, it's a very successful message indeed.
IPB