Quote:
Originally Posted by maskedmelon
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
The problem with insurance is that it distorts demand by lowering costs to the consumer. The insurance provider picks up and disperses among its subscribers, the cost increases that result from higher demand. The only way to combat this is either by restricting demand via legislated rationing or legislating price ceilings which will result in shortages. This is why I particularly dislike insurance in general and think it should be limited to catostrophic care, especially if subsidized. The reality is poverty and stupidity go hand 'n hand. Just as they are more inclined to birth children they cannot adequately care for, they are so inclined to take their child to the ER for the flu because they don't know any better.
Back to my question though, how is subsidizing/sustaining impoverished states moral when it necessarily dilutes the mean via wildly different rates of reproduction? This is the rational argument for and reason why organizations like Planned Parenthood exist. The concern to mankind would largely be eliminated with parent licensing ^^
|
asinine... the entire first world is in population decline (notable exceptions being due to immigration), assuming you think that poor = bad and bad = should not reproduce, any domestic measure to increase birth rates in first world countries should be encouraged because the poorest of the poor in the first world are exorbitantly wealthy compared to most of the world
07-07-2016, 12:56 PM
Threaded Mode