> We don't use tax money to bulk buy food, or auto repair, or fuel, or computers, or phones.
We don't buy bulk food because it's a commodity with low entry costs, and between subsidies and SNAP we can keep food almost universally available. We should be doing more, because people do fall through the gaps and our agriculture subsidies could be better directed.
We subsidize transportation and oil to keep costs down. We should do more to expand free at the point of access mass transit.
There are means-tested programs for cell phones paid entirely by tye federal government (you may hear them coloquially referred to as "Obamaphones").
Many people believe basic, low cost banking services should be provided through the USPS. I believe Senator Elizabeth Warren is an advocate for this policy.
> Why do we do it for health care or health care insurance?
Health care and health insurance are different from the other examples you listed. If a person is in dire need of care, they are unlikely to be able to shop around. They might not even be in a condition to prove they are able to pay, so we require hospitals to treat people without waiting for such proof, which means providers can take on significant losses which need to be covered.
And to keep costs down in such a system where you cover these cases, it makes sense to invest in preventative care, up to the point of paying people to get it.
Entry costs to starting a hospital or becoming a health care professional are high because people want some standard of safety. This lumits competition that makes your other examples work.
> Water yes, but food no? Why education and healthcare? Why not heating and electric power?
Yes to all of the above. Since you added heating and electric, often low income will qualify someone for assistance, eapecially heating in colder regions. Since the market functions well enough for people with sone money, means testing seems to work well enough here.
> The added benefit of letting people arrange it individually is that those with a higher risk appetite are not forced into it (at significant personal expense) against their will/consent, too.
The challenge is that if you make people arrange it individually, there is incentive to underestimate the risk (higher risk means higher premiums) and then they might need care that they cannot afford. The health care system sometimes still incurs this cost because they might have to provide emergency treatment (and many conditions untreated due to costs can become emergencies).
We don't buy bulk food because it's a commodity with low entry costs, and between subsidies and SNAP we can keep food almost universally available. We should be doing more, because people do fall through the gaps and our agriculture subsidies could be better directed.
We subsidize transportation and oil to keep costs down. We should do more to expand free at the point of access mass transit.
There are means-tested programs for cell phones paid entirely by tye federal government (you may hear them coloquially referred to as "Obamaphones").
Many people believe basic, low cost banking services should be provided through the USPS. I believe Senator Elizabeth Warren is an advocate for this policy.
> Why do we do it for health care or health care insurance?
Health care and health insurance are different from the other examples you listed. If a person is in dire need of care, they are unlikely to be able to shop around. They might not even be in a condition to prove they are able to pay, so we require hospitals to treat people without waiting for such proof, which means providers can take on significant losses which need to be covered.
And to keep costs down in such a system where you cover these cases, it makes sense to invest in preventative care, up to the point of paying people to get it.
Entry costs to starting a hospital or becoming a health care professional are high because people want some standard of safety. This lumits competition that makes your other examples work.
> Water yes, but food no? Why education and healthcare? Why not heating and electric power?
Yes to all of the above. Since you added heating and electric, often low income will qualify someone for assistance, eapecially heating in colder regions. Since the market functions well enough for people with sone money, means testing seems to work well enough here.
> The added benefit of letting people arrange it individually is that those with a higher risk appetite are not forced into it (at significant personal expense) against their will/consent, too.
The challenge is that if you make people arrange it individually, there is incentive to underestimate the risk (higher risk means higher premiums) and then they might need care that they cannot afford. The health care system sometimes still incurs this cost because they might have to provide emergency treatment (and many conditions untreated due to costs can become emergencies).