Wow, Zargabaath, firstly, I apologise. I had no idea this was here. I'll get round to responding to your incredibly substantial post. Let me just say that, yes, I am aware of the difference between democracy and liberalism, and while I believe liberal democracy is great, I still think democracy is the greater virtue. I'd choose the French Revolution (abrogation of intermediate powers of the (popular) state) over a constitutional liberal framework (American Revolution), but in no way do I support totalitarianism or autocracy. Simply, there is a scale, and while we are in different regions, we are not at different ends.
Anyway, I came here because I just had a flash of inspiration. This may be an incorrect assumption, but would a private healthcare provider have a greater motivation to have more unhealthy people, as they could make a profit? (= bad for society, in case the math be failing.)
Is it true that a government-run healthcare system would work better if more people were healthy, as it would be using less taxpayer money, and this money has a multitude of uses; if less is spent on health, then more can be spent on moving to a low-carbon economy (if you're in Europe), or more military spending (if you're in the US). A government provider would want fewer sick people, but a private system would want more.
Yes I am aware that this thread died several weeks ago. But I've still got to respond to Zargabaath, and this flash would have been forgotten by tomorrow.
Is it a correct assumption? (I'm not sure on this one, it's just conjecture.)
::Just realised that no, in a private system, it would be price that would 'encourage' people to not be unhealthy. Sorry, long day. Though I still think the principle remains.::
Bookmarks