Free market approach calls for the government to intervene when there are side effects, such as externalities (nobody paying for street lights is the prominent example).
There are three components in every day life where the user (i.e. you and me and everybody else) does not always realize the future benefit of the action, and therefore under-invests in it, thereby generating future losses that the user did not intend in the first place.
The three are: education, healthcare, and retirement.
It is difficult for most to visualize the benefit of education. Many families would love their kids to attend college... if the family economics hold up. Some don't, then skip education, and end up in a lower income bracket. They no doubt would want a do-over. Government policies help ensure people stay in school... to a certain extent.
I, for one, do not see the benefit of health care, just like I do not see the benefir of car insurance. Until I get into an accident. If I had a choice, I would under-invest in health insurance. This may come back to haunt me in the future (knock on wood). The government policy to force health care fund addresses this issue. Regardless of its rights and wrongs, many fail to recognize the intentions: to steer the free market in the "right way."
Retirement is another issue many under-invest in. At 28, retirement is still a long way for me, yet I've invested in many retirement vehicles because I am aware of their benefits once I cease to have an income. However, not everybody has that foresight. For families who have more immediate needs such as food and electricity, retirement is far from their minds. Yet when the age hits, some of these families find themselves in a situation where there is no income and no retirement fund. Again, the government policy attempts to "right" this.
While people don't have to agree on the tactics, they should at least acknowledge the intent. As far as I can tell, none of the people who are complaining have a compelling method or policy to address the issue.
5 則留言:
彌明:
對這個議題,我只有兩個取向:
1.用法律強逼全民(60歲以前)買保險,但由市民自行選擇保險公司(雖然人口老化仍然存在,會爆得慢啲)
2.用者自付,俾唔出政府承擔(人口老化下會好快爆煲)
Daniel.
Daniel：
不如先叫僱主聯合會先提議僱主每年加薪15%，大家又願意跟隨，咁政府想點玩都得囉！
最唔Gur就係呢筆強醫金又係同強積金一樣，要收行政費，未受其利，先俾個一班蛀米大蟲繼續自肥。
醫療融資，最後又係肥左果班乜乜保險業、乜乜研究小組，乜乜高官籌劃小組...
又係肥仔水。
Erica,
強積金已令到很多僱主叫苦連天,現在再加埋強醫,真是不敢想像,有時有d問題係唔係用金錢就解決得到的呢??用錢解決到既問題就不是問題啦!唉!:(
Free market approach calls for the government to intervene when there are side effects, such as externalities (nobody paying for street lights is the prominent example).
There are three components in every day life where the user (i.e. you and me and everybody else) does not always realize the future benefit of the action, and therefore under-invests in it, thereby generating future losses that the user did not intend in the first place.
The three are: education, healthcare, and retirement.
It is difficult for most to visualize the benefit of education. Many families would love their kids to attend college... if the family economics hold up. Some don't, then skip education, and end up in a lower income bracket. They no doubt would want a do-over. Government policies help ensure people stay in school... to a certain extent.
I, for one, do not see the benefit of health care, just like I do not see the benefir of car insurance. Until I get into an accident. If I had a choice, I would under-invest in health insurance. This may come back to haunt me in the future (knock on wood). The government policy to force health care fund addresses this issue. Regardless of its rights and wrongs, many fail to recognize the intentions: to steer the free market in the "right way."
Retirement is another issue many under-invest in. At 28, retirement is still a long way for me, yet I've invested in many retirement vehicles because I am aware of their benefits once I cease to have an income. However, not everybody has that foresight. For families who have more immediate needs such as food and electricity, retirement is far from their minds. Yet when the age hits, some of these families find themselves in a situation where there is no income and no retirement fund. Again, the government policy attempts to "right" this.
While people don't have to agree on the tactics, they should at least acknowledge the intent. As far as I can tell, none of the people who are complaining have a compelling method or policy to address the issue.
Geez I'm tired. No more typing.
發佈留言