More Hazard, Relinquished Vigilance and Da Gubmint
The best ACTUAL explanation for how government takeovers of life turns citizens into totally dependent:
Canada Post – Kate Tennier: Why does more classroom time actually hinder learning?
Although it may sound illicit, “moral hazard” is in fact a dry term used by economists to describe the phenomenon whereby an insured party’s behaviour becomes less vigilant due to the belief that they are protected from the risks they are insured against. …
The first comes from a story told by a remedial reading teacher. After a week of individualized instruction, the mother of one of her students announced she would no longer need to read with her son at home because the “teacher was taking care of that at school.” The mother thought her son’s literacy skills were “insured” so she became negligent about insuring them herself, even though the vigilance a parent provides — reading with a child at home — has a much greater long-term impact than that which schools can offer. …
A third and final example of moral hazard — and one that more closely lives up to its name — involves the visit paid to me by a mother of one of my grade one students during a year of heavy schoolyard brawling. She was surprised this would happen in a Catholic school because she thought discipline would be stricter. As I indicated to her, behaviour could actually be worse for that very reason — because parents thought the “moral and behavioural education” of their children was being insured, they were less inclined to be involved in it themselves. (Public school parents are not immune to this phenomenon due to that system’s highly self-regarded “character development programs,” which are increasingly appropriating the role of moral educator there as well.)
But blame can hardly be placed on parents or learners themselves because the system has built this dependency-creating moral hazard into itself to justify its continued existence. Indeed, since the advent of common schooling in the mid-19th century, parents have been browbeaten into relinquishing both their money and their cherished responsibility to educate.
See? Science. People love saying that government control turns citizens into children, but they never actually say how, and if you’re ever in an argument with someone who thinks otherwise you both just end up saying “Cuz!” “Cuz what?” “Cuz!” etc. Of course I skipped most of the sciencey bits and went straight for the anecdotes but hey.
November 20th, 2009 at 8:14 am
School provided breakfast, that’s all I’m saying.
November 20th, 2009 at 9:53 am
Yeah seriously. I REMEMBER that whole blow-up. And at the time I sort of assumed I was missing something and then I realized that the story went that we were ACTUALLY leaving children to STARVE if we didn’t pay for school breakfast. I was AT public school at the time and we only had hot lunch on Fridays and we had to PAY for it. And nobody STARVED. And other such rants with lots of caps and emphases.
November 20th, 2009 at 2:39 pm
To use a topical example, when people start talking about ‘pre-existing conditions’ in the same breath as ‘health insurance’ you know they have no idea what insurance is.
November 20th, 2009 at 9:08 pm
Yeah seriously. Although I would like to know how it works if you move. I mean, you’re not allowed to take your insurance policy across state lines, which seems idiotic, but whatever. But what if you have, say, redheadedness and you try to move? If my reheadedness had gone any differently I wouldn’t have been able to buy a health insurance policy nor a life insurance policy (my mother had a spot of redheadedness that went south this past year that was fortunately quickly cleared up but she and dad were trying to switch their life insurance policies and hers can’t be moved because no one will go near her for ten years, I think?), but I had health insurance so that’s fine. But what if I’d moved to, oh i dunno, say… California (I mean, PURELY for example’s sake). Could I get insurance there? Or do sick people not only get trapped in their jobs so they don’t lose their insurance but get stuck in their stupid crappy states (as purely another example, natch)?
November 21st, 2009 at 6:50 am
people start talking about ‘pre-existing conditions’ in the same breath as ‘health insurance’ you know they have no idea what insurance is.
Indeed it the difference between asssuming risk and liability. An Insurance Company that actively sought liability would be in deep deep doo doo (to be technical).
My son had pre-existing conditons. In theory, with this clap trappery, it would have been possible for Robert to have gotten regular insurance, costing the company 30 million over the life of the kid. Risk is one thing, crazy is another. I dunno, maybe they could have used wymens to get him to change carriers at 12.