libertarian to the bone...except with health care...

[BenIsForRon]

6) Less healthy lifestyles over here (well I'm pretty sure about this one)

Which is why killing agricultural subsidies, at least ones that go to the factory farms, should be a number one priority. Most of our subsidy money goes to mass produced corn, which is used to produce high-fructose corn syrup, which is then used in things like soft drinks and candy. Meanwhile, small farmers go out of business because a worm took a couple bites out of their apples.

 

[Number19]

I have heard (from Wikipedia at least-can't remember the article it's not obvious I believe...) that healthcare is supported by the statistics as being worse in the United States then in Europe where it's socialized, (by life expectancy and other statistics such as spending, etc.).

However, I have a few guesses as to why this is true:

1) Doctors/treatments over there are better for some reason
2) Patients come into the offices here more often then they do there
3) Government already regulates and mandates emergency room (and often when it's not an emergency) treatment here
a) I'm not aware as to what extent they regulate it
b) The fact that people go to the emergency room for non-emergencies and they have to treat them here makes it less effective then even the Euro-socialized universal care they have over there?
4) Less doctors/more patients over here?
5) Doctors afraid of lawsuits over here?
6) Less healthy lifestyles over here (well I'm pretty sure about this one)

These are just a few guesses and I'm not sure if any of them are true/

My source is the radio, but supposedly there are also differences in the way the statistics are compiled. Second, we also have a higher rate of violent deaths. This may tie in to the first point, whether this type of death is included in the statistics - they are included in the U.S.

 

[Number19]

From a libertarian perspective, our standard of production, and our standard of living, is lowered because of our statist economy. In a free society, families would have more disposable income and could better afford the necessities of life.

 

[sevin]

This is a start for you
[FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif][FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Socialized Healthcare Is Not Cheaper Than Free Market Healthcare[/FONT][/FONT]

Thank you! That is one of the clearest articles on the subject I have ever read.

To put it briefly, the government artificially stimulates demand with Medicaid and Medicare while restricting the supply of doctors through the AMA.

The government always masquerades as the solutions to the very problems that they create. Say no to cancer.

One could get affordable health care if the government got out of the health care business.

Yes! It pisses me off when people complain about all these problems without bothering to learn why we have these problems in the first place.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Thank you! That is one of the clearest articles on the subject I have ever read.

y/w. I like it too.

 

[BenIsForRon]

From a libertarian perspective, our standard of production, and our standard of living, is lowered because of our statist economy. In a free society, families would have more disposable income and could better afford the necessities of life.

What do you mean by standard of living? Are looking at it from a strictly monetary standpoint. Dude A makes $90,000 a year, Dude B makes $50,000 a year. Dude A automatically has a higher standard?

Thinking like this is not going to help our movement at all.

 

[raystone]

Advocating stealing your money to pay for someone else's healthcare is disgusting...the antithesis of liberty. Liberty, the principle on which constitution was written. YouTube - The Philosophy of Liberty

 

[Imperial]

When hearing this talk about a health care plan in the works, I find myself feeling indifferent about it all. I know the vast majority of libertarians are strongly opposed to any government-run health care, but I can't help caring about the people who cannot get affordable insurance. I definitely am against government running all health care and taking over the medical industry, but I am not against an affordable government-provided health care for just individuals who can't get reasonable insurance. I can't imagine the stress and pain one would go through after discovering a major health issue but would have to pay outrageous costs to fix the problem due to lack of insurance coverage.

Can someone help me out to see why I'm wrong in wanting some sort of government-provided option for these people?

I have similar sentiments. At the same time, I do feel that in America's present political situation any effort at government run healthcare would be quite poorly implemented and bloated.

A more pragmatic approach is to attack the de facto subsidies to the insurance industry the status quo supplies.

 

[cjhowe]

Before you can have a reasonable discussion about any problem the government is trying to solve, you must first agree on some definitions.

#1. Insurance IS NOT health care. Insurance is an instrument to reduce exposure to risk in exchange for a premium. If it costs "too much" that means the premium does not adequately reduce the risk. Health care is the diagnosis and treatment of diseases and conditions. Once you define things, the solution should be obvious.

 

[idirtify]

Health in America could be vastly improved if they banned smoking and booze, while they're at it they can shut down McDonalds, Wendys, Baskin Robbins, any gas station, or anything else that causes harm to your health.

Surely you are not seriously advocating that!?

 

[idirtify]

Yes! It pisses me off when people complain about all these problems without bothering to learn why we have these problems in the first place.

I completely agree. Orchids to heavenlyboy34 and Andrew-Austin for addressing the underlying cause of the health-care crisis.

 

[youngbuck]

The health care they'll provide is the wrong type of health care, AND health care is a good, not a right!

 

[cindy25]

there was a time when churches provided social services, a large church would have a hospital, an elementary(called day) school, an orphans home, and a cemetery.

 

[Ninja Homer]

When hearing this talk about a health care plan in the works, I find myself feeling indifferent about it all. I know the vast majority of libertarians are strongly opposed to any government-run health care, but I can't help caring about the people who cannot get affordable insurance. I definitely am against government running all health care and taking over the medical industry, but I am not against an affordable government-provided health care for just individuals who can't get reasonable insurance. I can't imagine the stress and pain one would go through after discovering a major health issue but would have to pay outrageous costs to fix the problem due to lack of insurance coverage.

Can someone help me out to see why I'm wrong in wanting some sort of government-provided option for these people?

1. Get it straight... are you talking about health care, health insurance, or full health coverage?

2. There's currently no such program of "health care" in the US. It's a misnomer... a more proper name for it would be "disease management", but then not as many people would be excited over getting it.

3. If the majority of the US wants government "health coverage", so be it. But why the hell would I be required to take part in it, and why couldn't I opt out of it? If health care is a right, why can't I waive that right? They are using the argument that universal health care is a right, but then they try to make it a requirement. That's just plain bullshit, because if government health care could beat private health care, then there would be no need to force it... they could just offer it, and everybody would switch over to government health care.

4. 5% of the people currently receiving health coverage benefits cost more than half of health care costs. People like myself hardly use anything, so why should I have to pay for them through taxes? (I have been practicing alternative medicine for about 10 years, and in that time I have had nothing more than 2 colds and 3 flues, none of which have lasted more than 48 hours) If people choose unhealthy lifestyles, why should I be expected to pay to keep them alive? Disease is almost never an accident... it's almost always a result of a person's habits.

5. What option is there for me? I currently have a very low monthly fee for emergency medical insurance ($5000 deductible) and I'll probably never use it unless there's some kind of freak emergency, like a limb getting cut off. I haven't taken any over-the-counter drugs in the last 10 years, and I'll never take prescription drugs. If Obama's health care plan goes through, you'll probably be paying towards a health coverage plan that I'll be forced to take, but never use. All of that money for my portion of a full coverage plan will just go straight into the pockets of insurance companies, corrupt politicians, bureaucrats, and pharmaceuticals. How does that feel to you? Really, how does that feel?

In reality, universal health coverage would be an upgrade for me. But I don't want it, don't need it, and don't want you to have to pay for it. I just want out.

 

[LibForestPaul]

It is no ones duty to die, it should be your duty to live as healthy life and not burden others for poor life choices.

Health in America could be vastly improved if they banned smoking and booze, while they're at it they can shut down McDonalds, Wendys, Baskin Robbins, any gas station, or anything else that causes harm to your health.

This is an unfortunate myth, which those who want healthcare for only the few keep indoctrinating the sheeple.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aging-associated_diseases
http://www.extra.rdg.ac.uk/equal/Launch_Posters/equalslideslansley/sld003.htm

No one dies of old age anymore.

 

[max]

free market = universal health care....


we dont have a free market in health care...we have a third party payer / trial lawyer run system


its that simple

 

[AggieforPaul]

You just described me to a tee.

 

[Number19]

What do you mean by standard of living? Are looking at it from a strictly monetary standpoint. Dude A makes $90,000 a year, Dude B makes $50,000 a year. Dude A automatically has a higher standard?

Thinking like this is not going to help our movement at all.

My use of "standard of living" is terminology to measure and describe the economic health, strength and prosperity of society.

 

[mediahasyou]

Donate but don't make other people do it.

 

[LibertyMage]

To understand that you cannot "out smart" the market with central planning is part of being a libertarian.