What is the libertarian approach to health care?

Government run health care CAN work, but not in most cases. Scandanavia's healthcare works fine. However, such healthcare requires very high taxation and incredible discipline from the government, which does not exist in the US of A.

At the federal level, there should be no healthcare provided. As I said, such a project requires high-taxation to avoid loss of quality due to the inherent higher cost of the government running the system, and if a state does not want to have such a thing they should not be forced to have it. If public healthcare exists, it should exist at state or even local levels, where it can be more effectively scrutinized and tuned to the wishes of the citizens. However, no matter what, private healthcare must continue to exist. Private healthcare is cheaper, it's just a fact, and it's good for the industry to allow free marketeering to extend to healthcare. That's the mistake we have in Canada: private healthcare is not allowed to exist, we MUST rely on the government, and they have a tendency to (*)(*)(*)(*) things up. Honestly, after my last hospital experience, I'd be willing to had over a check and try private healthcare and see for myself if it's better. But they don't even give me the choice.

 

When have I or anyone else here called them "parasites"? That's a Randian term.

Poor people still find a way to get all the other necessities of life like food and such, all of which you have to pay for.

Nevertheless, I'm not going to just let people die. Vouchers and/or a negative income tax are good solutions.

 

It's anti-libertarian to force someone to pay for your benefits, yes. However make the case that force should be involved. Quite the opposite. If there's no politics involved, then it's not anti-libertarian as it is voluntary.

- - - Updated - - -

It seems to me that selfishness is forcing others, through the implicit threat of violence, to pay for your benefits.

 

Libertarianism is a political philosophy. It simply is that it's wrong to use initiate aggression in order to achieve a social or economic agenda. In other words, unlike how you would go about it, they don't believe that their morals should be shoved down everyone's else throat using the police powers of the state. Some libertarians are selfish with their wealth, which may be a sin to you, I don't know. Others are highly charitable. You imply that you are compassionate, but you advocate violence, which is hardly a compassionate method of helping others.

 

Plan? libertarians have no plan for healthcare. The reason?

Well, none should be needed, simply because it is government interaction with business that has caused the issues that the nation now faces. Unless the spaghetti is completely unraveled, it can never be "solved". All any "plan" can do is exasperate the situation further.

It is simple in form yet elagant is reason and logic, and can not or will not be understood by most.

 

It ain't "selfishness" that's being revealed. True libertarians make no bones about the fact that when they give to charity, they are voluntarily giving of themselves. What is being revealed is the usual socialist hypocrisy, where people like you are skewered because the libertarian points out that you don't believe your cult's nonsense about "from each according to his means, to each according to their needs".

No, you don't believe that, because you won't do that. You expect the government to STEAL from others to support the lice you pretend to love, but don't. You expect nobody to point out the fact that YOUR religion requires you to give until it hurts, because others are needy.

Now.

Who's the real "selfish" person? The person who says that lice don't have a claim on their money because they didn't earn it, or the "caring socialist" who pretends to care for the lice...but won't help them unless EVERYONE is robbed, especially people who honestly don't care?

You socialists, clearly, are more selfish, because you socialists are flaming hypocrites.

 

Libertarianism is the only moral philosophy, it spans more than mere politics.

If they earned their wealth, it's THEIRS. That means they're not "selfish" for desiring to keep it for their own purposes. They recognize the reality the socialists don't, that socialists admit it's their money, and whine like little babies because they don't spend THEIR money on socialist whims.

The truly selfish are those mealy-mouthed bastard socialists who pretend to love the brotherhood of man, and refuse to use their own money to help those poorer than they .

- - - Updated - - -

All libertarians a plan for "healthcare". Those who are able pay for their own health care. Those who are socialists that aren't also hypocrites, (there's no more than two in the whole world) use their wealth to help those who can't afford healthcare.

 

There's a difference between right-libertarians and left libertarians. Although I'm not convinced that the argument needs to be made, it could very easily be argued that public health is a public good. After all, sickly, weak, and untreated individuals become vectors for disease, and it is in nobody's best interest to have plagues running through the population. But as soon as something is a public good, it becomes reasonable to have the public (a.k.a. the government) do all sorts of things to protect or ensure the existence of that good - and all within a perfectly libertarian framework.

One thing maybe you should understand though, is that people who think like libertarians tend to be a bit more... rugged than most people. While I shouldn't speak for all libertarians, I'm personally the sort of fellow who doesn't want to see a doctor or a surgeon unless it's clearly necessary. I have health care I don't even use; last month I had what were evidently two staph infections, and knowing that doctors would prescribe antibiotics I had no intention of taking, I stayed home and tended them myself. I tend to think the entire country is over-medicated and over-diagnosed.

So if you want health care in my super awesome lefty libertariany Paradise, fine, whatever. I really don't care, since I don't have to use it. Because next time I cut myself open, I'll have a little liquor and sew the d*** stitches myself.

No it isn't, and you are boring.

 

No You socialists need to stop lying and start helping, with your own money this time. No more stealing from innocent people.

 

I can think of a number of other moral philosophies, not all of which are libertarian, except, perhaps, in the matter of interactions between humans involving the just use of force. In some philosophies, all use of force is prohibited and the pacifist will not even defend himself. That's not libertarian, though the person who practices said pacifism must be libertarian politically or he/she advocates violence against others by 3rd parties.

Of course it's their money, I have not argued otherwise. However, selfishness is defined as a disregard for others, which can apply to just about anyone who acts in such a manner. I don't see it as a sin to be punished or even eradicated through the powers of the state, which is how progressives and socialists see it.

No disagreement there.

 

It's a stupid idea to give people money and let them spend it as they see fit. That's not being good stewards of tax payer money.

A negative tax aimed at healthcare would require that it be spend on healthcare. Much the same way people are given money to go to college.

 

Really? That's how the left justifies government run healthcare? It's a public good because you might spread a disease? So then why does government run healthcare treat a broken arm?

It's never fails. When it comes to logic and the Left. The Left has none.

 

It doesn't in Libertyland. Haven't you seen the way vets treat horses with a broken leg?

What can I say? At least the left has correct grammar.

 

^ And fascist, can't forget that, as you yourself are quite the grammar Nazi.

 

Apparently, "Herd Immunity" is a socialist concept.

 

If you can't afford it, and no one is willing to give you charity to help you, well then it is your fault for not having enough wealth because in the libertarian system, everyone has an equal opportunity to be able to afford things and earn. Hope it's not serious, otherwise, you get to die a poor bum.

 

I love the Left's air of moral superiority when it comes to the poor. They are morally superior because they spend they other guy's money.

The Left is morally bankrupt. The definition of slavery is you work I eat. The definition of the welfare state is you work I eat. How can welfare be considered moral with the foundation of the welfare state is legalized slavery.

The Left call people who don't want to help the poor thru government evil. Well I guess Jesus Christ was evil because he helped the poor himself and did not let government do it for him.

 

The Left consists of two distinct groups of people.

Those who want to be masters.

Those who ARE stooges. The stooges post defenses of socialism/liberalism/progressivism/socialism, whatever their religious cult preferences are, on internet forums and feel they're intelligence exceeds world records.

 

No, if your "moral philosophy" presumes to compel action from an individual, for the good of himself or of others, it's an immoral philosophy.

No. Selfihsness is defined at "not wanting to share". Weren't you ever a child when that first definition was impressed on you? Don't you heed what the stupid Obama-kissing socialists mean when they use that term? And, of course, that definition of "selfishness" does not contain disregard for others. The kid with the ice cream on the hot summer day is certainly regarding those without with glee and pleasure.

- - - Updated - - -

The libertarians say that people aren't horses. It's the Left that imposed medical rationing via MessiahCare, an unconstitutional law.

 

Whatever it is, to be politically correct for dogmatic libertarians, it must bear no resemblance to the demonstrably most successful, efficient, and cost-effective systems in actual existence, those of several advanced nations that have devised practical ways of providing coverage to everyone at about half the cost of the US that leaves 50,000,000 uninsured.

The libertarian pipe dream would never deign to traffic in such inconvenient extant realities.

 

Yes, just like how we have naked people jumping through the streets who can't buy clothes.

Counter-intuitive as it may be, the Market has more than proven itself to be a universal provider. How does it do it? By making things so cheap, even a bum can afford them.

Medical care can be paid for out of pocket, and people can easily get by with just catastrophic health insurance. The problem is clandestine (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)s who thought that patients whose plans didn't have everything that was on theirs, should be "upgraded" with all the costly premium options.

Because, clearly, those patients weren't thinking when they decided to buy cheaper plans. BP

Hubris at its worst.

 

And we beat them (price wise) in medical procedures actually provided by the Market, unfettered. And in such a way, that doesn't add to our own unmanageable debt.

The problem isn't that we aren't enough like them, most things in the U.S. cost less than they do in Europe, healthcare is an exception. The problem, is that we aren't enough like ourselves.

We aren't ready to embrace what, for example, made Airline tickets cheaper than they are in Canada, after years of being more or less the same.

 

Libertarians (or my kind, anyway) don't want to legalize pot, we want to take that decision away from the state entirely. We don't want to have control of the state and use it for libertarian purposes, we want to abolish it, just as we want to abolish all coercion, governmental or not.

We don't have a consequentialist view of coercion: we don't want to use any coercion at all - including that which would, on net, lower coercion generally. Basically, it's a personal creed: don't initiate force. Ever. Under any circumstances.

It's merely an ethical position, one which doesn't end when it comes to politics.

 

Even though most issues are solved by free markets I believe HEALTHCARE Ins. only should be not for profit. I also believe the government needs to stay out of the healthcare biz , Prescriptions should be allowed to be bought in bulk like in Canada, From experience I can tell after working my entire life , I lost almost everything because of little things like they did not cover the meals or the bed... that totaled what I had in savings

 

From whence do you derive that notion, and why should anyone buy your imaginary unfettered free market's superiority to demonstrable reality?

Pretending that Americans are a unique species as a premise to your boilerplate ideological dogma makes it even more airy-fairy.