A Libertarian Take On Unniversal Healthcare:

With the whole country seemingly abuzz with the latest news: Congress has officiall approved their version of the Health Care Reform bill; I find it a little concerning that the bill that was passed followed such a strict party line. We were basically given two options, overhauling or no reform at all .. no middle ground.

I my self, am a Libertarian, and as a Libertarian I see several major problems.

1. Anything run by the Government automatically fails.
2. The healthcare system in America is defunct and works against lower income families and individuals.
3. Mandatory health insurance goes against my God given right to not care about my health care (im being dead serious)

Everyone is seemingly at extremes following what ever the news channels tell them, so this is my belief, as a Libertarian (although it may not in fact be in line with Libertarianism)

Outlaw Insurance. Lasic Eye Surgery is not covered by medical insurance, however it is one of the cheapest major operations you can have done. Why? Doctors compete with one another for customers. If it's to expensive, Dr. Joe down the street might do it $500 less, so Dr. John lowers his price to $100 bellow Dr. Joe's. I know what you're all thinking: But Rockpuck, that sounds like CAPITALISM!?!?

Take Insurance out of Capitalism and it runs smoothly. Doctor visits won't be outragiously expensive, simple things like blood tests and checkups would be Walmart cheap. If no one can afford the medical services, medical service won't exist.. so prices WILL lower.. it's a fact, Captialism proves it, just look at Lasic eye surgery!

Since I know this is impossible (to much money) .. If there HAS to be some form of major overhaul, the only services that should be 100% free is if you develop some serious disease. if someone comes down with cancer, or MS, or is put in a Coma, it's not their fault, and their lives shouldn't be ruined. I'd have no problem seeing the State pay for these individuals health care cost.. I DO have a problem with paying for lower income families simply because they are poor and have a ton of children. Why should we pay for them?

Two things are absolutely certain: One, Government should NEVER be an option .. by making Government the cheap alternative it will force people onto the program, within 10 years only the upper middle class and wealthy families will have decent private health care (like Canada and Britain)

By making insurance MANDATORY you are forcing a huge tax increase on the middle class, then forcing said taxed people to buy insurance.. many middle class families lost their health insurance in this economy, because it's way to expensive. Now they will be taxed (estimated 10% increase) and will have to then turn around and buy private health care. I can see it, a family being taxed into the ground, on the verge of loosing everything, and when they try to get government subsidized insurance they get denied because they make to much money.

The Government should be as little part of our lives as seemingly possible.. the more intrusion the more they will take from us. If we must have the government dictating our health care, it should only be for those who are ill beyond their own cause, the cancer patients, the chronically ill, the children.. but to make it universal, then make it mandatory opens the door for a flood gate of corruption, abuse and taxation.. there is a smart way of doing things, and a dumb way. This bill thus far is the most idiotic Ive seen yet.. I am truly afraid to see what this country will become in the next few years.. to demand such financial burdens on families in the middle of an economic depression is mind bogglingly stupid..

Nothing is free.. just remember that..

reply to post by Rockpuck


In your three point, might agree with the later two. I don't see the government as a literal fail in all. We may disagree here obviously.

The concept of open market place medical services seems fine but we have to allow for the catastrophic. If we could at least define a base for catastrophic care I'd rest more at ease in the capitalist system.

I am also against forcing people to buy private insurance. If the government demands you have it, they should supply it.

While it does go against all of my ideologies as a libertarian, I support the bill 100%..

I realize that what may make a country great and what may help FIX a country are two very different things.

These insurance people cannot be stopped. They are monsters worse than even those in office. In fact, they are the monsters who have their hands up the politicians' a*'s and making them their puppets.

Your idea works for me, and I'd surely vote for it, but I'll take affordable healthcare while I can. I got denied insurance my second time around because I took a pill for acid indigestion for a week my senior year of college.

I am the poster child for this epidemic, so I might have another outlook altogether.

I agree with you, but I'd rather not find out I have leukemia a year from now and bankrupt my family over it.

reply to post by Seiko


I completely agree with catastrophes.. when I sold insurance, especially to younger people, I always made a point of ensuring they have the best catastrophe insurance possible, screw deductibles.. the deductibles are so freaking high anymore that most people visit the ER several times a year and never meet the deductible anyways! I'd have no problem paying extra taxes if I knew it was being spent on someone who's life would be changed by that money.. if it meant Chemo that they otherwise couldn't afford.. this bill I just see as flushing money down the toilet on the broad expanse of health care that is over priced to begin with.

Maybe I am just cynical, but I envision my children's future hospital visits as being as efficient as a trip to the DMV......

reply to post by SantaClaus


Maybe... MAYBE .. I could support this bill if they changed the funding.

INSTEAD OF CREATING NEW TAXES, CUT SPENDING!

If we slashed the Black Budget, military research, ended all military deployments and ended our dumbass wars of aggression, and used that money to fund universal health care I would have absolutely, 100%, no problem what so ever.

The American people want everything while paying nothing.. by expanding the budget while not reducing spending, it's irresponsible to an extreme. But even the Liberals won't end the wars or our international policing.. they are content to run this country into bankruptcy.

reply to post by Rockpuck


I realize this is gonna be against all you believe in, but if we slashed the budget of the military we could give everyone health care in this country. There are numerous studies showing that it would in the long run be cheaper. It would be easier for doctors to actually treat patients and have a lower staff overhead. The time wasted billing and working with insurers would be gone.

This won't happen in this country, we can't even discuss it without cries of socialism, freedom being taken away...etc. And our politicians are bought off by the insurance cartel.

Right now, and even with the passage of this bill, we are still a poor country at health care for our citizens.

reply to post by Seiko


True, there would be cries of Socialism, but even Conservatives would agree responsible socialism is better than irresponsible socialism.. the way this country is moving, as bankrupt as we are, we could be facing prolonged economic stagnation. Or deflation. They propose taxing the "upper" middle class, which also happens to be the fastest shrinking class in our country.. I know I cannot afford mandated health care, so I would just love to know where that money is going to come from. I cannot even spare the money for government insurance.. I'd rather be left alone, thank you.

reply to post by Rockpuck


It seems in this we agree. First do no harm.

But I can't give up myself. Just because they pass this, doesn't mean I can't vote against them and for people that i think would represent me better.

If the republican senators do not filibuster, perhaps people will then realize that they are being played.

Originally posted by Rockpuck
reply to post by Seiko

 

True, there would be cries of Socialism, but even Conservatives would agree responsible socialism is better than irresponsible socialism.. the way this country is moving, as bankrupt as we are, we could be facing prolonged economic stagnation. Or deflation. They propose taxing the "upper" middle class, which also happens to be the fastest shrinking class in our country.. I know I cannot afford mandated health care, so I would just love to know where that money is going to come from. I cannot even spare the money for government insurance.. I'd rather be left alone, thank you.

I agree, the mandate is not very cool

I agree with the slashing

The idea that a free market could provide healthcare is absurd.
Free market assumes a customer who is able to make an informed decision on what goods he wants to buy.
When was the last time you decided to break your leg? What would you say if your doctor says "Why don't you want some eye surgery? Broken legs aren't very popular, we don't fix them any more"? How can you make an informed decision on what services to purchase when you are lying unconcious on the Floor?

Face it rockpuck: Free markets aren't the cure for all. Free markets answer to children is "They are good for work in mines"

[edit on 8-11-2009 by debunky]

reply to post by Rockpuck

We have had universal heathcare in Australia for yonks and it works fine...
everyone gets the treatment they need (not afford)...
...and we all pay something in out taxes to pay for it.

People are free to have insurance if they want it.

I worked for years but then found myself in circumstances where insurance was not an option but when I needed emergency surgery I had the best treatment and it cost nothing.

A country with the wealth of the US should be able to help everyone who needs it...
...besides you always seem to find enough for wars and space stuff...
...it's good to see you all looking after your own people for a change...
...I applaude the initiative...Onya!

reply to post by Rockpuck


To expand upon what I said, I was agreeing with you. I just don't think its plausible.

The insurance companies are a middleman.. But why do we need a middleman to take 1 dollar from every 3 we spend to get healthcare? The middleman is the problem, and they are trying to tell us that making MORE middlemen will solve it. I think not.

Healthcare, if done well, could flux every year. Surpluses could give us tax breaks one year, and deficits will cause higher taxes. Thats just something we'll have to get used to, because deficits are all we have for now...

I will also add that I cannot believe more people aren't standing against the CEOs of these companies. NO ONE who works FOR SOMEONE ELSE should make 50,000,000 bucks a year. If you created your own success, yeah I get it, but take about 40,000,000 from each one of those clods and we would have a much better system..

Its the self-righteous few that will destroy the masses.

ETA: I also fully expect the senate to do some really horrible things to this bill.. It'll get squashed so many times that we will be much worse off than if we would just take what it says now.

[edit on 11/8/09 by SantaClaus]

Outlawing any private industry is most certainly not a libertarian principle. The insurance industry may seem to have botched up the medical system in the U.S and it very well may have but they did not do it alone. It was through tax advantages that corporations began offering health insurance in lieu of pay as an incentive to work for them. It was this system combined with medicare and other forms of socialized government programs that brought about the current corruption in the medical field. That combined with a collusion with pharmaceutical companies and doctors and hospitals has created a horrible situation in terms of health care.

It is pointless to blame the insurance companies alone for a medical system where the cancer paradigm is obviously a failure. It is not the fault of the insurance industry that doctors will advocate that patients with lung cancer go through chemo-therapy treatments even though there is not one case history of a single soul who has benefited from such a therapy for lung cancer. To be fair in more recent years doctors have increasingly begun to stop advocating this therapy for lung cancer patients. The problem with the cancer paradigm is that after a radical investment in research and new technological advancements over the past 30 years cancer is on the rise not on the wane. What is astounding is that doctors spend more time being taught the results of this obvious failure of research and technology than they are taught in nutrition! Chefs know more about nutrition than doctors do!! While it is heartening to know that chef's are knowledgeable about nutrition it is tragic that doctors are not.

Diabetes is also on the rise and the mainstream medical establishment continues to push drugs that only serve to facilitate bad diets rather than demand their patients stop eating the crap they eat. It used to be that doctors took an oath to first do no harm and not so certain if they still do take this oath but if doctors are merely providing people with synthetic drugs that will facilitate a persons bad behavior then how are they helping their patients? Death by doctor is increasingly becoming a serious problem in the United States and the recent death of Micheal Jackson and the subsequent criminal charges brought against his doctor is just one example of the very serious problem that exist in this "legalized" drug culture where people are inundated with commercials and advertisements by pharmaceuticals that encourage them to ask their doctors for drugs for what are often nothing more than innocuous symptoms.

The psychiatric movement is perhaps the worst in this endeavor shoving all kinds of drugs down peoples throats and actually getting courts to accommodate them by having judges court order parents to drug their children. Take just the one example of the psychiatrists vaunted Diagnostic and Statistical Manuel of Mental Disorders which is know as Oppositional Defiant Disorder otherwise known as ODD. This disorder is usually attributed to the behavior of 14 year old teenage boys who act like...well, 14 year old teen age boys! When judges are demanding parents acquiesce to the demands of psychiatrists or school counselors who insist that 14 year old boys must be drugged for acting like 14 year old boys it is outrageous to think that this has anything at all to do with the insurance industry.

Owning a health insurance policy is not a necessity and indeed there are few people in their twenties and even early thirties who feel the need to have such an insurance policy and unless they are being offered such a policy as some sort of compensation package from their jobs it is unlikely they have a policy. Indeed, the people who feel the need to have health insurance policies are those who suspect they have spent a lifetime causing damage to their bodies due to a reckless life style. No one made these people live dangerously and the rest of the populace should not be forced to...

...buy into an insurance scheme just to accommodate the fears of a populace that are terrified of contracting a chronic disease. There is nothing wrong with owning health insurance if a competitive policy can be purchased. But it is outrageous to think that health insurance companies are obligated to insure every person in the country. The whole idea of insurance is to minimize risk by spreading that risk among a large group of people. But for private insurance companies the idea of providing insurance should only be sound if a profit can made doing it. If it is not profitable to insure certain people then who in their right mind would make such an investment?

The fear of cancer and diabetes and other chronic diseases is very palpable and understandable, but there is much each individual can do in their lives to take personal responsibility for their own health. The skyrocketing costs of medical treatment is indeed a great concern for all of us, and if this skyrocketing cost is in part created by insurance companies then it is up to us as individuals to change that, not by turning to governments to fix this problem but by using basic market principles to fix it. If one belongs to an HMO that only allows limited coverage for outrageous premiums then don't do business with that HMO! When enough people refuse to do business with that insurance company they will either rightfully go out of business or figure out a way to stay profitable while remaining competitive.

The original poster mentioned allowing capitalism as the preferred method of fixing this problem and I wholeheartedly agree. However, there are three basic tenets to capitalism that must exist in order for it to be truly capitalism. Those three tenets are:

1.) A free and unregulated market place
2.) Massive competition
3.) A currency of value where all can agree upon its value

Not one of those tenets are in place in the current market place by which we all attempt to do business in. Virtually all aspects of business are regulated by government, massive competition is increasingly diminishing and surrendering to an oligopolistic system of multinational corporations who do their level best to destroy all competition and to be sure, the intrusive regulations of FDA, EPA, USDA, and DHHS, to name just a few can make the start up of any new business so costly as to ensure that only the multinational corporations can play. In this current market place it is truly a pay to play type of market. Lastly the fiat money used in the U.S. is becoming weaker and weaker as it rightfully should given that it has no value other than the confidence behind it and the paper it is printed on.

If we are to allow capitalism to fix the health care system we first have to go back to fixing capitalism. There seems to many who bemoan the cries against socialism and communism as some sort of paranoid cry, but it was Karl Marx in his tome Das Kapital who explained how to defeat the capitalist system and what he said was that in order to do so what must first be done is to undermine that systems currency. There is no doubt that the U.S. currency has been undermined and it has been done so by a collusion between the three federal branches of government and the Federal Reserve which is a "quasi governmental" agency owned by private bankers. A handful of private bankers who in 1972 took the U.S. monetary system off of the gold standard and in doing so created a fiat money system that has effectively undermined that currency.

This is why people are calling the current system a socialized system or model of communism. This is why conservatives are ranting and raving against any further socialist developments. A true conservative in U.S. politics is one who takes a conservative view of the Constitution in response to all those who take far too liberal of a view of that same Constitution. The Constitution authorized Congress to coin and print monies not a handful.

[edit on 8-11-2009 by Jean Paul Zodeaux]

...of international private banks. It was stated above by another poster that the idea of allowing free markets to handle health care is absurd but the reasoning offered to defend that argument was absurd. What was argued was that people don't make the decision to break their own legs and then suggested that doctors in a free market would offer that person who did not choose to break his or her own legs eye surgery instead, going even further to suggest that doctors would refuse to set and cast a broken leg based on the popularity of setting an casting broken legs as if somehow broken legs were cared for based on what the market can bear and indeed they are, just not in the absurd way that poster suggested they were. What the market can bear means that even if you or I did not choose to break our legs we do have the choice of which doctor we will use to fix that leg and the price of that medical attention will be based on what the market can bear.

What that means is that if a one doctor out of four is charging four time the amount to fix a broken leg than the other three then most likely most people will choose one of the other three doctors to fix their leg. At some point that fourth doctor will either reduce his fee or simply go out of business and that is what free market principles are all about. To suggest that free markets is about being stupid and nonsensical and offering only eye surgery instead of simply setting and casting a broken leg is either dis-ingeniousness or a profound misunderstanding of what capitalism is.

To empower governments to regulate free market places is the first step towards ending a capitalist system and moving towards either a fascist state or socialist or communist state. To actually believe that only in capitalism does the principle that a price will be only what the market can bear is what is absurd and in fact is why so many communist states tend to fail because what never gets understood is that price controls are not cost controls. The reason Marx suggested that the only way to beat a capitalist system was by undermining its currency was because in his own reasoning he knew that a one on one situation just can't be beat. This is why the poster who said he was rejected insurance for taking an antacid tablet couldn't get insurance from the company he tried to do business with because just as surely as he was free to refuse to do business with them they were just as free to refuse to business with him. That is what it mean to have a one on one situation.

The trick is not to outlaw insurance companies but to encourage massive competition in the field and to do the same in the entire medical field. It is through massive competition that that poster who was denied coverage because of the use of antacid tablets will find the coverage he wants and it is also by creating a medical system filled with massive competition where those who simply don't want health insurance can still afford to pay for medical care without it. Within the last six months there was a news story that gained much attention about a mother who had run off with her son to escape the government mandate that she acquiesce to to a standard cancer regiment for her son. That is not a free market place when a government can insist that there is only one tried and true cancer treatment and especially in a cancer paradigm that seems to be failing its patients terribly so.

There is much wrong with the U.S. medical system but the government has all ready intruded upon that system in too many ways and made it worse and its further intrusion is nothing more than a recipe for disaster. In closing, I come back to the libertarian point of view, which in short is a maximization of individual liberties while minimizing the authority of the state. Advocating government outlawing private health insurance is not at all a libertarian view.

[edit on 8-11-2009 by Jean Paul Zodeaux]

reply to post by SantaClaus


But guess what? If you find out you have lukemia a year from now, you are screwed, because there is no Santa Clause for 5 years after it passes the senate, and that is IF it is not ruled unconstitutional.

It is rather odd, you calling yourself a libertarian. I was under the impression libertarians were for less government and more personal responsibility?

reply to post by debunky

The idea that a free market could provide healthcare is absurd.

If you are ever seriously hurt and you're taken to a hospital, the EMT crew will always ask which hospital you want to go to. They don't just take you unless it's a re-route. Assuming you are able to speak of course.

If you're ill, you choose you're family doctor, no? You ask for references for your pediatrician, no? The only thing you DON'T ask is pricing. Why not? Because it doesn't matter, in fact, most of the time the Doctor doesn't even know how much he charges. The only thing absurd is the system. And is the system being fixed? No, the only thing changing is the Middle Man, which was once the Insurance companies and will now be the Government. I don't know who I hate more?

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

Outlawing any private industry is most certainly not a libertarian principle.

Indeed? That would be why I said some of my ideas may not be in line with my traditional Libertarian views.. One should never cling to a set ideology, ideologies should be fluid. In a perfect world Government would be so minuscule you wouldn't know it's there.. but this isn't a perfect World, so my view of Utopia won't allow much progression, will it?

The Federal Government IS there to protect the citizens from predatory business practices.. Insurance is, imo, the single biggest predatory line of business, well, after any form of Usury anyways.

Owning a health insurance policy is not a necessity

Well......... I agree..... but that's going to change soon huh? Government will soon be FORCING us to BUY their health insurance. We get taxed, then we have to pay a premium to the Government.. certainly makes no sense does it?

reply to post by Libertygal

I was under the impression libertarians were for less government and more personal responsibility?

That is the general thesis of Libertarianism. This bill I wouldn't even call Socialism.. it's more like Fascism to me. Britain, Australia and Canada are all cheering this on, and they have no clue. America isn't offering free health care, it's offering subsidized health care with government insurance plans.

reply to post by Rockpuck


To assert that one should never cling to a set ideology sure sounds like a set ideology. Never is pretty darned set in its insistence and not nearly as fluid as say, sometimes or rarely. Never is a long time and it didn't take you too long at all to get stuck in a set ideology of fluidity.

A political ideology should be easily defined and consistent so that it can be understood by all. This is one of the problems today in the current political minefield. Socialist ideas are sold as Democratic ideals and communism is denied by the staunches of Marxist as if they were frightened Peter's thrice denying Jesus before the cock crows. It is one of the most brilliant strategies of Leninism to deny being that which is unpopular to your opponents and to infiltrate and adopt your enemies ideologies in order to defeat them.

Politics becomes more and more confusing with new labels constantly being used to define politics as usual. Thus, those who once claimed to be conservatives and are now exposed for their obvious liberal views of the Constitution will still reject the liberal label and instead embrace "neo-conservative" which is as oxymoronic as it would be to label oneself a progressive fundamentalist. Liberals who have no idea they are taking a liberal view of the Constitution also seem to have no idea just how dogmatic they are in their own Marxist ideology and to be sure, Marxism is a set ideology, just as is any political ideology. Libertarianism has no chance at all to survive the entrenched two party system if it simply becomes a refuse for any independent who wants no association with the other parties. Indeed, Libertarians in a large part became so after developing a profound disgust for the Republican party that had not only abandoned their allegiance to the republic in favor of democracy but had abandoned conservatism in favor of power.

It is without a doubt a set ideology of Libertarianism to maximize personal liberty and minimize the authority of government and that ideology should remain set regardless of how fluid one believes they should be. This thread is titled "A Libertarian Take on Universal Health Care and because of that it was important to me to take to task the advocacy of outlawing an industry even if I do agree that the insurance industry is akin to usury. Let the individual know that insurance schemes are no better than gambling and to do business with such an industry is to put oneself at risk and invites their own peril but surely shout out to any individual that will listen that an expanded government is a government that will gladly tread upon thee.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


I think we will agree to disagree then.. imo, you sound like you're preaching a philosophical dilemma.. having a set ideology is thus, a set ideology. Having a fluid ideology is also a set ideology, which not only is a linguistic fallacy, it also fundamentally disenfranchises politics to Humanity - which is always changing.

I understand having a set doctrine to which we can identify, however there is a difference between rigid ideological control, and a more looser set of ideological boundaries that make up the general synopsis of a political belief. No two Humans will ever have 100% the same political beliefs, as strict as a Constitutionalists as I am, the point of the thread was leniency in those beliefs to find common ground.

I think the best system would be a tax free medical savings plan. If companies are willing to pay insurance $5,000 a year, they should be willing to pay into an employer managed tax free savings plan. Let everyone be given the choice of getting the same amount of money the company is willing to pay to insurance to people who choose the tax free medical savings plan.

The government does in fact do many things very efficiently. It is a myth that the government can not do anything right.

Have the government run a catastrophic health insurance plan for people who get extremely expensive health problems, which shouldn't force families into poverty in order to try and save an extremely ill family member.

This would create a market system that could work very well. People who take good care of themselves would be able to amass large medical savings accounts which would save taxpayers a great deal of money that is being spent on retirees government paid plans.

I don't like the idea of taxpayers being forced to subsidize people's poor life style choices, and that includes having more children than they can afford to take care of.

EDIT to change statement in first paragraph from "employer managed tax free insurance plan" to "tax free savings plan" which is what I originally meant.


[edit on 8-11-2009 by poet1b]