Libertarians on health care for children?

[tggroo7]

I consider myself libertarian but I also play devil's advocate with myself a lot so I come up with a lot of dilemmas and lately I've actually been undecided on the idea of universal health care. I don't think every American is entitled to health care nor do I think it would be successful, but...

How can it be justified that some kids live without healthcare? Isn't a healthcare program for kids under 18 justifiable? A limit of, say, household income divided by # of children under a certain amount cutting it off so that it cannot be given to just anyone.

I know this is a socialist idea, but I don't understand how you can justify a child lacking any health care when it is absolutely no fault of his or her own. Most socialist ideas I just can discard because they diminish competition or effort or whatever, but this is about kids who have no ability to earn anything yet.

Please, I am not looking for a heated argument nor useless one-liners, but a real knowledgeable reply.

Thanks

[noxagol]

Need of something does not give you a right to it. Government giving something to someone can only do so after taking it from someone else. By giving some kids health care, you limit the ability of other parents to give their kids health care. This in turn causes a spiral effect that will eventually have all children covered under government care as each level of children whose parents cannot afford health care because of the increase of taxes gets added to the list of children being provided health care from the government which further requires higher taxes which limits even more parents ability to provide health care, adding to the list of children being provided health care by the government.....................

Plus, you cannot look at this in a vaccuum either. Health care would be easily affordable by all by the poorest of the poor now-a-days if the government would have never intervened in the first place. Before much of the mass regulation and "helping" done by the government, most people could provide full health care insurance for their family through something like a fraternity lodge for like 30 bucks a year, which would translate to roughly 690 bucks now. You would be lucky if you could pay that a month for an entire family.

Yes, kids without health care sucks, but it is inevitable.

For further reading, go here (http://www.google.com/custom?sa=Search&cof=LW%3A500%3BL%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.lewrockwell.co m%2Flewroc1a.gif%3BLH%3A93%3BAH%3Acenter%3BAWFID%3 A65dad07a461e3427%3B&domains=lewrockwell.com&q=health+care&sitesearch=lewrockwell.com)

[nate895]

One word: Charity

[tggroo7]

I clicked your link and went to something about a Comprehensive Health Care Act by Dr Paul...in it I saw this:
"Specifically, the Comprehensive Health Care Act:

1. Provides all Americans with a tax credit for 100% of health care expenses. The tax credit is fully refundable against both income and payroll taxes."

I don't know much about this, but does that mean that with the Act, any person's health expenses could just be refunded by the government?

[tggroo7]

One word: Charity

Are you saying charity is bad or that charity should be these kids' aid?
Charity from the government I normally would say is bad before thinking about this, but this one is tough for me.

Pretty much the government only job is to protect the people, right? They provide for police and whatnot, so shouldn't healthcare for those completely helpless be included? Healthcare is not like a luxury like the "right" to own a home or take out a loan and for kids, it certainly cannot be earned. And it is directly related to the person's physical being.

[sdczen]

Children can get health care now. There are many programs within the state(s), or the feds have medicaid. Many hospitals & clinics give free health care for all. Of course they are requested to "pay", but they know they can't.

I will also say that there is a lot of money out there for children and people that need health related things. Government run medicaid is horrible and many physicians won't accept it because it's too much of a headache and they (medicaid) over pays for some things (meds) and under pays for others. I believe medicaid pays $40 dollars for a circumcision :eek:

I don't know about you, but I would be glad to pay my physician a little more than $40. for a procedure like that. An oil change for my car is $50.00.

Lastly, the problem with the health care system has several critical factors:

1- Medical malpractice suits & malpractice insurance costs.

This forces insurance companies to jack the malpractice rates through the roof. It also cause physicians to do "CYA" (cover your ass) medicine. This means they ask for every test under the sun, just so they are 'covered' if something happens. This of course drives up the prices greatly and also causes unforeseen health problems down the line. Malpractice suits should be limited to a fraction of what they are getting now.

2- HMO/PPO government sponsored monopolies

Once the Insurance acts were passed (I believe in the early 70's), this started the slow progression of the Medical Industrial Complex. The insurance companies have an absolute monopoly in health care. You have to ask yourself. Why does the government want some type of "Universal Health care" and why do they want to include all of the major insurance companies. This has also driven prices through the roof.

3- Medical schooling costs

It takes about 10 years to complete your schooling to become a doctor. Tack on a few more if you want to do a fellowship in a specialty. Most physicians when they get out of residency have upwards of $250k -300K worth of student loans. They have an automatic payment the size of a mortgage the first day out.

When you couple the outrageous malpractice insurance rates on top of what it costs to open, equip and run a clinic (don't forget the student loans), along with insurance companies denying many claims. It has become so onerous to be a physician today that I predict that there will be ever increasing shortages, because the sheer pain in the ass they go through. Remember, most physicians don't make that much money anymore.

[sdczen]

Are you saying charity is bad or that charity should be these kids' aid?
Charity from the government I normally would say is bad before thinking about this, but this one is tough for me.

Pretty much the government only job is to protect the people, right? They provide for police and whatnot, so shouldn't healthcare for those completely helpless be included? Healthcare is not like a luxury like the "right" to own a home or take out a loan and for kids, it certainly cannot be earned. And it is directly related to the person's physical being.

There is no such thing as "Charity" from government. It's call theft through taxation & inflation.

No, the governments job is not to protect people. If that's the case, I want armed guards and police escorts.

Like I said in my previous post. There currently is several vehicles for health care for all. Charitable organizations, Religious hospitals, Medicaid/Medicare

Also, do you provide healthcare to the chronic smokers & alcoholics? How about the obese? If you defer the responsibility from the parents/individuals/families to the state, then we are in big trouble. There has to be a point where individuals, parents & families start taking responsibility for them and theirs. The charities and religious institutions will pick up the slack when needed. Get the government out!

[tggroo7]

There is no such thing as "Charity" from government. It's call theft through taxation & inflation.

Well they could just print some money and give it to people, then they don't have to take it from anyone. Right? haha, j/k




Also, do you provide healthcare to the chronic smokers & alcoholics? How about the obese? If you defer the responsibility from the parents/individuals/families to the state, then we are in big trouble. There has to be a point where individuals, parents & families start taking responsibility for them and theirs. The charities and religious institutions will pick up the slack when needed. Get the government out!

I understand, but ideally (and I realize the government doesn't operate "ideally"), a cut off for level of seriousness (i.e. no coverage for Viagra) would be set. And with an age limit of 18, alcohol and drug-related illnesses should not even be covered because they result from illegal activity. Illnesses relating to obesity in kids probably would still be covered. Understandably, you are going to reply telling me that these cutoffs and restrictions would gradually change to include almost everything, and you would be right, so there I just saved you some time. So I understand the points made and thanks for the response.

I don't really believe it's a feasible idea and thanks for your replies to slap me back to normal!

[sdczen]

Well they could just print some money and give it to people, then they don't have to take it from anyone. Right? haha, j/k




I understand, but ideally (and I realize the government doesn't operate "ideally"), a cut off for level of seriousness (i.e. no coverage for Viagra) would be set. And with an age limit of 18, alcohol and drug-related illnesses should not even be covered because they result from illegal activity. Illnesses relating to obesity in kids probably would still be covered. Understandably, you are going to reply telling me that these cutoffs and restrictions would gradually change to include almost everything, and you would be right, so there I just saved you some time. So I understand the points made and thanks for the response.

I don't really believe it's a feasible idea and thanks for your replies to slap me back to normal!

Yeah, it's a tough sell on government interference. It's really a slippery slope once they get their grubby meat hooks into it. We can place most of the blame on the higher prices of health care directly in the governments lap. They are the ones that are making the rules. Unfortunately, the general populous and the individual suffers.

The best option I have found for health care is to do a couple of things:

1- Reduce dollar amounts in malpractice suits and throw out frivolous lawsuits altogether.
2- Lift rules on insurance co.'s. Let them compete across state lines.
3- Abolish the FDA
4- Endorse charitable organizations like the heart foundation. Also, endorse the idea of a charitable insurance organization. Do fundraisers just as the heart foundation does.

That should get things moving in the right direction.

[Bman]

While I want no child to have to suffer needlessly, I don't see centralized healthcare being an answer. At an extremely local level I may participate in ideas that a community or larger (if I believed it was a good investment) could organize that could help, but it would have to be a complete charity basis. I would not force this upon anyone.

Communities should actively work harder at solving their own problems. It's great to want to save the world, but I truly believe if people paid more attention to their own back yard things would be much better.

I just can't live with asking much less forcing people for help doing things I could do myself.

[axiomata]

I would support state-run comprehensive health insurance for children. I am not a full bred libertarian when it comes to children. I do not think they should be allowed to drive, vote, enlist, (get drafted,) do drugs, and I think at the most local level possible they should be given a basic education and health care.

Once they hit the admittedly arbitrary 18, they are on their own.

[The_Orlonater]

Someone should write a detailed book about this subject.

[noxagol]

I clicked your link and went to something about a Comprehensive Health Care Act by Dr Paul...in it I saw this:
"Specifically, the Comprehensive Health Care Act:

1. Provides all Americans with a tax credit for 100% of health care expenses. The tax credit is fully refundable against both income and payroll taxes."

I don't know much about this, but does that mean that with the Act, any person's health expenses could just be refunded by the government?

What this would do is count money you pay into health care as money paid towards your taxes, which is what tax credits are. For instance, if your taxes are 2000$ and you spend 1000$ on health care, you would only owe 1000$.

[ChaosControl]

Get the government out of it. Suddenly the masses can afford it.
The charities can provide for those who are still unable.

[ChaosControl]

What this would do is count money you pay into health care as money paid towards your taxes, which is what tax credits are. For instance, if your taxes are 2000$ and you spend 1000$ on health care, you would only owe 1000$.

Sounds like a plan. They should make charitable donations work the same. I'd never pay tax. :D

[trey4sports]

let me be devils advocate here, I believe children (under 18) should be granted full healthcare coverage on the state level.
flame away

[tremendoustie]

let me be devils advocate here, I believe children (under 18) should be granted full healthcare coverage on the state level.
flame away

Sounds great! Will you be setting up the charity? I don't think I'd support a charity that pays for the health care of rich kids -- but I'd certainly donate to one that helps the truly poor -- especially if it's faith based.

I assume of course, that you will not fund this otherwise good idea by extorting money from your neighbors under threat of violence.

[pcosmar]

I have no children. You think I should pay for someone else's child ?
The only child I ever fathered was killed by an abortion. And you want me to pay for someone else's child?
That is audacious.

[mediahasyou]

Charity. A nation without taxes means people are allowed to be more charitable.

I like how most people don't trust the government with handing out welfare. However, when it comes to the kids, we trust the government with raping our kids through education and other activities.

I dont trust the government. No way in hell do I trust the government with my kids.

[trey4sports]

Sounds great! Will you be setting up the charity? I don't think I'd support a charity that pays for the health care of rich kids -- but I'd certainly donate to one that helps the truly poor -- especially if it's faith based.

I assume of course, that you will not fund this otherwise good idea by extorting money from your neighbors under threat of violence.

I understand what your saying, but i certainly believe that this is an acceptable function of a state government. maybe this is why im a paleoconservative not a libertarian......

[tremendoustie]

I understand what your saying, but i certainly believe that this is an acceptable function of a state government. maybe this is why im a paleoconservative not a libertarian......

I guess it just comes down to a different moral code. I think it's always wrong to extort money from others by threatening to initiate violence. You think it's ok, in certain circumstances -- if, for example, the money is to be used for a good cause.

Is this a fair characterization?

I would like to say (lest I sound overly antagonistic) that as a paleoconservative, I do consider you my ally, since you wish to reduce the amount of money stolen from me to a small percentage of what it is now.

[trey4sports]

I guess it just comes down to a different moral code. I think it's always wrong to extort money from others by threatening to initiate violence. You think it's ok, in certain circumstances -- if, for example, the money is to be used for a good cause.

Is this a fair characterization?

I would like to say (lest I sound overly antagonistic) that as a paleoconservative, I do consider you my ally, since you wish to reduce the amount of money stolen from me to a small percentage of what it is now.

true true.
However, i disagree with the idea that i am willing to use coercion for a good cause. I support coercion because as a child you are not responsible for yourself, just as a child is not granted the same libertys as an adult, children should be entitled to certian things adults are not.

The reason I do support healthcare for children is the fact that when you are (for instance) 5 years old, and have luekemia or any other major illness your own life is essentially out of your hands. A young child has not had any way of gaining and saving money to plan for such illness, they havent even had a chance to be in the workplace. their life is merely in somebody elses hands. On the flip side, YES it is absolutely coercion. taking your money to pay for my sons cancer treatment is theft. But, as anti-government as I am I have a hard time coping with this issue, maybe im a softie in a sense. Whatever it may be i stand by my coercive ways

EDIT: i reread the post and It comes off as me talking from personal experience, im not. i have no son and i havent taken your money. all examples are ficticious

[tremendoustie]

true true.
However, i disagree with the idea that i am willing to use coercion for a good cause.

The reason I do support healthcare for children is the fact that when you are (for instance) 5 years old, and have luekemia or any other terminal illness your own life is essentially out of your hands. A young child has not had any way of gaining and saving money to plan for such illness, they havent even had a chance to be in the workplace. their life is merely in somebody elses hands. On the flip side, YES it is absolutely coercion. taking your money to pay for my sons cancer treatment is theft. But, as anti-government as I am I have a hard time coping with this issue, maybe im a softie in a sense. Whatever it may be i stand by my coercive ways

What you are saying seems to be contradictory. You first say that you disagree with the idea that you are willing to use coercion for a good cause, then later, you admit that what you suggest is coercion.

I, like you, support healthcare for children, for all of the reasons you describe -- I'm a softie too. However, I think it should be funded by first removing all government control of healthcare, which would greatly reduce cost and improve quality, and then the remainder, for the truly poor, can be funded by charitable donations, including mine.

As a softie, the right thing for me is to do every moral thing in my power to help those in need. It's still not right for me to rob others at the point of a gun for funding, however.

I certainly hope before anyone would even think what you suggest, they would have already sold all of their worldly goods and given to the poor, and reduced their workload to only what is needed to feed themselves, while dedicating 100% of the rest of their time to fund raising for charity -- since all of these things would be of course preferable to acting violently against another person.

If even a small fraction of those promoting government violence did this, the problem would be completely solved, with funds left over.


Edit to respond to your edit: I understood what you were saying, I think you were clear :).

[JeNNiF00F00]

There is already free healthcare out there. Years ago when I had very little income, I had to go to planned parenthood for some female issues I was having at the time. Anyways they gave me about 20 different FREE or sliding scale health facilities in my area, if I needed to go to the doctor for anything.

[trey4sports]

What you are saying seems to be contradictory. You first say that you disagree with the idea that you are willing to use coercion for a good cause, then later, you admit that what you suggest is coercion.

I, like you, support healthcare for children, for all of the reasons you describe -- I'm a softie too. However, I think it should be funded by first removing all government control of healthcare, which would greatly reduce cost and improve quality, and then the remainder, for the truly poor, can be funded by charitable donations, including mine.

As a softie, the right thing for me is to do every moral thing in my power to help those in need. It's still not right for me to rob others at the point of a gun for funding, however.

I certainly hope before anyone would even think what you suggest, they would have already sold all of their worldly goods and given to the poor, and reduced their workload to only what is needed to feed themselves, while dedicating 100% of the rest of their time to fund raising for charity -- since all of these things would be of course preferable to acting violently against another person.

If even a small fraction of those promoting government violence did this, the problem would be completely solved, with funds left over.


Edit to respond to your edit: I understood what you were saying, I think you were clear :).


what i meant to say, is that i support coercion for the reason that children are unnable to even have the mental capabilities to provide for themselves. However while that may be deemed a "good cause" i dont not support coercion for a " good cause" universally. while one is a subset of another i do not support the comple "good cause" agenda. in fact the majority of views are quite libertarian, i support privatization of roads among many other non paleoconservative views.

hope this clears up my contradiction

[tremendoustie]

what i meant to say, is that i support coercion for the reason that children are unnable to even have the mental capabilities to provide for themselves. However while that may be deemed a "good cause" i dont not support coercion for a " good cause" universally. while one is a subset of another i do not support the comple "good cause" agenda. in fact the majority of views are quite libertarian, i support privatization of roads among many other non paleoconservative views.

hope this clears up my contradiction

I understand what you are saying. The fact that they do not have the ability to provide for themselves is a good justification for charity, in my view, but I do not see how it justifies extortion.

Have you done all of the things I suggested, and tried to convince others to do the same? I assume you would at least not support violence except as an absolute last resort, right?

I really think that if people were willing to sacrifice anything and everything before resorting to violence, they would find that all of the problems they were concerned about are already solved.

[angelatc]

Every time I see somebody playing the children card, I hate Bill Clinton just a little bit more. They really did a great job with that brainwashing job.

The function of government should be to protect liberty, not to pass out other people's money.

Passing out other people's money to the children only creates an 18 year old voter who expects handouts.

[trey4sports]

I understand what you are saying. The fact that they do not have the ability to provide for themselves is a good justification for charity, in my view, but I do not see how it justifies extortion.

Have you done all of the things I suggested, and tried to convince others to do the same? I assume you would at least not support violence except as an absolute last resort, right?

I really think that if people were willing to sacrifice anything and everything before resorting to violence, they would find that all of the problems they were concerned about are already solved.


Honestly, no I havent done all those things.

my moral reasoning is that those who are unable to have the competence to provide for themselves should be given the money (which is taken from someone else at gunpoint), which certainly is not morally right.

by my own reasoning

the mentally retarded should have free health care
children should have free healthcare

maybe my own reasoning is persuading me to see the fallacy of my own argument, i dont really know. this is the most (personaly) complex issue ive ever discussed simply because my own moral beliefs conflict.

my support for this issue is changing

[angelatc]

the mentally retarded should have free health care
children should have free healthcare



There is no such thing as free health care.

But the best solution is to leave it up to the states.

[trey4sports]

There is no such thing as free health care.

But the best solution is to leave it up to the states.

I advocated leaving it up to the states.

I understand there is no such thing as free health care, Its much easier to say "free healthcare" since I already conceded that funding comes from coercion earlier in the discussion

[tremendoustie]

Honestly, no I havent done all those things.

my moral reasoning is that those who are unable to have the competence to provide for themselves should be given the money (which is taken from someone else at gunpoint), which certainly is not morally right.

by my own reasoning

the mentally retarded should have free health care
children should have free healthcare

maybe my own reasoning is persuading me to see the fallacy of my own argument, i dont really know. this is the most (personaly) complex issue ive ever discussed simply because my own moral beliefs conflict.

my support for this issue is changing

I respect your open mindedness, and I especially think your motivations are honorable. :)

I think, if we examine the cases in society where government has attempted to solve social ills, we see that not only is a voluntary approach to helping people more moral because it does not use force -- it is more effective as well.

How successful has the war on poverty been, for example -- or the government's efforts after Katrina? Remember Dr. Paul's stories of helping needy patients out of churches, for only a few bucks an hour -- before government got involved in heath care?

Even apart from the issue of force, the best thing for the children is local charities, who can cater their help to meet the child's unique needs, and provide the human touch, and caring, which a government bureaucracy never can. People helping people because they care, is worlds apart from a faceless government program.

For the children's sake, if nothing else, I think voluntary, local help, is better. And, I think if one person dedicates their time to setting up and gathering support for these kinds of charities, and the other dedicates their time to lobbying government for a new program, the first is far more likely to actually help people -- without ever agressing against anyone.