PDA

View Full Version : libertarian to the bone...except with health care...




tggroo7
07-22-2009, 05:57 PM
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?

axiomata
07-22-2009, 06:00 PM
I could potentially support subsidizing state run health care for children but nothing more.

heavenlyboy34
07-22-2009, 06:00 PM
This is a start for you
Socialized Healthcare Is Not Cheaper Than Free Market Healthcare (http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig7/crovelli7.html)


In the fall of my sixth year of grade school, I was treated to my first real lesson in American politics on the occasion of the annual election for president of the student body. It was a lesson I have not forgotten after all these years, and a lesson which has gained increased importance for me in the current phase of the election cycle whenever I hear politicians making bombastic promises to reform healthcare.
This memorable grade school election was hyped up for weeks by the faculty and administration who (in their zeal to indoctrinate us with "civic values"), led us to believe that our participation in the election constituted both a sacred right and a solemn duty. The event did not live up to the pompous hype. What actually transpired in the so-called "debate" preceding the election was a farcical competition to see which candidate could make the most fantastic and utopian promises to the student body. One candidate promised to get MC Hammer to perform at our school – prompting the most uproarious applause imaginable. Another promised to extend the summer and winter vacations by months. Still another promised to have candy and soda vending machines installed in every classroom, (although, to be fair to this particular candidate, this promise has actually been partially fulfilled by the public school board, which was eager to boost revenue by fattening their inmates with sweets). Since not a single student had any idea about what a "student body president" does, or had the wisdom to question the truth of their claims, we unsurprisingly elected the student who had made the most fantastic promise (the one who promised MC Hammer, in case you were wondering).
The lesson for me was that we need to rationally analyze the fantastic promises of aspiring politicians, rather than blithely assume that they can deliver whatever they promise. If we fail to rationally analyze their promises, we have only ourselves to blame for the disillusionment that will inevitably follow. We learned this lesson the hard way when MC Hammer failed to make an appearance at our elementary school that year.
Over the past few months, we have been treated to a slew of promises regarding healthcare reform that make this grade school lesson more important than ever. Virtually every Republican and Democratic presidential contender has made some ridiculous promise to reform healthcare in ways they claim will make healthcare both cheaper and more widely available for everyone. (The lone holdout in this competition to make the most utopian promises is Dr. Ron Paul, who is, quite simply, too wise and too virtuous to make impossible promises simply to get elected.) We have even been treated to a recent propaganda film promoting healthcare reforms that would make the Soviets and Nazis beam with pride.
Before we start believing the fantastic promises of aspiring politicians and rich socialist filmmakers, however, let’s take a sober look at what would actually be required to make healthcare cheaper and more widely available for everyone in the United States. Armed with that knowledge, we would then be able to determine whether these plans to socialize American healthcare can actually deliver what they claim to be able to deliver. In other words, let’s find out what would actually be required to get MC Hammer to come to our school, before we simply assume that he’ll automatically come simply because some pompous little politician says he will.
In order for any good or service to become cheaper and more widely available, one of two things must occur: 1) the production of the good or service must increase, or 2) the demand for the good or service must decrease. The second of these alternatives is very unlikely to occur in the healthcare industries in the United States over the next couple of decades, simply because the giant Baby Boomer generation is entering the stage of life when the demand for healthcare services tends to be highest.
That leaves us with one, and only one, alternative. In order for healthcare services to become cheaper and more widely available in the United States, the supply of doctors, the supply of hospitals, and the availability of medical supplies and drugs must be increased in order for the price of these goods and services to fall and thus become more widely available to everyone.
Once this obvious economic fact is recognized, it sheds a great deal of light on the healthcare promises of the current batch of presidential contenders. No presidential contender (with the lone exception, again, of Dr. Ron Paul), has ever promised that his (or, equally importantly, her) healthcare reforms will actually serve to increase the supply of healthcare goods and services. (Have you ever, for example, even heard a politician state that we need more doctors?) On the contrary, they strangely (and wrongly) view the supply of doctors and the supply of other healthcare goods as unchangeably fixed, and their so-called healthcare reforms thus only propose to divvy up the existing healthcare pie in different and politically-motivated ways.
Since their proposed socialist reforms do not actually aim to increase the supply of doctors, medicine, and hospitals, it should be obvious that their proposals will not deliver what they claim they will deliver. The proposals logically cannot, in other words, decrease the price of healthcare or make it more widely available to everyone. For, on the one hand, if there is no increase in the supply of these goods and services, the price for these goods and services will remain exactly the same. Prices are determined by the supply of a good and the demand for it, and thus high prices cannot be altered simply by wishing them to change or changing the group who pays them. High prices can only be lowered by increasing the supply of the good or service. On the other hand, it should also be obvious that these proposals will not make healthcare more widely available to everyone, because they do not propose to increase the supply of healthcare services. They simply aim to distribute the existing supply of healthcare services somewhat differently. The proposals, in other words, do not aim to create more healthcare services that will make everyone better off; rather, they simply propose to take healthcare services from some people and give them to other people. They propose healthcare robbery, and nothing more.
Recognizing these economic facts, moreover, leads us to ask the most critical question of all: Why is the supply of healthcare goods and services so restricted in the first place? Why are there so few doctors in this country, so few hospitals, and so few medical goods in this country, which is ultimately what causes the high prices? If we can answer these questions, we will have both identified the cause of our high healthcare costs, and identified the necessary means to lowering the prices of these goods and services.
The answer to these questions is deceptively simple: The government of the United States has (through its arbitrary regulation and licensing of doctors, medical schools, hospitals, prescription drugs, and other medical goods) artificially restricted the supply of these goods and services below what would exist in the absence of these regulations. Were it not for these licensure and other regulatory acts by the U.S. government, entrepreneurs and individuals (spurred by the high price of these goods and services) would be flocking into the healthcare industries in droves, thus increasing the supply of these goods and services. Medical schools would be opening left and right, and students would be flocking to those schools in the anticipation that they would earn large incomes as doctors. Potential drug manufacturers and medical equipment manufacturers would jump at the chance to enter the market, lured by the promise of high profits, were it not for suffocating government regulations that economically bar entry. The end result of freeing the market for medicine would be the necessary increase in the supply of healthcare goods and services, a consequent drop in prices, and the availability of healthcare goods and services would thus multiply exponentially – for everyone. The size of the healthcare pie has thus artificially been restricted to its current size by government licensure laws and other stifling regulation – the supply of doctors and medicine is not naturally any more fixed than is the supply of potato chips. The healthcare pie can and would be increased by simply freeing the market and ridding it of burdensome government interference.
The answer to our healthcare woes is thus not more government regulation, or the shifting of payment for healthcare from individuals to the government. In the first place, we are the ones who pay the taxes that government would inevitably use to pay for healthcare were it socialized. We would, therefore, still be paying the same high prices (since the supply of these goods and services would be the same as before) – in addition to paying for the behemoth bureaucracy that would be required to run such a program. We would also put ourselves at the mercy of that same medical bureaucracy – which would inevitably possess the diabolical discretion to tell us when we can or cannot obtain services. The end result of socialization would be both an increase in the price of healthcare for those of us who pay taxes (since we would have to pay the same prices for healthcare services with our taxes, plus the added costs of a new healthcare bureaucracy), and the forfeiture of our individual liberty to determine when or if we want certain medical services.
The solution lies not in socialized healthcare schemes that promise something impossible, but rather in freeing the market in healthcare, as has been advocated by Dr. Ron Paul. Only this solution would spur entry into the healthcare industries, increase the supply of doctors, and consequently reduce prices and increase the availability of these goods and services for everyone.
This free market solution does not possess the rhetorical splendor of a ridiculous socialization scheme. All it has going for it is that it will actually work to lower the price of healthcare and make healthcare goods and services more widely available for everyone. We are all free, of course, to believe the fantastic healthcare promises of the current batch of opportunistic and mendacious politicians if we so choose. Just don’t complain to me or Dr. Ron Paul when MC Hammer doesn’t show up.

Objectivist
07-22-2009, 06:02 PM
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?

Who are "these people"?

brandon
07-22-2009, 06:02 PM
Most people can get insurance if they work hard enough.

I have a lot of (ex?)friends who are now in their mid 20's but the never quite grew up. They still sit around smoking weed all day with no work ethic. They are uninsured, but it's their own damn fault. This is the case with the large majority of the uninsured. It's their own damn fault.

The small minority of people who are not capable of getting insurance due to disability (mental of physical) can be taken care of by charities and family.

jmlfod87
07-22-2009, 06:05 PM
Hans Hoppe: Four Step Health Care Solution
http://mises.org/freemarket_detail.aspx?control=279


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

Because when you socialize costs, they rise. If someone else is paying for your health care, you are liable to use it even when you dont need it. If peope can't afford health care its because they aren't producing enough wealth for society in exchange for those goods and services. This means they aren't producing their fair share of wealth to sustain their existence. These costs must then be felt by others, which means higher taxation. High taxation means less jobs, higher prices, less innovation, and lower pays. All of this means EVEN MORE people will not be able to afford health care, which will push more people into government subsidized care. This, in turn, will lead to even higher medical costs. Eventually the system (much like social security, medicare, and medicaid) will become unsustainable. Society, through government subsidies, will be consuming more than they are producing and the system will collapse.

This is why, when people like Ron Paul say, "We can't afford the government we have now," they mean it. We are going broke from all the other government entitlement programs and adding more entitlements will simply speed up the process to our own destruction.

You want more people to be able to afford health care? Read Hoppe's essay: http://mises.org/freemarket_detail.aspx?control=279

Andrew-Austin
07-22-2009, 06:10 PM
Just bother to read about the libertarian explanation as to why medical bills are so high.

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.

paulitics
07-22-2009, 06:12 PM
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?

It sounds like you are for state medicaid which was designed to take care of your concerns and is already doing so. This federal program is unnecessary, anti-constitutional, and only about control.

kahless
07-22-2009, 06:14 PM
These are the things I do not want to lose but clearly will under Obama's plan.

1. I have always been able to get procedures, MRI's and CT scan for myself and family without wait.

2. No one has been denied care based on past lifestyle, age, viability or government overriding a doctors decision.

3. Right to privacy. My medical records do not leave the doctors office unless instructed to do so. Medical records should not be in a centralized database to be accessible anywhere in the country by whomever.

There however needs to be reform just not what Obama is proposing. For example what the hell happened in the last 8 years where it is no longer affordable? I could buy health insurance for myself and family for $300-400 a month which covered everything with small deductables. Those same plans are now unaffordable costing upwards $1100 to $1900 per month depending on the plan. So there should be some sort of reform to make this affordable to the average American again.

If you get sick and are not working you obviously cannot pay your health insurance while you are sick. There should be regulations that you remain covered during illness for having paid into a plan. It is not right where you pay all your life into a plan and lose your insurance during an illness due to inability to pay.

Objectivist
07-22-2009, 06:15 PM
One could get affordable health care if the government got out of the health care business.

LibForestPaul
07-22-2009, 06:16 PM
I am trying my best to get all elderly relatives to go for any operations, procedures, medical tests, now...my view of the upcoming "health care reform" is far more cynical..bioethics..."should our overburdened citizenry be taxed ever more steeply to provide 70 and 80 years old with hip, knee, and other surgeries when they have only a few more years of life." The answer of course is no.

"Old people, do you patriotic duty and die!":mad:

Objectivist
07-22-2009, 06:21 PM
I am trying my best to get all elderly relatives to go for any operations, procedures, medical tests, now...my view of the upcoming "health care reform" is far more cynical..bioethics..."should our overburdened citizenry be taxed ever more steeply to provide 70 and 80 years old with hip, knee, and other surgeries when they have only a few more years of life." The answer of course is no.

"Old people, do you patriotic duty and die!":mad:

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.

dannno
07-22-2009, 06:24 PM
Most people can get insurance if they work hard enough.

I have a lot of (ex?)friends who are now in their mid 20's but the never quite grew up. They still sit around smoking weed all day with no work ethic. They are uninsured, but it's their own damn fault. This is the case with the large majority of the uninsured. It's their own damn fault.

The small minority of people who are not capable of getting insurance due to disability (mental of physical) can be taken care of by charities and family.

It has been estimated that about 70% of doctor visits are related to stress-induced conditions.

Maybe your friends aren't stressed out cause they smoke herb and the cost of insuring themselves outweighs the chances that they will need care :confused:

I would always at least want to have emergency coverage in case of some sort of accident, but to insure against getting flus and conditions related to a stressed out and unhealthy lifestyle can cost more than it's worth for some of us who are relatively healthy and "un-stressed" so to speak.

Dr.3D
07-22-2009, 06:26 PM
"Old people, do you patriotic duty and die!":mad:

Just how would you have us do that?
Perhaps a pistol to the head?
A rope in the barn?
A few too many pills?

Perhaps you would like to have somebody come over and help us take care of that detail?

How are you going to feel when you one day find yourself being old?
Are you going to do your "patriotic duty" and die?

Bman
07-22-2009, 06:27 PM
Can someone help me out to see why I'm wrong in wanting some sort of government-provided option for these people?

Because you are literally holding me at gun point and taking my money by force.

You may see yourself as Robin Hood except that you aren't stealing from the rich to give to the poor. In the end you are stealing form the poor to give to the rich. The only way, THE ONLY WAY, this goes through the legislative body is if all the perks the rich want are in the bill.

Capitol hill is not a democracy, it is not a constitutional republic, it is an oligarchy which only adhere's to facism. Now is the time more so than ever were we must strip these people of power. Giving them more is just suicide.

Objectivist
07-22-2009, 06:28 PM
Just how would you have us do that?
Perhaps a pistol to the head?
A rope in the barn?
A few too many pills?

Perhaps you would like to have somebody come over and help us take care of that detail?

How are you going to feel when you one day find yourself being old?
Are you going to do your "patriotic duty" and die?

AT 46 I already have a DNR in place.... maybe I should have it tattooed on my chest so the medic leaves me be?

Epic
07-22-2009, 06:40 PM
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?p=2223701#post2223701

This thread contained some good responses and links to information on the health care issues.

Scottc320
07-22-2009, 06:40 PM
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/

paulitics
07-22-2009, 06:47 PM
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/

mostly #6. Look at the average bloated taco bell eating American, next to your average fit European. Most of them ban the toxic GMO foods, and eat healthier overall.

erowe1
07-22-2009, 06:47 PM
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?

Well, first of all, you're not libertarian to the bone with some minor exception on health care. You're not libertarian at all in any sense of the word. If you want to give your money to help those who need help getting health care to get it, then donate your money. Nobody's stopping you. If you were a libertarian the entire issue would be as simple as that.

BenIsForRon
07-22-2009, 06:49 PM
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
07-22-2009, 07:00 PM
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
07-22-2009, 07:06 PM
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
07-22-2009, 07:14 PM
This is a start for you
Socialized Healthcare Is Not Cheaper Than Free Market Healthcare (http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig7/crovelli7.html)

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
07-22-2009, 07:42 PM
Thank you! That is one of the clearest articles on the subject I have ever read.


y/w. :cool::) I like it too.;):D

BenIsForRon
07-22-2009, 07:47 PM
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
07-22-2009, 07:49 PM
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 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=muHg86Mys7I)

Imperial
07-22-2009, 08:25 PM
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
07-22-2009, 10:16 PM
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
07-23-2009, 12:14 AM
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
07-23-2009, 12:15 AM
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
07-23-2009, 12:15 AM
The health care they'll provide is the wrong type of health care, AND health care is a good, not a right!

cindy25
07-23-2009, 01:14 AM
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
07-23-2009, 01:20 AM
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
07-23-2009, 05:46 PM
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
07-23-2009, 05:48 PM
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
07-23-2009, 06:26 PM
You just described me to a tee.

Number19
07-23-2009, 07:14 PM
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
07-23-2009, 07:19 PM
Donate but don't make other people do it.

LibertyMage
07-23-2009, 07:27 PM
To understand that you cannot "out smart" the market with central planning is part of being a libertarian.

Objectivist
07-23-2009, 07:28 PM
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

You can take the Obesity Rate and the morbidly obese and factor that into the equation here in the United States. So what myth were you referring too exactly?

I'm not against health care for all, we have it now and the criminal illegal aliens that have overwhelmed the Los Angeles area emergency rooms have shown that to be fact. Dozens of LA area emergency rooms have closed their doors because they don't get paid for services rendered. I know that government intervention and regulation prevents the market from running properly, maybe you don't get that part?

If I as a former Medic can tell a Doctor what is wrong with me and he wrongly prescribes me drugs I didn't ask for, or need, then we pay too much for health care. I knew what I needed and if I were in a number of other countries, I could have walked up to the counter at the pharmacy and purchased what I required, but here the government prevents me from purchasing things as mundane as Motrin or Penicillin.