I could live without healthcare reform! How about you?

What kind of federal government do we want?

You're at least getting closer to the real, root, question.

The kind that mandates what people have,

Another straw man, since nothing we're discussing mandates what a person "has" materially. It would mandate having health insurance.

or the kind that nurtures an environment where people can obtain material items according to their ability?

If a person is without housing, clothing, food, education, transportation or health care their ability to compete for material items is greatly diminished. So I guess the question goes back to you, what kind of federal government do you want? One "that nurtures an environment where people can obtain material items according to their ability" or not?

We may be hitting on a fundamental philosophical difference here. 

I love Libertarians. Really. Their ideals mimic my own. But it's just like communism, sounds good, it just doesn't work.

Ben

Remove health care from all prisons. - Once freedom is taken away, the state has an obligation to provide health care.

Why?


You seem to have missed my point. We offer these public supported services now only because our society has decide that it has a moral obligation to. It's not necessary to legislate common sense.

It's not necessary to legislate common sense.

it must be...we have helmet and seatbelt laws

Health care should also be in this camp, as the market has demonstrated that it cannot provide a hogging quality infrastructure to the entire populace at reasonable costs.

Well said.

Private health has proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that it is incapable of restraining costs. Every other developed country has abandoned this system precisely for this reason.

Opponents love to stir up fears of potential government inefficiency in these programs, it's really all they have... Fear. The truth is that we have long term, real-world data on public health insurance from Medicare and the various foreign models. The public models all outperform our private one. This isn't a theory; this is proven fact with hard numbers.

Yes, we are getting down to fundamental differences, and thats really what I'm after. I learn a lot from the discussions on here. I am amazed to find there are people who don't consider access to (free, or cheap) healthcare to be a basic facet of a civilised society. Even more so that you aren't just an out and out libertarian but do actually think government should be involved in some elements of society but not others. I think if you simply denied healthcare to people who couldn't afford it then, at the current prices, you would have anarchy. And a lot of sick people.

What about children? Orphans? The mentally ill?

What about vaccines?

Perhaps most mind-boggling of all (for me), you describe healthcare as "material".

For me, healthcare isn't material. It isn't a commodity. Those principles apply to ipods and coca cola. There is no choice with healthcare. If I get hit by a truck, I have no choice but to get emergency room treatment (unless you consider death a choice). Sure, there could be choice in who i get the treatment from, I could make a considered purchase before I have an accident, but the point is I still have no choice in whether or not i get treatment.

"education, graduate education, transportation, energy, travel". These are important, but I will not die if I don't have them. Choice and markets can be involved here. If I get a brain tumor, I either get it removed, or I die. You really think the surgery to remove the tumor should be available only to those who can pay and the rest should be left to die?

Yes, we are getting down to fundamental differences, and thats really what I'm after. I learn a lot from the discussions on here. I am amazed to find there are people who don't consider access to (free, or cheap) healthcare to be a basic facet of a civilised society. Even more so that you aren't just an out and out libertarian but do actually think government should be involved in some elements of society but not others. I think if you simply denied healthcare to people who couldn't afford it then, at the current prices, you would have anarchy. And a lot of sick people.

What about children? Orphans? The mentally ill?

What about vaccines?

Perhaps most mind-boggling of all (for me), you describe healthcare as "material".

For me, healthcare isn't material. It isn't a commodity. Those principles apply to ipods and coca cola. There is no choice with healthcare. If I get hit by a truck, I have no choice but to get emergency room treatment (unless you consider death a choice). Sure, there could be choice in who i get the treatment from, I could make a considered purchase before I have an accident, but the point is I still have no choice in whether or not i get treatment.

"education, graduate education, transportation, energy, travel". These are important, but I will not die if I don't have them. Choice and markets can be involved here. If I get a brain tumor, I either get it removed, or I die. You really think the surgery to remove the tumor should be available only to those who can pay and the rest should be left to die?

Libertarians do believe in government involvement in some elements of society, largely those that I named.  You may be confusing libertarians with anarchocapitalists. 

I started out in this thread saying that I thought it was a close question and that reasonable minds could differ.  I still think that.

It isn't an issue of denying treatment.  It is an issue of paying for treatment.  If there is emergency treatment that needs to be administered, it is administered.  If the person can't afford it and doesn't have insurance, then the hospital will get a judgment against them and try to collect.  Maybe the person will go bankrupt. 

As for being material, what else is it?  Other things that are necessary for a healthy life, like water, food, shelter, etc. are all treated as material, and the consumer pays for them. 

Health care should also be in this camp, as the market has demonstrated that it cannot provide a hogging quality infrastructure to the entire populace at reasonable costs.

Well said.

Private health has proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that it is incapable of restraining costs. Every other developed country has abandoned this system precisely for this reason.

Opponents love to stir up fears of potential government inefficiency in these programs, it's really all they have... Fear. The truth is that we have long term, real-world data on public health insurance from Medicare and the various foreign models. The public models all outperform our private one. This isn't a theory; this is proven fact with hard numbers.

Ahh once again the propaganda using stats that they dont really know about. We collect mortality data different from the rest of the of the world. Only in the US do we include premature births in our death stats. Only in the US do we inlcude death for accidents and murders. This is why our stats look worst then the rest of the world.

If we kept the mortality stats the same as the rest of the world we would be far and away the longest lived and have the best medical care in the world by a very long ways.

Thse mortality stats are used by the liberals as part of their propaganda to try to get goverment control of healthcare.

As a scary note..the medicare life expecdencys are always ten years out of date. People are living around 10 years longer then the medicare data says. SSI and Medicare are in much deeper trouble then is stated by the goverment.

It isn't an issue of denying treatment.  It is an issue of paying for treatment.  If there is emergency treatment that needs to be administered, it is administered.  If the person can't afford it and doesn't have insurance, then the hospital will get a judgment against them and try to collect.  Maybe the person will go bankrupt. 

As for being material, what else is it?  Other things that are necessary for a healthy life, like water, food, shelter, etc. are all treated as material, and the consumer pays for them. 

Request for payment is denial. If I am so destitute that I have no food, I can get welfare. I can line up outside soup kitchen. I can check into a homeless shelter. If I can work, I can get a job that pays for these things. If I need surgery to remove a tumor and the insurance bill is hundreds of thousands of dollars......... then i have no options, even, in many cases, if I have a job. It's die or....... die.

What about children? Who pays for their care? What if they're orphans?
What about vaccines?
What about pregnancy? If you have a job and can afford diapers and formula, but can't pay tens of thousands of dollars for prenatal care or even birth in a hospital..... should you not be allowed to have kids? Or should you squeeze your baby out at home with some hot towels and tylenol?

Only in the US do we include premature births in our death stats. Only in the US do we inlcude death for accidents and murders.

So how did you come to believe this?

This is ridiculous, once an insurance company is treating someone for a disease they cant drop them, that is against the law in every state.

What you are saying is that due to his MS he can not work, that has nothing to do with health insurance.

Please make up your mind.

I do understand your confusion though. What is happening is that the real world is conflicting with the claims of the industry propaganda that you read.

Are you saying that thier is no such thing as long term disablitiy insurnace? No such thing as workers comp?
Your buddy was a responsible adult and had terrible luck with his genes. Because he was employeed there is life time money and health coverage for him, all he has to do is apply for it.
People loke him are not the issue.

Ahh once again the propaganda using stats that they dont really know about. We collect mortality data...

Who said mortility data? It certainly wasn't me.

I was talking about cost and quality of health care. Read it and weep

And please do read it.

BTW, since you brought up mortality rates, you might find pages 53 (deaths from medical errors by country) and 54(infant mortality by country) thoroughly edifying.

This is why our stats look worst then the rest of the world.

umm...actually no...look at the CRS report, or CRS Report RL32792, Life Expectancy in the United States

unless that was liberal propaganda of course.

Ahh once again the propaganda using stats that they dont really know about. We collect mortality data...

Who said mortility data? It certainly wasn't me.

I was talking about cost and quality of health care. Read it and weep

And please do read it.

BTW, since you brought up mortality rates, you might find pages 53 (deaths from medical errors by country) and 54(infant mortality by country) thoroughly edifying.

Living in a world that does cutting edge science every day, its nice having a smart wife,
i read such documents very carefully knowin what to look for to see if they are accurate or biased. On page 42 dealign with the cost of defensive medicene..The report states that one groups say 9% of cost another say no added costs. When you see bullshit like this is a report you stop reading and toss it. In the pages i read it also stated that the cost of obisety is the single higest medical cost in the US now and we far our distance the rest of the world in obese people and the problems this creates.
Also no metion of the people of mexico coming across the border and getting free healthcare.

Only in the US do we include premature births in our death stats. Only in the US do we inlcude death for accidents and murders.

So how did you come to believe this?

My wife works with life talbes all the time. She is called as a expert do a life expendecy on someone who has been killed or injured so the laywers can figure out a settlement.

Each life insurnace company has thier own life talbes that they use to determine how long someone will live so they can price their life insurance policys. If the medicare talbes where accurate they would not go to such great expense to have their own life tables.
The difference in the data between a life insurances companys mortality and the medicare mortality is huge. For example my wife is presenting tonight to a group of west coast life insurnace underwriters on the excess mortality of people who test postivie for Cocaine at the time they apply for life insurnace. ( how much does Cocaine shorten their lives) This is brand new research that no one has ever done and stuff like this is never part of the medicare life tables. But every life insurnace company pays big money for this kind of data.

I think we encounter a problem when we put our faith in markets with regard to health care.

For profit insurance companies really do deliver, but they deliver for shareholders and corporate execs. That is the nature of corporations. It's not evil, just capitalism.

Pharmaceutical companies really do deliver some amazing products, but they make money when we're ill. When we're well, they don't. They're not evil, just capitalists.

Insurance companies and pharmaceutical companies spend massive amounts of money on lobbying efforts to ensure their continuing profitability. Your voice, and your needs may be drowned out by their political clout. It's not democracy, just capitalism.

It amazes me how many people defend so vehemently their right to make a profit, even when our costs are so incredibly high. Perhaps making money in the insurance and pharmaceutical business is incompatible with affordable, accessible health care for all. I think we get wedded to the idea that our system is American, and therefore better. In doing so, we lose our ability to look at things objectively.

Put it this way: there are some functions of government that we consider so very important that we don't trust the free market: national defense, police and fire, our justice system, for example.

I see national health care as belonging in this category, leaving plenty of room for competition among care providers- those who help us get well.