# I pit easy Libertarian thinking **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [June 22, 2011, 3:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-easy-libertarian-thinking/586376 "2011-06-22T03:02:05Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![sqweels](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/f19dbf/32.png) [@sqweels](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sqweels)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2011, 11:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-easy-libertarian-thinking/586376/61 "2011-06-28T23:11:57Z")
> [@Starving\_Artist](#): > > I have no problem with taxes to pay for intrastructure, defense and to assist those who are truly disabled. I am opposed to a general governmental policy of taking money from those who have it and giving it to those who don’t. I regard the public school system as infrastructure (how would you regard vouchers?). The thing is, I would also regard the health care system as infrastructure. Hell, maybe even _defense!_ ---
**Author:** ![emacknight](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/3ec8ea/32.png) [@emacknight](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/emacknight)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2011, 11:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-easy-libertarian-thinking/586376/62 "2011-06-28T23:28:47Z")
> [@sqweels](#): > > I regard the public school system as infrastructure (how would you regard vouchers?). The thing is, I would also regard the health care system as infrastructure. > > Hell, maybe even _defense!_ Is there anything currently in the federal or state budget that you don’t see as infrastructure? Something that might be considered wasteful or unnecessary? And if you get a chance I’d love an answer to post 58. ---
**Author:** ![foolsguinea](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/foolsguinea/32/14751_2.png) [@foolsguinea](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/foolsguinea)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2011, 12:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-easy-libertarian-thinking/586376/63 "2011-06-29T00:12:31Z")
> [@emacknight](#): > > Yes, that was the question I asked, do you have an answer for it? I suppose you are defining the US medical system as libertarian and the European medical system as the opposite. Even though neither is true. > > So does anyone have an answer? How many fall through the cracks in the “European system” vs the “American system?” There isn’t a single “European system” so let’s use the “British system” to compare. What Yanks call emergency rooms are part of “Casualty.” Free of charge in the UK, priced at a premium in the USA. Britain’s system, being state-managed & state-funded, has its share of niggling regulations, and some poor people with chronic or disabling conditions fall through the cracks. In the US system, being only partly state-managed & state-funded, there are still cracks, which even swallow people without chronic or disabling conditions due to financial issue; & sometimes care for the poor involves running around from one potential donor to another. Really, we talked about this a lot two years ago. It seemed like the anti-socialized medicine crowd couldn’t decide between predicting cost overruns or loss of income due to excessive efficiencies. ---
**Author:** ![emacknight](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/3ec8ea/32.png) [@emacknight](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/emacknight)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2011, 1:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-easy-libertarian-thinking/586376/64 "2011-06-29T01:22:50Z")
> [@foolsguinea](#): > > There isn’t a single “European system” so let’s use the “British system” to compare. > > What Yanks call emergency rooms are part of “Casualty.” Free of charge in the UK, priced at a premium in the USA. > > Britain’s system, being state-managed & state-funded, has its share of niggling regulations, and some poor people with chronic or disabling conditions fall through the cracks. In the US system, being only partly state-managed & state-funded, there are still cracks, which even swallow people without chronic or disabling conditions due to financial issue; & sometimes care for the poor involves running around from one potential donor to another. > > Really, we talked about this a lot two years ago. It seemed like the anti-socialized medicine crowd couldn’t decide between predicting cost overruns or loss of income due to excessive efficiencies. I see lots of words but no numbers. How many fall through the cracks in the socialized system, and how many fall through the cracks in the libertarian system? That was the comment made. > [@Damuri Ajashi](#): > > At BEST it makes things better for most people at the cost of letting others slip through the cracks. > [@sqweels](#): > > How many people in Europe are slipping through the cracks on health care compared to how many Americans are, or indeed would be if libertarians really their way? So what is the answer? How many are slipping through in “Europe” (or even in the UK) vs the US? ---
**Author:** ![foolsguinea](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/foolsguinea/32/14751_2.png) [@foolsguinea](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/foolsguinea)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2011, 5:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-easy-libertarian-thinking/586376/65 "2011-06-29T05:26:43Z")
Well, technically, the “cracks” we have in America aren’t found in the UK. England’s public system has been means-tested, so it was possible as recently as 2008 to stop qualifying _by using your savings to pay for additional care._ :eek: There was a change in policy in England a couple years ago to allow patients to purchase expensive non-covered drugs with their own money without losing access to state-funded care. That seems to have closed one “crack.” > **[Latest news & breaking headlines](https://www.thetimes.com/)** > > The latest breaking UK, US, world, business and sport news from The Times and The Sunday Times. Go beyond today's headlines with in-depth analysis and comment. Scotland’s system is universal. Not sure about the other two nations. But in all the national systems, the state tries to cover what a doctor considers necessary care. I’m not sure what all is happening to NHS in the present Cameron “austerity” régime. As for patient satisfaction (pre-Cameron), I’ll give you this: > **[Healthcare in England](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthcare_in_England#Experiences.2C_perceptions_and_reporting_of_the_NHS)** > > Healthcare in England is mainly provided by the National Health Service (NHS), a public body that provides healthcare to all permanent residents in England, that is free at the point of use. > The body is one of four forming the UK National Health Service, as health is a devolved matter; there are differences with the provisions for healthcare elsewhere in the United Kingdom, and in England it is overseen by NHS England. Though the public system dominates healthcare provision in England, priva... > [@](#): > > Experiences, perceptions and reporting of the NHS > Although the NHS has a high level of popular public support within the country, the national press is often highly critical of it and this may have affected perceptions of the service within the country as a whole and outside. An independent survey conducted in 2004 found that users of the NHS often expressed very high levels satisfaction about their personal experience of the medical services they received. Of hospital inpatients, 92% said they were satisfied with their treatment; 87% of GP users were satisfied with their GP; 87% of hospital outpatients were satisfied with the service they received; and 70% of Accident and Emergency department users reported being satisfied.[12] But when asked whether they agreed with the question "My local NHS is providing me with a good service” only 67% of those surveyed agreed with it, and only 51% agreed with the statement “The NHS is providing a good service.[12] The reason for this disparity between personal experience and overall perceptions is not clear. Similarly the survey also showed that net satisfaction with NHS services (the number reporting satisfied less those reporting dissatisfied) was generally higher amongst NHS services users than for all respondents (users as well as non-users). Where more people had no recent experience of that service, the difference in net positive perception reported by users compared to non users was more likely to diverge. For example, the least used service surveyed was walk in centres (only 15% of all persons surveyed had actually used an NHS Walk in clinic in the last year) but 85% of walk in clinic users were satisfied with the service they received. Users’ net positive satisfaction was 80%. However, for all respondents (including non recent users) the overall net positive satisfaction was just 25%. The service with the highest rate of use was the GP service (77% having seen their GP in the last year) and the difference in net satisfaction between users and all users was the smallest (76% and 74% net satisfied respectively) [12] It is also apparent from the survey that most people realize that the national press is generally critical of the service (64% reporting it as being critical compared to just 13% saying the national press is favourable), and also that the national press is the least reliable source of information (50% reporting it to be not very or not at all reliable, compared to 36% believing the press was reliable).[12] Newspapers were reported as being less favourable and also less reliable than the broadcast media. The most reliable sources of information were considered to be leaflets from GPs and information from friends (both 77% reported as reliable) and medical professionals (75% considered reliable).[12] > Most people think that the NHS is well run, with 73% of people reporting that they are satisfied with the running of the service and only a little over 10% reporting themselves as dissatisfied.[13] ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2011, 3:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-easy-libertarian-thinking/586376/66 "2011-06-29T15:52:40Z")
> [@emacknight](#): > > And how does that compare to the not-libertarian system? > > How many people currently slip through the cracks, and how many MORE would slip through if libertarians got their way? > > And why the assumption that libertarians have no sense of charity? Non-libertarian system have better regulations and social protections in place. Many more people would slip through the cracks. I don’t assume that libertarians have no sense of charity, but history tells me that charity has never been up to the task of feeding the hungry or regulating the pharmaceutical industry. The notion that charity would step in where government stepped out but in MUCH better ways because people would police their charitable dollars better than governments program dollars has proven to be untrue. ---
**Author:** ![Rand\_Rover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/db5fbb/32.png) [@Rand\_Rover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rand_Rover)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2011, 4:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-easy-libertarian-thinking/586376/67 "2011-06-29T16:55:55Z")
And what is that proof? ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2011, 5:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-easy-libertarian-thinking/586376/68 "2011-06-29T17:25:40Z")
> [@Rand\_Rover](#): > > Right, because “let’s just create a new government program to fix anything I think is a problem” is such a mature, sophisticated, and realistic position. That is a caricature that is every bit as bad as some of the caricatures of the libertarian position. There are some things that the government can simply do better than the private sector. Primary among them is carrying out public policy. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2011, 5:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-easy-libertarian-thinking/586376/69 "2011-06-29T17:28:54Z")
> [@Starving\_Artist](#): > > This attitude never ceases to amaze me: “I want what you have, and if you won’t give it to me then you’re a selfish asshole!” > > Somehow I’m not viewing the person with money as the selfish one in this exchange. > > Secondarily, I think the attitude of most people whose pocketbooks the left wants to raid is more along the lines of “I’ve got mine, you need to get yours too”, rather than anything with “Fuck you, I couldn’t care less about you/I want to see you suffer” in it. I realize that such demonization is part and parcel of the liberal political arsenal, but it’s highly dishonest just the same. That is a gross caricature of the criticism of conservative libertarians. ---
**Author:** ![Bosstone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/22d042/32.png) [@Bosstone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bosstone)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2011, 5:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-easy-libertarian-thinking/586376/70 "2011-06-29T17:38:41Z")
> [@emacknight](#): > > Is there anything currently in the federal or state budget that you don’t see as infrastructure? Infrastructure is that which enables citizens to be productive in whichever way they choose. This includes: Transit systems (to get to work) Education (to know how to work) Healthcare/disability (to be healthy enough to work) Unemployment (to be able to return to work as quickly as possible) Patents/Copyright (to protect the fruits of one’s work) Police (to keep internal threats from allowing one to work) Defense (to keep external threats from allowing one to work) All of these functions suffer from being tied to the work itself, like health insurance. They need to be placed in the federal or state umbrellas to allow citizens the freedom to pursue the work they wish to pursue without coercion by people with profit motives. Of all the main functions the government currently provides, Social Security is arguably the most cuttable, as pensions are effectively rewards for giving the majority of your life over to work, and don’t enable productiveness except as an incentive. But it’s also something nobody’s going to budge on without a perfect transitional plan in place. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2011, 5:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-easy-libertarian-thinking/586376/71 "2011-06-29T17:39:33Z")
> [@furt](#): > > The true anarcho-capitalist types are a distinct minority – and I say that with confidence, as I work in a DC think-tank with libertarian ties. Yeah, but they seem to be getting a lot of airtime and its not because people want to make fun of them, its because so many people seem to agree with them. > [@](#): > > I don’t know any libertarian that would disagree. > > I don’t know any libertarian that would agree. This is verging on true scottsman type arguments. I suppose your point is that most of the people who claim to be libertarianare actually something else but when the same people who fund the CATO institute also fund these borderline anarchists, its easy to see why we might think that their definition of liberatiansim is the functioning definition. > [@](#): > > The question of whether or not public works actually help the economy in the long run (especially given that the money to pay for them must be taken out of the economy, sooner or later) is a hotly debated one among economists. Yeah with the economists from George Mason University on one side and teh rest of the world’s economists on the other. The fact that Austrian school economists disagree with all the rest of the economists in the does mean its a hotly debated topic no matter how passionately the Austrians feel about their position. > [@](#): > > From the Libertarian POV taxing for truly needed public works (of course defining what’s “truly needed” is another issue) is fine. Taxing to build the J.R. McPolitico Memorial Thingmajing because you think you have the magic formula to “create jobs” and “stimulate the economy” is not. Sure we can always identify stupid spending but during a recession, its hard to see how even stupid spending (digging holes and then filling them up again) does provide at least temporary stimulus. After all isn’t that effectively what we did during WWII? > [@](#): > > So the government has just as much claim on rights as people do? Your human rights must be balanced (by whom?) against the equally-valid claims of the state, and equilibrium found? > > :dubious: > > Ok, then. He could also be talking about the rich versus the poor. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2011, 5:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-easy-libertarian-thinking/586376/72 "2011-06-29T17:46:57Z")
> [@Blaster\_Master](#): > > I think this is sort of where the disconnect between libertarians and non-libertarians is. You take it as a given, and that it is entirely right and proper. In general, libertarian thought disputes that. I don’t think most libertarians are opposed to taxation for things that, either the government should do (like defense or courts) or is simply in a better place to do (like roads), nor do I think that most non-libertatians think that taxes should pay for things that the individual should do or is in a better place to do (non-essential items), but there is a huge grey area in the middle and drawing that line is extremely difficult. No matter where that line is drawn, you can’t make everyone happy. > > And the biggest part of drawing that line is how you value certain things. Imagine a situation where you can provide a service relatively cheaply, but some small percentage of people fall through the cracks, or you can provide it to virtually everyone but it’s a lot more expensive. Which solution is better? Either one takes from one segment of society to give to the other. If you favor a best possible service to the most people possible, you might be more inclined to go with the former, and if you favor raising the minimum standard of living you might prefer the latter. The line is not always so blurred. You are not always choosing a cheaper method that lets people fall through teh cracks bversus a more comprehensive system that is more costly and less efficient. Take health care for example. Right now we have a very expensive system that lets people fall through teh cracks and yet libertarians generally oppose the notion of a more universal system that will be cheaper and more efficient purely based on teh fact that the govt is taking on a roel that can be fulfilled by the private sector (no matter how poorly). > [@](#): > > Either way, I don’t think painting such a simplistic idea of society and simply saying this is how it is because this is how it is is a reasonable counter-argument. I think Ogre said, this is how it is because this is how it SHOULD BE. > [@](#): > > Being part of a society doesn’t mean that social contract is set in stone. In fact, I would argue that it is best that it is not and that we ought to continue to negotiate it as society and technology changes. If someone isn’t happy with the society, they should make an honest effort to improve it. Or worsen it. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2011, 5:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-easy-libertarian-thinking/586376/73 "2011-06-29T17:49:48Z")
> [@sqweels](#): > > I regard the public school system as infrastructure (how would you regard vouchers?). The thing is, I would also regard the health care system as infrastructure. > > Hell, maybe even _defense!_ There is a difference between public goods like roads and defense and non-public goods like education. Libertarians (generally speaking) are not offended by govt spending on public goods as much as theya re by spending on non-public goods. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2011, 5:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-easy-libertarian-thinking/586376/74 "2011-06-29T17:53:11Z")
> [@emacknight](#): > > I see lots of words but no numbers. > > How many fall through the cracks in the socialized system, and how many fall through the cracks in the libertarian system? > > That was the comment made. > > So what is the answer? How many are slipping through in “Europe” (or even in the UK) vs the US? It depends on what you mean by slipping through teh cracks. If you are asking how many people die on the emergency room steps in each system for lack of care the answer is none in either system. If your question is who has access to health care in each of teh systems then teh answer is that about 50 million Americans slip through teh cracks while almost no Europeans do. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2011, 5:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-easy-libertarian-thinking/586376/75 "2011-06-29T17:56:05Z")
> [@Rand\_Rover](#): > > And what is that proof? Public education. Feeding the hungry. Unemployment insurance. These are a few areas where charity is not able to approach filling the needs of a society. ---
**Author:** ![foolsguinea](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/foolsguinea/32/14751_2.png) [@foolsguinea](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/foolsguinea)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2011, 8:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-easy-libertarian-thinking/586376/76 "2011-06-29T20:06:40Z")
> [@furt](#): > > So the government has just as much claim on rights as people do? Your human rights must be balanced (by whom?) against the equally-valid claims of the state, and equilibrium found? > > :dubious: > > Ok, then. > [@foolsguinea](#): > > I don’t think that’s what I said. What I mean is more like this: Which is more important to personal liberty?[ul] [li]The freedom of employers to deliver part of their employee compensation in medical benefits;[/li][li]the freedom of employees to be paid in more generally useful money;[/li][li]or the ability of a citizen to leave his job without losing an existing health insurance contract?[/li][/ul]Maybe the second, or the first? What if the question is utilitarian: Which is most useful to personal liberty? Possibly the third! The first puts liberty in employers’ hands, the second and the third put liberty in employees’ hands, & the third allows more personal security–which can be liberating in a different way. Or there’s this: Is it more libertarian to allow businesses to refuse service to would-be customers, or to guarantee would-be customers access to business? The legal minimalist says the first, the civil libertarian may believe it’s the second. But it’s a question of whether liberty belongs to property holders and managers, or to citizens as potential consumers–supply-side liberty for the fewer or demand-side liberty for the many. The Civil Rights Act increased liberty on the customer side. A similar argument applies to the employer/employee relationship. In a choice between liberties, or a choice between rights, surely we should choose the path which serves the general populace over a privileged class. Modern liberalism derived this principle from libertarian concerns; modern minimalist “libertarians” miss the point. ---
**Author:** ![emacknight](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/3ec8ea/32.png) [@emacknight](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/emacknight)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2011, 11:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-easy-libertarian-thinking/586376/77 "2011-06-29T23:24:00Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > It depends on what you mean by slipping through teh cracks. No you illiterate buffoon, you were the one that made the statement about slipping through cracks. > [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > At BEST it makes things better for most people at the cost of letting others slip through the cracks. Why would you use an expression that you didn’t know the meaning of? Then you did it again: > [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > Many more people would slip through the cracks. So that’s twice now that you’ve claimed more people would slip through the cracks. I don’t mean to be crass, but it’s time to shit or get off the can. And by that I mean it’s time to prove your assertions. I’ve asked a few times now, and I’ll ask again, how many more will slip through the cracks? > [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > If you are asking how many people die on the emergency room steps in each system for lack of care the answer is none in either system. If your question is who has access to health care in each of teh systems then teh answer is that about 50 million Americans slip through teh cracks while almost no Europeans do. Bullshit, flat out bullshit. Everyone in the US has access to health care, the 50million you so dishonestly reported is the number that do not currently have health insurance, a big fucking difference. And not because they can’t have it, many of those 50million CHOOSE not to. But what you and the rest of the geniuses in this thread failed to realize is that the US health care system isn’t a total cluster fuck because of libertarian beliefs. It is a complete and total cluster fuck because “the government” put in wage controls to try and fight inflation. The shocking result was that employers began offering health insurance as a non-wage compensation. Now when people “fall through the cracks” it’s the direct result of government intervention. So now what you’re claiming is that we need a government program to solve the mess created by the last time the government tried to help out. Maybe stop helping. > [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > Non-libertarian system have better regulations and social protections in place. Bullshit, prove it. > [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > I don’t assume that libertarians have no sense of charity, but history tells me that charity has never been up to the task of feeding the hungry or regulating the pharmaceutical industry. As far as “feeding the hungry” goes, the government has failed. I just spent 6 years with a private non-profit that fed people with chronic illness that the government didn’t give a shit about, but evil corporations were happy to make sizable donations. The Salvation Army is a another NGO, and you’ll be shocked to find that those “feeding the hungry” are not government but rather private and religious organizations. The best the government has come up with that fucked up SNAP system that amounts to less than $4 per day, meaning that when the government helps “the hungry” they tend to remain hungry. > [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > The notion that charity would step in where government stepped out but in MUCH better ways because people would police their charitable dollars better than governments program dollars has proven to be untrue. Where is this magical proof? ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2011, 8:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-easy-libertarian-thinking/586376/78 "2011-06-30T20:55:53Z")
> [@Starving\_Artist](#): > > I have no problem with taxes to pay for intrastructure, defense and to assist those who are truly disabled. I am opposed to a general governmental policy of taking money from those who have it and giving it to those who don’t. And to the extent it does happen, those to whom it is given should be expressing gratitude and thanks rather than “If you don’t give me more, you’re a selfish asshole!” This seems to be tapping into the same indignation that was stirred by the notion of welfare queens. Are you aware of the welfare reform act of 1996 because this limits total lifetime welfare benefits to 60 months. If you are concerned about transfer payments like social security and medicare then please just say so because the arguments of that debate are already pretty well developed and we don’t need to try to argue against your vague sense of injustice at the “eaters” taking from the “producers” ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2011, 1:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-easy-libertarian-thinking/586376/79 "2011-07-01T01:30:43Z")
> [@emacknight](#): > > No you illiterate buffoon, you were the one that made the statement about slipping through cracks. I’m not sure how that makes me an illiterate buffoon. I’m pretty sure it means you are losing the argument and you don’t like it. > [@](#): > > Why would you use an expression that you didn’t know the meaning of? Then you did it again: I know how I define it, but your posts seem to indicate that you might define it differently. > [@](#): > > So that’s twice now that you’ve claimed more people would slip through the cracks. I don’t mean to be crass, but it’s time to shit or get off the can. And by that I mean it’s time to prove your assertions. I’ve asked a few times now, and I’ll ask again, how many more will slip through the cracks? So about two inches below this, you acknowledge that I answer you and yet you still spout this sort of thing in your post. Why do you do that, does it have something to do with your bizarre take on economics and “risk”? > [@](#): > > Bullshit, flat out bullshit. Everyone in the US has access to health care, the 50million you so dishonestly reported is the number that do not currently have health insurance, a big fucking difference. And not because they can’t have it, many of those 50million CHOOSE not to. This is bullshit, flat out bullshit. Like I said, if you are asking how many people are going to die on the emergency room steps for lack of health care, then the answer is zero (see THIS is why I said “it depends on what you mean by slipping through the cracks”). The working poor don’t choose not to have health insurance any more than they choose to eat and pay rent. They simply cannot afford health care and they do not qualify for medicaid. If in your world “access to healthcare” = access to emergency room or the availability of health insurance that they cannot afford or access to government programs when they are destitute, then we simply have a different definition of what access means. You seem to be satisfied with a level of access that does not amount to meaningful access. > [@](#): > > But what you and the rest of the geniuses in this thread failed to realize is that the US health care system isn’t a total cluster fuck because of libertarian beliefs. I never said it was. I think the opposition to meaningful health care reform was driven by people who espoused libertarian ideals. > [@](#): > > It is a complete and total cluster fuck because “the government” put in wage controls to try and fight inflation. The shocking result was that employers began offering health insurance as a non-wage compensation. Now when people “fall through the cracks” it’s the direct result of government intervention. So now what you’re claiming is that we need a government program to solve the mess created by the last time the government tried to help out. Maybe stop helping. So you think health care coverage was better before employer based health care? Pffft. > [@](#): > > Bullshit, prove it. Libertarians would get rid of the FDA, OSHA, and social safety nets. If you think you are a libertarian and you wouldn’t do any of these things then you might not be as libertarian as you think. > [@](#): > > As far as “feeding the hungry” goes, the government has failed. I just spent 6 years with a private non-profit that fed people with chronic illness that the government didn’t give a shit about, but evil corporations were happy to make sizable donations. The Salvation Army is a another NGO, and you’ll be shocked to find that those “feeding the hungry” are not government but rather private and religious organizations. The best the government has come up with that fucked up SNAP system that amounts to less than $4 per day, meaning that when the government helps “the hungry” they tend to remain hungry. Are you under the impression that people don’t go hungry in America because of private charities? That in the absence of government subsidies and aid, that these private charities would be able to handle even a small slice of the need? Pffft. > [@](#): > > Where is this magical proof? Does the proof have to be magical or can I simply point to the facts. Are you under the impression that waste fraud and abuse is less prevalent at the United Way for example when compared to federal programs? You seem pretty critical of the food stamp program (SNAP) How much do you think it costs to administer the food stamp program compared to how much is disbursed? How well do you think this stacks up against private food charities? SNAP might average $4 but the benefit is scaled so that people who actually only get $4 a day are supposed to be using SNAP to supplement their food budget. A family of four can get up to $700/month? How well do you think private charities would be able to absorb the extra traffic if medicaid disappeared? ---
**Author:** ![emacknight](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/3ec8ea/32.png) [@emacknight](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/emacknight)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2011, 1:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-easy-libertarian-thinking/586376/80 "2011-07-01T01:54:03Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > Non-libertarian system have better regulations and social protections in place. For example? > [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > Many more people would slip through the cracks. Again I’ll ask: how many more? What proof do you have? > [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > I don’t assume that libertarians have no sense of charity, but history tells me that charity has never been up to the task of feeding the hungry or regulating the pharmaceutical industry. The Food Bank, Second Harvest, and Salvation Army are all currently feeding the hungry. What is the government doing other than SNAP? In most cases the government contracts through those organizations. > [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > The notion that charity would step in where government stepped out but in MUCH better ways because people would police their charitable dollars better than governments program dollars has proven to be untrue. What proof? Show’m if you’ve got’m. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-easy-libertarian-thinking/586376.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-easy-libertarian-thinking/586376.md?page=5)