I pit easy Libertarian thinking

The BBQ Pit
81

Working backwards through your post:

Medicaid is a piss poor solution to a very serious problem. And it’s presence prevents both a private/charitable solution as well as a viable public solution. The “money” for medicaid is there, but currently the government forcibly takes it and chooses how to administer it. Frankly, I don’t like the way they administer it, since it continues to fail to provide what it sets out to accomplish (ie people falling through cracks). But once in place, with people depending on it, and no alternative (charity), it’s next to impossible to adjust.

As I said in GD, Canada’s system is the opposite of libertarian, since it prevents people from buying their own health care. The result is our famous wait times. So if you wanted to compare people falling through cracks, you could take a procedure and say, “in Canada, how many die while waiting :: in the US how many die due to lack of access/funds”

That’s unlikely. What’s more likely is that they would trim them down to what each can actually do effectively, and without unnecessary limits on personal freedom. It would also ask if government actually needs to be involved, is it possible to set up social safety nets in any other manner?

That’s right, and you’re more of one than you realize.

If you have proof you’re welcome to show it. “The government” does very little to help the hungry, as evident by the huge number of people relying on private charities like The Food Bank, Second Harvest, and Salvation Army to name just three. You brought up United Way and I had forgotten about them, as well as Catholic Charities. I spent the past 6 years feeding the hungry through a private organization. If the government was doing anything about “the hungry” why would there be so many of those non profits?

At this point, any facts, magical or otherwise, would be a start.

82

I’m not sure how many times I have to answer your question. Perhaps this is a problem in differences between how we define libertarian. Give me an example of a country that you consider to be governed by libertarian principles and it will be easier for me to see what you mean.

Like I said, 50 million. Not having insurance and having to rely largely on emergency rooms for your medical care is slipping through the cracks.

That’s not even close to enough to handle the almost 40 million people in America that are on food stamps.

I already have.

Private charities simply aren’t large enough to handle the need and they never will be. Charity suffers from a freerider problem and this market failure results in a chronic shortage of charity, in fact, isn’t that one of the arguments for why charitable giving will increase if the government pulls out?

“I am distressed by the sight of poverty; I am benefited by its alleviation; but I am benefited equally whether I or someone else pays for its exclusion.” - Milton Friedman

Charitable giving also drops during times of economic hardship, which is also about the time when charitable needs rise.

83

Huh? I’m not sure what you mean.

OOOOHHHH, You’re Canadian!!!

Heres the thing. Not everyone is prevented from buying private health care in Canada:

“About 27.6% of Canadians’ health care is paid for through the private sector. This mostly goes towards services not covered or only partially covered by Medicare, such as prescription drugs, dentistry and optometry. Some 75% of Canadians have some form of supplementary private health insurance; many of them receive it through their employers.[37] There are also large private entities that can buy priority access to medical services in Canada, such as WCB in BC.”

" In June 2005, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled in Chaoulli v. Quebec (Attorney General) that Quebec’s prohibition against private health insurance for medically necessary services laws violated the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms, potentially opening the door to much more private sector participation in the health system. Justices Beverley McLachlin, Jack Major, Michel Bastarache and Marie Deschamps found for the majority. “Access to a waiting list is not access to health care”"

You do realize that there is middle ground between the American system we have now and a system that prohibits private health care. I don’t think anyone during the health care debate in America suggested that we eliminate your ability to spend lots and lots of money on health care to get faster or better health care.

As things stand, America spends about TWICE as much per capita on health care and we have lower life expectancies, higher infant mortalities, spend a greater percentage of our revenues, and all the while our government STILL pays for 45% of all health care costs while the Canadian government pays for 67% (and their 67% is STILL cheaper than our 45% on a per capita basis).

Then you have a very personal interpretation of libertarian.

Its been said before but here it is again: There is a lot about libertarian philosophy that is good and original but the good parts aren’t new and the original parts aren’t good. The fact that I agree where libertarian philosophy coincides with plain old regular economics doesn’t make me any more libertarian than believing in God makes me a mormon.

Like I said, 40 million people on food stamps. How many people do you think these food banks feed? Where do you think they get most of their funding?

You seem impervious to facts.

84

No, you have a very narrow and flawed version that you can’t let go of. Maybe a libertarian touched you in a naughty part when you were a kid, I don’t know, but you’ve got this irrational fear that boarders on obsessive.

har har har If only witty quips counted for something in this world.

For some reason you think libertarians is a dogma that people must ascribe to like Catholics to the pope. Remember what you just said there, believing in God doesn’t make you a Mormon. And saying you’re a Mormon on tv may not mean you believe in god.

I think you’ll find most people on food stamps are also using local food banks, why? Because the government isn’t up to the task of feeding people, it requires private charities to pick up the slack and keep people from falling through the cracks. As to funding, it sure as hell isn’t coming from the government any more, especially in Minnesota. Following the cut backs during the Bush administration the private charities I knew made the decision to minimize dependence on government funding and rely on corporate donations. You do know that big evil corporations donate to charity right? Probably more than they pay in taxes.

I’m still waiting for some, but you certainly have no shortage of opinions.

85

So what you’re saying is that in 25% of Canadians have fallen through the cracks? That was your definition right? Your statement was that 16% (50 million) in the US don’t have it.

Like I said, the Canadian system is the exact opposite of a libertarian system. The government prevented freedom, in order to keep people from falling through the cracks.

What you’d need to see is the state of health care in Canada during the 90s. Like I said, government programs are NEVER funded enough, it’s not possible, it always needs more money. As a result wait lists got longer and longer. Specialty care got worse and worse.

So what does it matter if everyone is technically “insured” if they still can’t get treatment? Even now there is a critical shortage of primary care physicians, but the system is centered around your family doctor. You go their first before getting a referral to a specialist. And health care in rural and Northern areas (which is most of Canada) is pretty weak. I’m sure they’re glad to know that by your definition they haven’t fallen through the cracks.

If at the end of the day a person in the US and a person in Canada doesn’t have access to health care, they have both fallen through the cracks. In the US it’s based on money, in Canada it’s based on time.

86

Here’s the other example: Analysis of deaths while waiting for cardiac surgery among 29,293 consecutive patients in Ontario, Canada. The Steering Committee of the Cardiac Care Network of Ontario.

*CONCLUSIONS:

Patients waiting for valve surgery have a higher risk of death than patients waiting for isolated CABG. Guidelines to promote safer and fairer queuing for non-CABG cardiac surgery are needed. Shorter waiting lists, better compliance with existing guidelines, and guideline revisions to upgrade patients with left ventricular dysfunction could generate additional reductions in the already low risk of death for patients waiting for isolated CABG.*

87

You have a very narrow and misguided definition of libertarianism, which usually hinges around “something conservatives do that’s bad is libertarian.”

If you want a comparison, look at Canada vs the US:

See that dip in the 90s? During that time the Liberal Party slashed spending across the board while holding taxes steady, eventually balancing the budget. During that time health care took a nose dive and a lot of people, while technically with health insurance, fell through the cracks. A lot of the social services were scaled way back. Point here is that during that time the government shrunk.

Meanwhile, in the US, the government was heavily involved in the mortgage industry. Both parties desperately wanted more people to have mortgages. Part of that was degregulation, but more of it was government involvement such as Freddie and Fanny, FHA backed loans (required 5% down!), offering mortgage tax deductions, and pushing banks to make loans to low income minorities. The results look great, GDP soared. Canada didn’t have any of that, the government wasn’t involved in the mortgage industry. We had our 6 banks and they held the mortgages they issues. Our banks had regulations, but instead of being massive piles of bureaucracy they were simple, clear, and straight forward; amounting to as little as requiring down-payments, and requiring banks to hold sufficient capitalization.

What you’ll see is that the Canadian government switched to a libertarian philosophy that involved a balanced budget, and less spending, without feeling the need to ‘tax the rich.’ While this was going on SSM was allowed, and enforcement of small amounts of pot was reduced. The 70s and 80s were a time of heavy government involvement and deficit spending, taxes had to keep going up, a national sales tax was required, and the deficit kept going up.

But look at the results. Shrinking government drastically slowed GDP growth. It was a hard time in Canada and many were crying for more spending, and more government involvement. People looked to the US and wanted the hot housing market, they wanted to “flip houses.”

Now look in the 2000’s, the Canadian economy was able to take off on solid footing. It wasn’t dependent on government spending and involvement. So when the recession hit Canada got hit hard being so dependent on the US. But the government had a balanced budget, and our banks were solid. Suddenly for the first time ever our unemployment rate was below that of the US, GDP growth is back on track, and the budget will be balanced again in a couple of years.

88

Did you know Canada doesn’t have an equivalent food stamp program? The problem of hunger is dealt with through an organization called Food Banks Canada.

89

I find this intriguing. Do you have any data on how many people get fed? I’d love to believe a charity-only solution to hunger was workable. But it does not accord with my experience, at least with smaller amounts. In order to get people to give to charity, we constantly have to give them something. We have to give them tax deductions. We have to say it’s the Lord’s work. We have to sell stuff.

And, despite the current tax rate, the big corporations still give to charity, which means there’s more money going to the poor. The only way I can see a charity solution work is if it is more efficient. But, even then, I’d think having the government give to that charity would then work even better.

90

I can’t, I have not eaten them.

91

You’re a selfish asshole.

92

Bizcons who write checks to the Cato Institute while laughing at them would fall under the former category, I suppose.

93

Hey me too! Everyone should be able to listen to the Eagles! They rock!