Yeah, doctors CAN reject patients for any reason. Thats why there would be so many choices. By the way your doctor probably rejected you because of the hassle he had to go through dealing with your insurance company. Doctors accepting out of pocket money for their services are likely to accept more people.
I don’t understand what your point is here. I assume you got a decent education?
As a rule, I disagree. I guess people who are dirt poor and have virtually no money will have trouble finding care. But in general, if there is a need it will be met by some entrepreneur. The prices for services will be what the “market” (meaning the segment of society being served) can bear. No more.
Plus, there will be doctors who choose to treat people for free. There will be charity hospitals. The emergency room will never turn anyone away who is dieing.
If we turn health care over to the government, it prevents the market from functioning and limits options. Everyone is charged the maximum because nobody cares about the cost if the government is paying. The government cannot actually take care of all these people so some just do without. That is the situation today. Many more would be taken care of in a free market.
Tax the rich; cutting taxes on the rich and trying to make everyone else carry them is much of the problem. And no, the gold standard is a bad idea for reasons which have been stated before.
No, I think that some things are better done by the government; not all, or even most.
I never said or even implied that; you are projecting your absolutism onto others. No one here is saying that government is always better, just that government is sometimes better.
I have no interest in eating grass to stave off starvation Great Depression style just to feed your free market fetish.
And to enumerate rights and any number of other things. As for states, we’d be better off with weakened or eliminated states.
Because the market is amoral at best, and uncontrolled creates as many problems as it solves. And for many problems it is grossly inferior to the government. And an uncontrolled market is anti-freedom; it naturally turns into economic feudalism.
They have a good record for some things, not for others.
It would be both more desirable and cheaper than our free market fetish version of health care. Health care is not something that the free market does well.
Fewer than ours; they get better care for less money.
Since I was never a fan of Obama or his bill that’s irrelevant. We need actual UHC, not some sellout to the industry.
Austrian theory, as has been repeatedly point out is fringe garbage. not worth studying. As for supply and demand, that and related economic ideas are not concepts that work well with health care.
No, it doesn’t. Nor is that always desirable when the cost is lowered by providing garbage or other abuses.
Garbage. People were left to die in the street, or abused horribly. You were often better off staying home and hoping for the best, quality of care was so bad. And, all over the world we see other countries prove your assertions about government health care wrong.
When the best way to make a profit is to do a bad job, then yes removing the profit motive is a good idea.
No one is saying that.
In a free market, the wealthy are kings; consumers are resources. Like so much coal or gasoline; something to be burned to fuel profits.
Not without the government. Without the government, you work for you are told, buy what you are told, do what you are told. Or you die. Just like the good old days you want to bring back.
You have never lived in an era where a libertarian philosophy has actually been tried. You are claiming it would never work without proof. I believe that if the people decided they wanted a libertarian government and demanded it, our society would be in much better shape than it is today.
By the way, it seems in your world anybody who actually believes in anything is a “wackjob”. How ridiculous is that? The “moderates” are people you believe nothing and are bought and paid for by big oil, big pharma or some other interest group. You want to place your faith in these kinds of people?
As a general rule, what is wrong with debating among the various political ideologies, determining the best system of government and pursuing it all the way? Even if they don’t work out that way we should strive to get closest to liberty as possible. Then if we fall short, we fall short. But to believe in nothing is to give in the the special interests and simply allow our country to go down the drains.
Who are your favorite politicians? You think true libertarians like Ron Paul are nutjobs, true Progressives like Nader and Kucicich are nutjobs, and I assume you think true Conservatives like Jim DeMint are nutjobs as well? I am curious to see who you like as a politician.
Why would you want to support a law that goes against Libertarian principles? Being able to go where one can make a living seems to me to be the most basic civil liberty one can have. Unless in this Libertarian utopia, brown people aren’t really afforded the same liberties as white people. Of course, that is perfectly fine in Libertaria as well as long as the government isn’t doing it. Yet they are with these laws you want enforced! Puzzling…
No, actually it’s not puzzling. It’s more rhetoric from so-called Libertarians who actually just suck the teat of typical right wing ideaology for sustinance. They don’t need to be consistant, they are perfectly willing to ignore the parts of Libertarianism that doesn’t advance their true goals.
I have seen it in this thread, I have seen it from both Pauls and I know I will continue to see it from a Republican Party that has more problems deciding what direction it wants to go and what leaders to follow every day.
I think you’re missing the point. You said, “You think a private doctor would reject any sick patient? Not only are doctors looking to stay in business, but they are looking to gain a reputation for a leg up on their competitors.” In my doctor’s rejection of me, he rejected a relationship with an established patient, where the ONLY issue was, as you put it, the hassle of dealing with my insurance company. He could have chosen to deal with the insurance company, or he could have proposed a reduced fee structure when I told him I couldn’t afford to pay. Instead he chose to terminate our relationship.
My point is that my decent education would cost $8,600, and for that money the school doesn’t accept special education/special needs students. Your solution would be to give everyone a voucher. Here’s what I predict will happen.
A number of unqualified or downright crooked schools will pop up overnight. Then people will complain that THEIR tax dollars are going to subsidize these crooks. There are only two possible solutions: regulate the schools (which I’m sure you’d oppose) or end the voucher program and cut everyone’s taxes accordingly.
There will be some areas which the market won’t serve. Setting aside race for a moment, let’s look at rural areas. If the marketplace decides there aren’t enough students in a service area, then no school gets built.
It’s the same reason the government mandates universal service for the Postal Service, the same reason Rural Electrification came about and the same reason government set up regulated monopolies for universal telephone service. Without government intervention there would simply be no service, period.
Let’s consider the situation of an area with two hospitals. One takes charity/low-income cases, the other doesn’t. The one that only takes paying patients has a much smaller patient base, but all those patients pay their bills. The one that takes charity has many more patients, which means they need a bigger facility with higher fixed costs. Because the charity patients can’t pay, the hospital has to spread its costs among the paying patients. That forces their costs up, which drive more paying patients to the other hospital. Under your scenario there should be some foundation that steps in to subsidize the nice hospital that does charitable work. If not, the hospital closes.
Why would hospital A take on the burden of serving the low-income segment unless hospital B also took on that burden? What does the marketplace do if neither A nor B choose to take on that burden?
“Some entrepreneur” who may or may not have graduated from an accredited medical school, who may or may not have achieved the minimal standards necessary for certification, who may or may not sterilize surgical instruments?
Why do you think that, and what evidence do you have to support your opinion? Why do you think emergency rooms don’t currently turn away patients? Because there’s a federal law that says they can’t?
If you think government can’t actually take care of its citizens, what logic do you use to conclude that the free market will be able to take care of more citizens than the government? How about a cite to show it’s been tried and succeeded on a society-wide level somewhere in the world.
I fear that you have more faith in your fellow man than I do. Sure, I believe most people are good, or at least they think they are, but there will always be those who need the law, the gubmint, to keep them from “getting crazy”.
“Our” property rights already eroded, and it had nothing to do with civil rights. It was a Supreme Court ruling, that said it was OK for government to “assist” companies in seizing our property (our shops, or our homes) under the guise, the pretense, of eminent domain. I see it as a gross violation of the right to own land, one of our most basic “rights”. I guess it isn’t a right anymore, but a privilege that can be given and taken away. Obviously, I despise that rulling. it puts the corporation above the individual. So, That particular slippery slope is already here, and “civil rights” had not a thing to do with it. So, whenever I hear a corporate suit guy talk about how “they” want less government interference (in the name of free markets and freedom), I have to bite my tongue and try not to gag because I know that interference is just peachy, when it puts money (and OUR land) in THEIR pocket, and the individual be damned. It isn’t some black man wnting to buy a coffee or gasoline for the car that will most likely take away our property, it will be some rich, white suit.
Free market? Freedom? Try Orwell’s “all are equal but some are more equal”. It’s a better match.
States rights are, and always have been, in the Constitution. States can govern themselves, with a state senate, a governor, etc. They can make their own state laws. They just can’t violate the federal constitution. They can’t secede, and they can’t bring back slavery or state sanctioned Jim Crow laws. In short, they can’t take away certain rights and privileges that are already listed and/or protected at the federal level.
Again, that is the goal. But again, I don’t have as much faith in my fellow man.
I had a private education, in Catholic grade school and Catholic high school. Not exactly a hotbed of liberalism, or Big Government. The abuses of the 19 and 20 century were “fixed” sort of, by government and unions. Right into the middle 20 century, some parts of the country were ruled by companies… company town, company store, permanent state of debt and poverty for “the masses”. The most egregious examples would be the coal mines in and around West Virginia. Even police and sherriffs could be (and were) killed if they tried to oppose the suits, by company “deputized” goons.
Without government, unions, and more than just a few all out gun fights, pitting the workers and local lawman against the companies, the suits had no intention of changing.
And then in the northeast, there were child labor and sweat shops.
The ONLY thing that brought change, quite simply, was the government and unions (but early union organizers were sometimes murdered). Free market laissez faire had failed. The invisible hand was no where to be found.
In short, like I said in my above post, some people don’t know how to act UNLESS someone bigger has the power to force them into compliance.
Total free market is just as naive, and just as impossible as communism (Marx communism, not Stalin or Lenin communism). Both assume all people will always want to do the right thing. it just isn’t so.
I favor a very generous immigration policy. There is a matter of national security as well. If we are at war with Al Qaeda, as we are told, we should be checking people that come into our country to make sure they are not terrorists and criminals out to do us harm. They harass us at airports but won’t enforce immigration laws? Don’t you see the contradiction?
By the way, if we want true open borders, we need to change the law to reflect that. We could do that and have a way in which we can still check for terrorists and criminals. There are lots of reasonable legal ways for immigrants to come across the border.
What planet are you living on where it is a “right” for people to sneak into a country, circumventing immigration laws to seek employment? Non citizens don’t have rights under our system.
My personal belief is that we should take care of our economic problems, reform the welfare state and balance the budget. Then we could have immigration reform that allows a very attractive legal route to entering the country to work. It would be very generous.
You said this: Why would you want to support a law that goes against Libertarian principles?
First, it doesn’t go against libertarian principles. Plus, you work to change the law, you don’t ignore it. Its so “anti liberty” to enforce the law. :rolleyes:
Why do you think immigration laws would apply only to mexicans? Any nationality coming here would have to go through the proper channels. What other country in the whole world makes it as easy to become a citizen and come across the border as the United States?
It may be preferable to have an open borders policy, but not now. We have too many economic problems and our social systems (health care, public schools, welfare, etc) are too fragile and insolvent to take care of this many people. Plus, I want the available jobs to go to people who are citizens rather than illegals.
For the liberals who want to welcome everyone here with open arms (I do too) why don’t you focus on reforming immigration laws so there are legal channels open to people who want to come and work? Why would you favor illegal immigration? Our system is such that if we have an unjust law, we change it. We don’t just encourage people to perpetually break the law.
Don’t be lecturing me on what libertarians belief. I know. Many of you here have no idea. You are uncomfortable debating an educated libertarian scholar, so it is easier for you to place me into the box of “right wing” where you can play off the “left-right” paradigm that you are so accustomed to.
I have studied history and the works of libertarian thinkers. No country is currently a model of libertarianism, but everywhere that libertarian policies are enacted they are working well. For example:
Countries that have the most free market economies and the most stable currencies are the most prosperous and have the healthiest middle classes.
Countries that don’t engage in war and stay neutral in world affairs have no enemies and are friends to all nations (Switzerland).
Countries that have permissive drug laws, like the Netherlands, have less crime and more civil liberties.
There are more examples. The point being that just because no country currently is exactly the libertarian ideal doesn’t mean a learned person can’t see examples of libertarian policy working throughout the world. And in our own history.
What is your reason for writing it off? You can’t be happy with current policies in this country.
I dropped by the recent Teabagger Party in Houston’s downtown Discovery Green Park (built by us taxpayers). Aren’t they supposed to be the Great Hope of the Libertarians? They were the whitest group I’ve seen in a long time–in this very diverse city. I stood outside the fence they’d erected, but every sign I could glimpse & most slogans I could hear were extremely hostile to immigrants, legal or not. Making immigration easier was definitely not on the agenda.
What’s your formal education? Yes, you’ve read a bunch of books. So have I.
But what would they *provide *for eight grand? Some might actually provide a reasonable education; others, somewhat less. Some will attempt to maximize profits by hiring the cheapest teachers, using discarded textbooks, or any imaginable means. And the consumer would easily be able to tell them apart, won’t they? Perhaps by comparing children with other consumers – “Well, my kid can read this book, this fast!” “Oh, well, mine can count up to infinity!” “Guess we’ll just have to wait until they graduate, and see how well they perform in the workforce, huh?” I’m sure you believe the steadying hand of the Magic Marketplace will resolve this conundrum. Me, I believe we would have a generation of children, some few of whom would have an excellent education, and the overwhelming majority of whom will have little or no education at all.
Your contention that property rights should extend so far as to allow a property owner to build whatever his heart desires “without a permit” or other governmental interference is equally loopy. Suppose I live next to his property- do his rights include raising pigs? Can he put up a billboard advertising his pig business, blocking out the sunlight from my yard? Sure, if I don’t like it I can raise pigs too, or put up a competing billboard. I could even sell out and move. The loss of value of my house will reduce his property value, won’t it? That will sure punish my neighbor! Or it will allow him to buy my place for pennies on the dollar, and expand his pig farm at almost no cost. Gosh, I’m liking the Magic Marketplace better and better!
Indeed, the Magic Marketplace works best for the most unscrupulous operator, the first to discover a newer and better fraud, or the business that most cleverly disguises the minimal actual value of their highly priced and expensively touted product. It works hardly at all for the consumer, who has neither investigative capacity nor recourse after the fact.
This is most clearly visualized in your unbelievable call for total deregulation of health care. Really, are you kidding, or what? Can’t you see that anybody, literally anybody, having neither skills nor training could offer themselves as, say, a surgeon, or internist, or oncologist, or pediatrician, and begin providing “care”? Can you deny that his “business” will be dependent upon his advertising budget and the facility of his bedside manner, and not upon his actual effectiveness in producing health? Do you believe that a picket line of dead or crippled former patients would somehow form outside his door, providing a Libertarian “correction” to his abuses? Or would he make tons of money, and move to a new town before enough surviving relatives could compare notes and discover that he was a complete and total fraud? And you call this “choice”!
I understand that you’ve read an awful lot of Libertarian philosophy, but allow me to ask if you’ve read anything else? I intend no disrespect, but your position strikes me as that of a zealot who has internalized one side of an issue, but has learned nothing of the countervailing argument. Perhaps you should break out of the box and actually investigate the alternative opinions others have presented to you here and elsewhere rather than rejecting them out of hand as contrary to your dogma. Really, an analysis requires examination and understanding of all aspects of the matter under consideration, whether that be macro-economics, governmental systems, or less momentous issues.
The marketplace will take care of that so the unscrupulous quacks won’t be able to kill too many people. Probably. At least you can’t prove that won’t happen.
Again, we find you running into a wall of facts. For someone so educated in Austrian economics, I figured you would have brought up Chile. If you are going to throw away concerns of correlation and causation, I will too.
Your boys from Chicago had their chance in Chile starting in 1974 . What happened?
“Working well” is part of your definition of “libertarian policies”, so this is a tautology.
Consider:
You cite this as an example because of its success. Yet, if it weren’t successful, you would reject it as evidence against libertarian ideals and just say it wasn’t libertarian enough and that’s why it failed.
Look at health care. The US system is arguably more free-market-based than the European Socialized health care model, yet you don’t consider the failures of the US system relevant to your philosophy because it’s not libertarian enough.
You can’t cherry-pick your examples and confine them only to situations where less regulation = better outcome (drug policy in Netherlands). You have to count those in which less regulation = worse outcome (health care in USA).
You’re certainly correct, I can’t prove that won’t happen.
I’m actually pretty sure that even in a Libertarian utopia, it is highly unlikely that we would see large groups of dead people gathering to protest their fate at the hands (or whatever) of their chosen health care practitioners. So it’s all good then, right?
If this is accurate, the connection between permissive drug laws and overall crime doesn’t jibe at all. It puts the Netherlands right next to the US in overall crime.
FREE MARKET! GOLD STANDARD! FREE MARKET! GOLD STANDARD! FREE MARKET! GOLD STANDARD! RON PAUL IS GOD AND RAND IS HIS PROPHET! FREE MARKET! GOLD STANDARD! FREE MARKET! GOLD STANDARD! FREE MARKET! GOLD STANDARD! RON PAUL IS GOD AND RAND IS HIS PROPHET! FREE MARKET! GOLD STANDARD! FREE MARKET! GOLD STANDARD! MARKET! GOLD STANDARD!