"Freedom" thread or something

Finnforest wrote: Single payer.  Let's just get it over with.

Sure- if you're happy with how all the other federal agencies are run. 

We talk about health care as though it's "you either have it or you don't."  Just because I have insurance and see a doctor doesn't mean my health is cared for.

The T wrote: Epignosis wrote: Finnforest wrote: Single payer.  Let's just get it over with.   Sure- if you're happy with how all the other federal agencies are run.  We talk about health care as though it's "you either have it or you don't."  Just because I have insurance and see a doctor doesn't mean my health is cared for. You have a much better chance though than if you have no access to insurance or a doctor. Or if you have to go bankrupt to be able to see one or have treatment.

I believe you have a much better chance in a free market.  Even with insurance, I'd still have to go bankrupt for a major procedure / hospital stay (I cannot afford a 30% copay + deductible on a $100,000 bill).

Epignosis wrote: The T wrote: Epignosis wrote: Finnforest wrote: Single payer.  Let's just get it over with.   Sure- if you're happy with how all the other federal agencies are run.  We talk about health care as though it's "you either have it or you don't."  Just because I have insurance and see a doctor doesn't mean my health is cared for. You have a much better chance though than if you have no access to insurance or a doctor. Or if you have to go bankrupt to be able to see one or have treatment.  I believe you have a much better chance in a free market.  Even with insurance, I'd still have to go bankrupt for a major procedure / hospital stay (I cannot afford a 30% copay + deductible on a $100,000 bill).

Single payer means you don't have either of those.

Epignosis wrote: Padraic wrote: Epignosis wrote: The T wrote: Epignosis wrote: Finnforest wrote: Single payer.  Let's just get it over with.   Sure- if you're happy with how all the other federal agencies are run.  We talk about health care as though it's "you either have it or you don't."  Just because I have insurance and see a doctor doesn't mean my health is cared for. You have a much better chance though than if you have no access to insurance or a doctor. Or if you have to go bankrupt to be able to see one or have treatment.  I believe you have a much better chance in a free market.  Even with insurance, I'd still have to go bankrupt for a major procedure / hospital stay (I cannot afford a 30% copay + deductible on a $100,000 bill). Single payer means you don't have either of those. But someone does.

We all do, in some sense.

I don't want anyone to either not get treated or go bankrupt just because they got sick.  Whatever can accomplish this is something I could possibly support.

Actually since it's us...

Hi PA libertarians, I'm back.  Got burnt out on discussing politics for a while but a good discussion with my composition teacher, Dr. Sharpe, after my lesson today got my mind back in gear .

The solution to the healthcare problem is rather simple, actually.  Make each person legally responsible for the economic burden of healthcare upon his (extended) family members.  This isn't that far from basic child protection laws that require parents to take care of their kids.  It just extends it the opposite way - as well as brother/sister to brother/sister, grandchild to grandparent (and vice versa) etc.  No one would be required to pay for anyone's health care except for the people who they have a natural obligation to.  Unless someone had no close relatives with financial means, they could easily get at least some healthcare assistance, leaving a much smaller problem for private charities to take care of.  We could eliminate or at least drastically scale down medicare and medicaid.  It wouldn't be perfect obviously but it sounds better to me than either Obamacare or what we had before.

Ambient Hurricanes wrote: Hi PA libertarians, I'm back.  Got burnt out on discussing politics for a while but a good discussion with my composition teacher, Dr. Sharpe, after my lesson today got my mind back in gear . The solution to the healthcare problem is rather simple, actually.  Make each person legally responsible for the economic burden of healthcare upon his (extended) family members.  This isn't that far from basic child protection laws that require parents to take care of their kids.  It just extends it the opposite way - as well as brother/sister to brother/sister, grandchild to grandparent (and vice versa) etc.  No one would be required to pay for anyone's health care except for the people who they have a natural obligation to.  Unless someone had no close relatives with financial means, they could easily get at least some healthcare assistance, leaving a much smaller problem for private charities to take care of.  We could eliminate or at least drastically scale down medicare and medicaid.  It wouldn't be perfect obviously but it sounds better to me than either Obamacare or what we had before.

Ambient Hurricanes wrote: Hi PA libertarians, I'm back.  Got burnt out on discussing politics for a while but a good discussion with my composition teacher, Dr. Sharpe, after my lesson today got my mind back in gear . The solution to the healthcare problem is rather simple, actually.  Make each person legally responsible for the economic burden of healthcare upon his (extended) family members.  This isn't that far from basic child protection laws that require parents to take care of their kids.  It just extends it the opposite way - as well as brother/sister to brother/sister, grandchild to grandparent (and vice versa) etc.  No one would be required to pay for anyone's health care except for the people who they have a natural obligation to.  Unless someone had no close relatives with financial means, they could easily get at least some healthcare assistance, leaving a much smaller problem for private charities to take care of.  We could eliminate or at least drastically scale down medicare and medicaid.  It wouldn't be perfect obviously but it sounds better to me than either Obamacare or what we had before.

This is a mess of an idea.  A Libertarian isn't for making people legally responsible for the decisions of other adults.

Your broke brother attempts to kill himself, and that makes you responsible for the costs of his healthcare?

The T wrote: Ambient Hurricanes wrote: Hi PA libertarians, I'm back.  Got burnt out on discussing politics for a while but a good discussion with my composition teacher, Dr. Sharpe, after my lesson today got my mind back in gear . The solution to the healthcare problem is rather simple, actually.  Make each person legally responsible for the economic burden of healthcare upon his (extended) family members.  This isn't that far from basic child protection laws that require parents to take care of their kids.  It just extends it the opposite way - as well as brother/sister to brother/sister, grandchild to grandparent (and vice versa) etc.  No one would be required to pay for anyone's health care except for the people who they have a natural obligation to.  Unless someone had no close relatives with financial means, they could easily get at least some healthcare assistance, leaving a much smaller problem for private charities to take care of.  We could eliminate or at least drastically scale down medicare and medicaid.  It wouldn't be perfect obviously but it sounds better to me than either Obamacare or what we had before. I prefer single-payer. It wouldn't be perfect of course but it will cover more people than this interesting idea. Many people have no relatives that can financially take care of them, and private charities are too uncertain. They can't cover everybody everywhere.

Well, I think it is unjust to force taxpayers to fund other people's healthcare (and "single-payer" is a misnomer, what it really means is that one entity takes money from everyone to fund healthcare, would be better named "everyone-payer") but we've been over that many times in this thread.

I support this idea because I see it as the best mix of the principle and the practical.  No system is going to be perfect, but this would get a lot more people covered and do it justly.

Besides, the government could pursue other non-coercive methods of economic healthcare support, essentially functioning as a big charity with the ability to fund healthcare costs all over the country.  It could function as a downgraded "single-payer" without the coercive element, and although revenue generated from donations wouldn't be as much as that gained from taxes, it would probably be more than enough to fund healthcare for most Americans if combined with a family-based payer system.

Epignosis wrote: Ambient Hurricanes wrote: Hi PA libertarians, I'm back.  Got burnt out on discussing politics for a while but a good discussion with my composition teacher, Dr. Sharpe, after my lesson today got my mind back in gear . The solution to the healthcare problem is rather simple, actually.  Make each person legally responsible for the economic burden of healthcare upon his (extended) family members.  This isn't that far from basic child protection laws that require parents to take care of their kids.  It just extends it the opposite way - as well as brother/sister to brother/sister, grandchild to grandparent (and vice versa) etc.  No one would be required to pay for anyone's health care except for the people who they have a natural obligation to.  Unless someone had no close relatives with financial means, they could easily get at least some healthcare assistance, leaving a much smaller problem for private charities to take care of.  We could eliminate or at least drastically scale down medicare and medicaid.  It wouldn't be perfect obviously but it sounds better to me than either Obamacare or what we had before. This is a mess of an idea.  A Libertarian isn't for making people legally responsible for the decisions of other adults. Your broke brother attempts to kill himself, and that makes you responsible for the costs of his healthcare?

I would consider myself responsible to support him by whatever means possible, and yes, that would include paying for medical assistance insofar as I was able.  In fact, if he was broke I would consider myself responsible to assist him financially in the first place.

This isn't really a new idea either.  It goes back to ancient societies in which familial piety was one of the most important virtues (especially that of children to parents, as the Bible makes clear was the case in Israel).  It was everyone's duty (at least every male's duty, since those cultures were patriarchal) to honor and support their family.  Leviarite marriage was a part of this, too.  I think that we have lost this idea in today's culture and need to get it back (minus the patriarchal part).  That's one of the big reasons we have stuff like medicare and social security, actually;  the people supported it because it meant they didn't have to take care of their parents anymore.