Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Totally disagree and I belong to the Libertarian Party.
If we are to have Medicare for the "general welfare" it can not be for a selective group.
It's either for all or none. Since its been determined to be constitutional,
I'm voting ALL. Medicare for all.
Are you proposing fees for services? That's fair. But if you are going to fund this thing through forced taxation that is unequal, that's extortion. Are you forcing people to purchase from private companies that you are in collusion with, that's racketeering. And the Libertarian Party is just that, a party. They do not hold steadfast to libertarian principles or philosophy.
Totally disagree and I belong to the Libertarian Party.
If we are to have Medicare for the "general welfare" it can not be for a selective group.
It's either for all or none. Since its been determined to be constitutional,
I'm voting ALL. Medicare for all.
Medicare for all crashes the system. Also contrary to Libertarian principles, but I digress.
The US healthcare system evolved in a hodgepodge of self-pays, charity, write-offs, taxpayer funded care, weird private-public hybrids, welfare, private insurance, mandates, negative amortization, and a pinch of socialism.
Any serious changes will cause immediate repercussions in access and delivery. Plus pricing; Medicare already pays very little to providers. Adding another two hundred million or so won't help there.
Picture a Jenga tower assembled by a bunch of drunks at a party and that's kind of how the the US healthcare system looks. Taking out one piece will topple it.
Medicare is a pretty good model of something that would work: a basic system that give access to everyone with the option to pay more for faster service, lower copays, better selection of doctors etc via private supplemental plans. It works in the UK.
In case anyone wasn't sure the actual definition. So, as a Libertarian, you want to force people to pay for other people's healthcare. What do you think "publicly funded" means? When something is paid for by the government, that means it's paid for by "the people".
So what would be solved here?
You want your health care rationed? You think that "does no harm"?
I think some people are very confused about what it is to be Libertarian.
Read it from a Canadian who isn't afraid to tell the truth:
Single-payer’s cheerleaders cite Canada as proof of the system’s superiority. It’s a foolish fetish: Our northern neighbor’s health-care system is plagued by rationing, long waits, poor-quality care, scarcities of vital medical technologies and unsustainable costs. That’s exactly what’s in store for America if we follow Canada’s lead.
As a native of Canada, I’ve seen this reality firsthand. To keep a lid on costs, Canadian officials ration care. As a result, the average Canadian has to wait 4½ months between getting a referral from his primary-care physician to a specialist for elective medical treatment — and actually receiving it.
Mind you, “elective treatment” in Canada doesn’t mean Botox or a tummy tuck. We’re talking about life-or-death procedures like neurosurgery, orthopedic surgery or cardiovascular surgery.
You libertarianism isn't slipping, it is already flat on its a**. Their is nothing about a "single payer" system that any libertarian could agree with. You are condoning, extortion, racketeering, and theft, none of which falls under the heading of libertarianism. Don't worry, you can find a new label that suits you better.
Totally disagree and I belong to the Libertarian Party.
Belonging to the Libertarian Party doesn't make you a libertarian. Nothing about single payer healthcare is libertarian, not even a little.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pollyrobin
If we are to have Medicare for the "general welfare" it can not be for a selective group.
Nothing about Mediwelfare is libertarian. It forcibly takes money from one group and gives that money to another group in the form of crappy health insurance. The people who have the money taken have no choice in participation in the taking. Initiation of force is required for the program to function even as poorly as it does.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pollyrobin
It's either for all or none. Since its been determined to be constitutional,
I'm voting ALL. Medicare for all.
Which simply means you're for initiating more force against some number of people so that everyone can get less for more money? Again, nothing libertarian about that.
Nice link, here's a link to "your" party's thoughts on Medicare and Social Security: Libertarian Party Platform
Pay specific attention to sections 2.9 and 2.10:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Libertarian Party platform, sections 2.9 and 2.10
2.9 Health Care
We favor a free market health care system. We recognize the freedom of individuals to determine the level of health insurance they want (if any), the level of health care they want, the care providers they want, the medicines and treatments they will use and all other aspects of their medical care, including end-of-life decisions. People should be free to purchase health insurance across state lines.
2.10 Retirement and Income Security
Retirement planning is the responsibility of the individual, not the government. Libertarians would phase out the current government-sponsored Social Security system and transition to a private voluntary system. The proper and most effective source of help for the poor is the voluntary efforts of private groups and individuals. We believe members of society will become more charitable and civil society will be strengthened as government reduces its activity in this realm.
Hmm, seems the party you belong to is at odds with your support of Mediwelfare for all.
You can call yourself a libertarian, but just like calling yourself the supreme overlord of Jupiter, just saying it doesn't make it so.
So your decision on single payer is to remove all regulations on payers, not eliminating them like a single payer, then if people cannot afford it they can go on Medicare...which only covers retirees and the disabled, so they cannot cover others. Regulations that make sure payers actually pay for covered treatment, cover treatments that actually have scientific basis to work, and laws that make sure their customers can be covered with pre-existing conditions.
No I didn't say remove all regulations. Why don't you try again?
Which will be done via a single payer system, and not an NHS. The main reason is as follows: pragmatism and well, crap, we already have one in this country anyway, Medicare.
Is the current system a disaster? Yes. Will a single payer system be a disaster? Probably not, but it won't be a "good" system. Probably very average.
I came to this conclusion upon thinking about how much of a burden providing health insurance must be for businesses. Even pre-ACA, it's like a $5,000/year tab for a healthy employee. Also, I think compassion has entered the equation as well. And finally, people being bankrupt from medical bills essentially takes that person out of the economy for life.
I just don't see why we can't have it in this country.
THAT said, I have a message to the left: In this country, a public health care system WILL NOT work without having a ROBUST and THRIVING private health insurance and health care system with which millions of Americans with the means can be taken off the dole and not even use the public system. This will be vital. We do not have resources for 330 million unhealthy people to be on a public system.
So the left needs to do the following:
You need to completely and totally repeal the affordable care act in its entirety.
You need to roll back private health insurance regulation to the level of auto insurance.
We need to provide ample incentives for companies to provide private health insurance for their people as a benefit. If the bottom line just doesn't work, particularly for minimum wage workers at restaurants, then they just use Medicare.
The ultimate goal here is to prevent people from going into financial ruin due to circumstances they did not choose. We can also reduce the burden on businesses.
While I'm usually wary of government involvement, but simply put, I've concluded that healthcare exists outside of free market forces. It's one of those things that everyone will need at some point
Am I becoming a Democrat? Absolutely not. But I have a long road ahead of me to convince the right-wing in this country.
You have an impossible road. The constitution does not allow for single payer healthcare. You will therefore never convince constitutional conservatives to support it.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Their is nothing about a "single payer" system that any libertarian could agree with. You are condoning, extortion, racketeering, and theft, none of which falls under the heading of libertarianism. Don't worry, you can find a new label that suits you better.
