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.
In other words, you have no arguments of your own. Just say "I disagree."
I am an agorist, however, any person who believes in libertarianism as a philosophy will side with me on this.
Theft is immoral and wrong.
Extortion is immoral and wrong.
Racketeering is immoral and wrong.
No matter how you wrap that present, it is still immoral and wrong.
The ends DO NOT justify the means.
No matter how "nobel" the cause, or how "fair" it would be, the moment that you need to initiate force to coerce people to act, do, buy, or whatever, it is immoral and wrong.
All of the utopian health care schemes require initiating force upon people. They disproportionately charge people at different rates for the same product. They force people to purchase a product that they don't want or don't need. This type of scheme is what criminal organization design, not free people.
There is no moral initiation of force. However, if any of these schemes were indeed fair and beneficial to people, they would voluntarily join in and there would be no need to use force. When initiations of force are needed to get anything done, it is proof positive that it is a bad idea, unfair, unjust, anti-human, anti-freedom, and immoral.
Seriously, libertarianism has some great ideas, so does communism, socialism, etc etc etc.
The best ideas and results don't focus on one single ism, they take the best from wherever they can.
Libertarianism is the way of the future, but its completely unrealistic today. 20-30 years from now as technology advances? It may be the best of all the different ideas, but right now universal healthcare is the way to go, call it socialism, whatever. Its what makes sense.
Seriously, libertarianism has some great ideas, so does communism, socialism, etc etc etc.
The best ideas and results don't focus on one single ism, they take the best from wherever they can.
Libertarianism is the way of the future, but its completely unrealistic today. 20-30 years from now as technology advances? It may be the best of all the different ideas, but right now universal healthcare is the way to go, call it socialism, whatever. Its what makes sense.
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.
No. it will a Medicare percentage tax - the same for everyone No private companies.
Darlin', the Libertarian Party is the closest thing your going to get to Libertarian principles...
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.
But how is today's system any more libertarian than a single payer system. Libertarians support how health care was in the past, not the mess that is has become. Forcing people to pay through their nose for an over regulated product is not liberterian.
In fact US should look towards Australia. Australia has a single payer health care system, but they also have subsidizes for people who choose to go private.
Depends on how its done actually. Weird thing, Obamacare DOES have some pretty decent cost controllers in place, along with outcome related funding-but those rarely get discussed here. They're a tiny portion of the bill.....that could have never passed on their own.
But UHC....in every country its been implemented in, is done cheaper with better outcome on the average then here. Yes there ARE some cherry picked statistics that go the other way-but the vast majority of the results are better.
Congrats on being the mom to over 300 million Americans.
Government at worst is immoral. At best it is obsolete in the prescence of freed markets.
There are no free markets in health care e.g. insurance companies.
They are so intertwined with the federal government at present, e.g. Medicare Advantage.
Tricare, etc.
There is nothing immoral about check writing. It is not a person. Simply dollars and cents
(and Sense) to have a single payer system.
A Medicaid model might work too. In this case, states would administer their own programs. There would be a disparity of availability and care standards with this, I suppose, though some base level of service could be required to share in federally collected funding. One advantage here is that innovation might creep in and cost savings could accrue.
Belonging to the Libertarian Party doesn't make you a libertarian. Nothing about single payer healthcare is libertarian, not even a little.
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.
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:
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.
Pay attention. We don't have a free market health care system. Sure, our Party can strive for
that perfection. But it does not exist.
Hey, my party can't please me in every way. Can yours? Even those who call themselves
independents do so because they "vote" for whatever. The "whatever" in the Democratic
and Republican party for me is totally opposite to my foreign policy views. So, that's
the biggie for me as to party affiliation.
Depends on how its done actually. Weird thing, Obamacare DOES have some pretty decent cost controllers in place, along with outcome related funding-but those rarely get discussed here. They're a tiny portion of the bill.....that could have never passed on their own.
But UHC....in every country its been implemented in, is done cheaper with better outcome on the average then here. Yes there ARE some cherry picked statistics that go the other way-but the vast majority of the results are better.
Most countries don't have a hospital based model and most negotiate Rx prices and outlaw Rx advertising. Medicare part D prohibits the government from negotiating Rx prices. In short, it is cheaper in other countries because the cost is less. Switzerland's model is basically identical to Obamacare (minus Medicare, Medicaid, Tricare, etc.), but the cost is still lower.
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.
No private companies. 
