[mikema63]

1) actually getting a free market in healthcare isn't going to happen anytime soon.
2) even if we got a few free market reforms in anything we do manage will likely be undone and wont ever completly fix the problem.
3) at this point a universal healthcare system in the US is likely to come at some point in the future.
4) even if it didn't the current system is arguably worse in many ways than universal healthcare.
5) if libertarians and Austrians were able to effect or even build a system it would likely be much more reliable than if we weren't involved.

And finally, if we don't get ourselves into the discussion it's liable to happen without us and the worse for everyone because of it.

[Kman]

No, getting rid of universal healthcare is much harder than fixing the price problems that exist in US healthcare atm, the problems with US healthcare can be fixed easily by removing the overregulation, patents and state monopolies. Privatizing a totally socialized healthcare system? Not so easy.

I remember reading about how some commonly used drug cost like $10 per needle in Thailand (that btw has a functioning free market healthcare system from what I have read) but in the US the same drug costs like $1000 per needle, now why is there such a huge discrepancy? Economic theory teaches us that if there is such a huge profit margin from importing similar goods then these goods will be imported and outcompete the overly priced good but why is this not happening in the US? Because of bureaucratic rules in the US and patents that allow drug companies to charge these obscene amounts for drugs that are cheap to make.

[mikema63]

the problems with US healthcare can be fixed easily by removing the overregulation, patents and state monopolies.

You say that likes its the easiest thing in the worlds to do.

[Kman]

You say that likes its the easiest thing in the worlds to do.

The only hard part is getting the less than brilliant voters and less than brilliant politicians that they vote into office to understand this. Actually applying the medicine is not hard, just take an eraser to the lawbooks.

[Rothbardian]

The only thing libertarians have going for them is their adherence to actual principles. If you want to,sacrafice that for political games then you're probably better off becoming a republican.

[Lexington]

The only thing libertarians have going for them is their adherence to actual principles. If you want to,sacrafice that for political games then you're probably better off becoming a republican.

It's a little cheesy quoting a popular movie but the quote is quite clear on the point:

A compass, I learnt when I was surveying, it'll... it'll point you True North from where you're standing, but it's got no advice about the swamps and deserts and chasms that you'll encounter along the way. If in pursuit of your destination, you plunge ahead, heedless of obstacles, and achieve nothing more than to sink in a swamp... What's the use of knowing True North?

edit: Actually, another maxim I hear every couple of weeks professionally applies too: "Never let the perfect be the enemy of the good."

[Rich]

No, getting rid of universal healthcare is much harder than fixing the price problems that exist in US healthcare atm, the problems with US healthcare can be fixed easily by removing the overregulation, patents and state monopolies.

Remember Ron Paul supports patent law. This why I hold American libertarians in contempt. If American Libertarians has any principle rather than being the gutless hypocrites that they are. They'd spend their time denouncing Ron Paul rather than Barak Obama. Obama has never ever given the impression that he was Libertarian and as far as I'm aware not a single voter has ever voted for Obama on the impression that he was a Libertarian.

[Someone5]

The only hard part is getting the less than brilliant voters and less than brilliant politicians that they vote into office to understand this. Actually applying the medicine is not hard, just take an eraser to the lawbooks.

You are forgetting the slight issue of having to completely rebuild out medical industry basically from the ground up in order for it to limp along without government support. The United States is not even remotely in a position to abandon government support of the healthcare industry, even if the citizenry collectively went insane and started demanding private healthcare.

[Nunt]

The only thing libertarians have going for them is their adherence to actual principles. If you want to,sacrafice that for political games then you're probably better off becoming a republican.

Its just hard to take a principled approach when the choices you face are: government program A and government program B.

[acvar]

[
You are forgetting the slight issue of having to completely rebuild out medical industry basically from the ground up in order for it to limp along without government support. The United States is not even remotely in a position to abandon government support of the healthcare industry, even if the citizenry collectively went insane and started demanding private healthcare.

You are generally one of the more loony toon ones around here, but you got this one spot on. Unfortunatly you have not addressed the fact that the government supported system is completely unsustainable. So what do yo do when you can't go forward or backwards?

[mikema63]

Hardly unsustainable, it will never reach the utopian ideals that a lot of proponents have for it but it's not unsustainable.

[Joe Liberty]

Hardly unsustainable, it will never reach the utopian ideals that a lot of proponents have for it but it's not unsustainable.

But it is unsustainable by its very nature: it completes the severing of supply from demand, which is largely what got us into this mess in the first place.

Rothbardian is right (as usual): if libertarians don't stand on principle, they aren't libertarians. That still allows room for debate and discussion as to the details, but compromise for compromise's sake (which is what the thread's premise seems to imply) is usually a bad idea.

[mikema63]

Compromise for the sake of having a voice in it at all.

You seem to think that rationing can only occur through the market when rationing systems of varying effectiveness can and are used in universal systems.

[Soixante-Retard]

Mike, we ought to remember that "the market" does not ration, "it" doesn't do anything.

[mikema63]

You know what I mean.

[Soixante-Retard]

I know, but it is worth reiterating for the uninitiated. The market is not a "thing" outside of those making it up, it is a process.

[Someone5]

Mike, we ought to remember that "the market" does not ration, "it" doesn't do anything.

Wow, that's some heavy duty doublethink there. Did you get a bulk discount?

[Soixante-Retard]

Is it difficult to understand that the market is a metaphor for exchanging individuals?

[Drlee]

Ah, health care. My special gife.

Actually Mikeman63 is right. Let us dispose of a couple of myths here.

1

) actually getting a free market in healthcare isn't going to happen anytime soon.

Oh but it can. That is to say that if will work in a way that noone here has even considered I see.

2) even if we got a few free market reforms in anything we do manage will likely be undone and wont ever completly fix the problem.

Correct.


3

) at this point a universal healthcare system in the US is likely to come at some point in the future.

It is a virtual certainty.

4) even if it didn't the current system is arguably worse in many ways than universal healthcare.

It is worse if you have most current insurance. It is appalling if you have none.

First of all we do not have a private health care system in the US. Let's get that out of the way right from the start. Currently the government pays directly for over 1/2 of all health care expenses. 62% if you include subsidies. More if you include the cost share value of defined payments. So actually the free-market payers are the minority partners already. And they cash benefit by reduced costs made possible by the capacity paid by the taxpayer. It is private industry that is unprepared to pay for the over-65 bunch. Anyone on this forum who for one single moment thinks that any sane insurance actuarial wants to provide services to the elderly is out of their fucking mind. Does anyone here really think that there is a single insurance company that wants medicare to go away? Glad we got that out of the way.

Now. Already the government is footing over half the bill but private companies are still providing the services. If we went with a single-payer system there is no reason they couldn't compete for the money. Their challenge is the same as it is now. Provide service that the people consider good and at a price that is affordable. Isn't that what the free market is about? Anyone here who does not think that government is not responsive to the people with regard to health care ought to speak to Tony Blair and Margaret Thatcher. Both ran in part on providing better national health care. And slowly but surely the people are getting it. Same in Canada. Slowly but surely. But remember. Both Canada and the UK are attempting to improve systems that are FAR better than the US has now and at a fraction of the cost of the US system. They aren't trying to catch up with us, we are trying to catch up with them.

The notion that government paying for something eliminates free enterprise is idiotic. The government buys stuff everyday from private companies who compete for its business.

We could replace our broken system with one that works very well by changing two words in one law. This would stimulate the economy to the tune of 900 billion a year while increasing the access, effectiveness and safety of health care to most Americans. Can anyone tell me what those two words are?

[Someone5]

Is it difficult to understand that the market is a metaphor for exchanging individuals?

The market serves to ration by creating limits on how much a person can acquire. This is obvious. It's just a flexible rationing system. Rather than getting a coupon for something, you just have to exchange a certain amount of currency from within your own fixed pool.

Rationing is entirely about exchanges between individuals; rationing is simply a system which puts a limit on acquisition. Markets do that. Markets are not an example of hard rationing, where you may only acquire a certain amount of something no matter what, but they are still an example of rationing. It's just a soft rationing where you can have more of something, so long as you understand that you will have less of something else. Another way of putting this would be to say that markets are aggregated rationing; they ration how much you can, in total, acquire. It's not egalitarian rationing either, since it is based on how much money you have.