So the republican solution to our healthcare system is as little government as possible right?

[Anathema]

35 Decent, proper years?????? There is nothing decent or moral about fighting for survival until you die an early, often violent death. But if you think that is preferable, there's nothing stopping you from moving somewhere to the Amazons and trying to scratch a living fighting jaguars. You obviously don't like society so have at it.

Life was never intended to be fun, easy, happy or pleasant. This whole life is a test of the Soul. Nothing more.

I go out of my way to avoid your Society as much as I can, interacting only with what I need to survive and never taking charity or assistance from others unless absolutely necessary. Unfortunately my medical issues and my wife have brought far more of your Society’s problems into my life than I would prefer. If I could go back in time, different choices would be made and I would not be here.

 

[forkup]

Those who follow the libertarian approach to healthcare are missing an important fact: You ARE paying for others, whether you like it or not.

Your health insurance premiums, your co-pays, your co-insurance, your meds, your trips to the ER, your direct-pay doctor's fees are significantly higher because you're paying for those who can't, and those who skip out on paying.

You're also paying for those who can't afford preventive and diagnostic treatment, and let their conditions get much worse because of it. You're paying on the back end, when they need much more care and can't pay for it themselves.

You're paying tax money in the form of Medicaid and other services, and you'll have to keep paying for that whether you like it or not. You're paying for malpractice insurance, even if you're not the type to sue.

So go ahead, pat yourselves on the back for being so self-reliant, and be sure to ignore the fact that you're paying much more for being so.
.

You're the one missing the point. Libertarianism isn't about individualism - or rather the preoccupation with self-reliance. It's is about preventing coercion. The point is preserving liberty, not thwarting community.

We're fine with cost sharing, as long as it's voluntary. I don't mind if my hospital treats people who can't pay. In fact, I prefer that they do - at least when it comes to emergencies. I don't even mind a modest, tax-payer funded safety net, as long as it's not used as an excuse to socialize everything.

Voluntary cost sharing???? How would that practically work? People aren't charitable in general? How do you estimate the available income? What happens when the economy takes a downturn? People don't give to strangers for fun. Without any coercion it won't work IMO.

 

[dblack]

Voluntary cost sharing???? How would that practically work? People aren't charitable in general? How do you estimate the available income? What happens when the economy takes a downturn? People don't give to strangers for fun. Without any coercion it won't work IMO.

Voluntary cost sharing works fine. If your approach is not voluntary, maybe you should stop calling it 'sharing', and just go with confiscation.

 

[forkup]

Voluntary cost sharing???? How would that practically work? People aren't charitable in general? How do you estimate the available income? What happens when the economy takes a downturn? People don't give to strangers for fun. Without any coercion it won't work IMO.

Voluntary cost sharing works fine. If your approach is not voluntary, maybe you should stop calling it 'sharing', and just go with confiscation.

I prefer taxation myself. Can you answer my questions ?

 

[dblack]

Voluntary cost sharing???? How would that practically work? People aren't charitable in general? How do you estimate the available income? What happens when the economy takes a downturn? People don't give to strangers for fun. Without any coercion it won't work IMO.

Voluntary cost sharing works fine. If your approach is not voluntary, maybe you should stop calling it 'sharing', and just go with confiscation.

I prefer taxation myself.

I prefer freedom myself.

Can you answer my questions ?

Sure:

"How would that practically work?" - It works many different ways. Private insurance, co-ops, charities, whatever floats your boat.

"People aren't charitable in general?" - doesn't seem like a question. Not sure how to answer it.

"How do you estimate the available income?" - I don't.

"What happens when the economy takes a downturn?" - The usual, I guess.

 

[forkup]

35 Decent, proper years?????? There is nothing decent or moral about fighting for survival until you die an early, often violent death. But if you think that is preferable, there's nothing stopping you from moving somewhere to the Amazons and trying to scratch a living fighting jaguars. You obviously don't like society so have at it.

Life was never intended to be fun, easy, happy or pleasant. This whole life is a test of the Soul. Nothing more.

I go out of my way to avoid your Society as much as I can, interacting only with what I need to survive and never taking charity or assistance from others unless absolutely necessary. Unfortunately my medical issues and my wife have brought far more of your Society’s problems into my life than I would prefer. If I could go back in time, different choices would be made and I would not be here.

This is were you lose me. I'm not trying to be flip but you obviously have used society to help you. And if you acknowledge that life is not supposed to be pleasant why complain when that's how it works out? As for your wife's medical problems. I'm sorry for them. But would they have been improved if medical care wasn't available at all? Something you seem to claim to want?
On a personal note I'm Belgian. We pay taxes that would make Americans rebel. On the other hand we have not half the problems your healthcare system has.

 

[forkup]

Voluntary cost sharing???? How would that practically work? People aren't charitable in general? How do you estimate the available income? What happens when the economy takes a downturn? People don't give to strangers for fun. Without any coercion it won't work IMO.

Voluntary cost sharing works fine. If your approach is not voluntary, maybe you should stop calling it 'sharing', and just go with confiscation.

I prefer taxation myself.

I prefer freedom myself.

Can you answer my questions ?

Sure:

"How would that practically work?" - It works many different ways. Private insurance, co-ops, charities, whatever floats your boat.

"People aren't charitable in general?" - doesn't seem like a question. Not sure how to answer it.

"How do you estimate the available income?" - I don't.

"What happens when the economy takes a downturn?" - The usual, I guess.

Define freedom?
As for the rest. Sorry people don't take a coop to build roads. Military spending demands a ton of money. Education, pensions and thousands of other tasks that take money but or so vague people don't even realize they need it. Think of it like this. See any post-apocalyptic movie in history how many of them show an improvement in standards of living when the groups become smaller? In all of them life only improves when people work together. Movie or not that is realistic.
After every major disaster people loot. Surviving trumps sympathy every time.

 

[debbiedowner]

So those of us who are willing to figure this out will have to do so. The rest can have their fantasies.

Just don’t expect me to assist, contribute to or accept your Society in any way.

You're contributing right now on an internet forum.

 

[dblack]

Define freedom?

Absence of coercion?

After every major disaster people loot. Surviving trumps sympathy every time.

I suppose. I just don't see that as excuse to institutionalize the looting.

 

[forkup]

Define freedom?

Absence of coercion?

After every major disaster people loot. Surviving trumps sympathy every time.

I suppose. I just don't see that as excuse to institutionalize the looting.

-Absence of coercion? If you aren't coerced to not rape, would life improve? What about not wearing a seatbelt? Not allowing 10 year olds to drink. Society coerces people to act a certain way. Those rules in general are put in place to make life livable for everybody.
-Paying taxes is not looting. You get something back from it.

 

[dblack]

Define freedom?

Absence of coercion?

After every major disaster people loot. Surviving trumps sympathy every time.

I suppose. I just don't see that as excuse to institutionalize the looting.

-Absence of coercion? If you aren't coerced to not rape, would life improve?

Rape is coercion. So I'm not sure what you're getting at here.

Paying taxes is not looting. You get something back from it.

Taxing people just because you want them to buy you stuff is looting, and it's no more morally defensible that throwing a trashcan through a storefront and stealing stuff you want.

 

[forkup]

Define freedom?

Absence of coercion?

After every major disaster people loot. Surviving trumps sympathy every time.

I suppose. I just don't see that as excuse to institutionalize the looting.

-Absence of coercion? If you aren't coerced to not rape, would life improve?

Rape is coercion. So I'm not sure what you're getting at here.

Paying taxes is not looting. You get something back from it.

Taxing people just because you want them to buy you stuff is looting, and it's no more morally defensible that throwing a trashcan through a storefront and stealing stuff you want.

-Sure rape is coercion. It's a type of coercion that the government places a penalty on if you get caught. In that way the government coerces the people who are inclined to NOT do that. I for one think that a sensible thing to do.
-So lets see if I get this straight? You find it oppressive to be forced to give money so the government can buy the ability to educate our children? Or to defend the country? Or to build roads? Or to have police, a fire department? Or any of a thousand other things?You find that stealing? Can I ask do you ever make use of these things? I'll pose the same question I posed to the other guy. Do you prefer to live in caves?

 

[Clementine]

In many respects reflected from world history, it is reasonable to suggest that too much government is not a good thing. However, “too much” is a very relative concept. There really is such a thing as “too little of government” and I mean that beyond the measure of anarchy as an alternative. Government, when designed properly, can benefit the lives of its citizens.
ACA is an important point to raise in the this topic. While it is certainly flawed and has failed in some of its promises in terms of affordability, it’s never the less improved healthcare in many ways. It has not changed that ACA has protection for pre-existing conditions for anyone who has health insurance. There is also a much higher cap for how much an insurance policy will cover for a medical event. The cap used to be 500,000 but it became 1,000,000 thanks to ACA. Now you can argue that ACA undermines the definition of insurance, but the point here is that healthcare should not be treated like insurance.

Corporate lobbyists own our politicians. Both the Republican Party and the Democratic Party are slaves to big money. They are guided more by money than by principle. Both parties are bitches to special interests.

The goal of these lobbyists is to strengthen the power of the corporation’s will and to have less regulation by the government. With less government, what is to prevent the healthcare industry from undermining the healthcare their consumers need?

This is already true.

Insurance company: “Hey guess what, if you pay $600 a month, we will eliminate your deductible for basic healthcare needs!”

The point is that Big Pharma has a fiduciary responsibility to maximize profit for their shareholders. This includes undermining the plan the consumer signed up for to save money. Business is business after all.

Only government can ensure that consumers get basic healthcare services.

The projected costs for Bernie Sanders big plan would cost about as much as the current annual budget. That means taxes would have to immediately double to pay for it. At some point, like in Britain, they know they can't raise taxes anymore so they start rationing care. People die in Britain because they aren't receiving prompt care or quality care.

Bernie wants to outlaw private insurance. I guess that is typical lib thinking. If someone can't afford it, then no one else should have it, either. So, our choice will be taken from us by the party that pretends to be all about choice. Stay the fuck out of my healthcare, leftists.

In my country, it does work for way cheaper then in the US and there is no such thing here as rationing. In other words I live in a country were government is the healthcare provider and they do it better and way cheaper then in your country.

You either live in Fantasyland or a country that hasn't had socialized care as long as Britain. It falls apart eventually because they can't raise taxes enough to cover the cost. Less people want to get into the medical field because everything is so controlled, from patient care to pay. Shortages of personnel and elevated cost mean less quality and availability of care. It always happens eventually. Socialism fails every time. Government cannot control something and have it work in the long run.

Survival rates are lower in Britain than in the U.S. There are waiting lists for care. There are long waits in the E.R. There are less nurses and doctors. Many have quit. Fewer are going into the field.

Socialism in all forms is unsustainable and it's been proven so damn many times in history.

Now some here want socialized medicine. Bad part is that they insist on taking choices away from the rest of us by outlawing private insurers. They can't just do what they want. They have to force everyone to do it their way. That is why I believe liberalism, and especially leftist goons, are suffering from mental problems.

 

[forkup]

In many respects reflected from world history, it is reasonable to suggest that too much government is not a good thing. However, “too much” is a very relative concept. There really is such a thing as “too little of government” and I mean that beyond the measure of anarchy as an alternative. Government, when designed properly, can benefit the lives of its citizens.
ACA is an important point to raise in the this topic. While it is certainly flawed and has failed in some of its promises in terms of affordability, it’s never the less improved healthcare in many ways. It has not changed that ACA has protection for pre-existing conditions for anyone who has health insurance. There is also a much higher cap for how much an insurance policy will cover for a medical event. The cap used to be 500,000 but it became 1,000,000 thanks to ACA. Now you can argue that ACA undermines the definition of insurance, but the point here is that healthcare should not be treated like insurance.

Corporate lobbyists own our politicians. Both the Republican Party and the Democratic Party are slaves to big money. They are guided more by money than by principle. Both parties are bitches to special interests.

The goal of these lobbyists is to strengthen the power of the corporation’s will and to have less regulation by the government. With less government, what is to prevent the healthcare industry from undermining the healthcare their consumers need?

This is already true.

Insurance company: “Hey guess what, if you pay $600 a month, we will eliminate your deductible for basic healthcare needs!”

The point is that Big Pharma has a fiduciary responsibility to maximize profit for their shareholders. This includes undermining the plan the consumer signed up for to save money. Business is business after all.

Only government can ensure that consumers get basic healthcare services.

The projected costs for Bernie Sanders big plan would cost about as much as the current annual budget. That means taxes would have to immediately double to pay for it. At some point, like in Britain, they know they can't raise taxes anymore so they start rationing care. People die in Britain because they aren't receiving prompt care or quality care.

Bernie wants to outlaw private insurance. I guess that is typical lib thinking. If someone can't afford it, then no one else should have it, either. So, our choice will be taken from us by the party that pretends to be all about choice. Stay the fuck out of my healthcare, leftists.

In my country, it does work for way cheaper then in the US and there is no such thing here as rationing. In other words I live in a country were government is the healthcare provider and they do it better and way cheaper then in your country.

You either live in Fantasyland or a country that hasn't had socialized care as long as Britain. It falls apart eventually because they can't raise taxes enough to cover the cost. Less people want to get into the medical field because everything is so controlled, from patient care to pay. Shortages of personnel and elevated cost mean less quality and availability of care. It always happens eventually. Socialism fails every time. Government cannot control something and have it work in the long run.

Survival rates are lower in Britain than in the U.S. There are waiting lists for care. There are long waits in the E.R. There are less nurses and doctors. Many have quit. Fewer are going into the field.

Socialism in all forms is unsustainable and it's been proven so damn many times in history.

Now some here want socialized medicine. Bad part is that they insist on taking choices away from the rest of us by outlawing private insurers. They can't just do what they want. They have to force everyone to do it their way. That is why I believe liberalism, and especially leftist goons, are suffering from mental problems.

You seem to have a lack of understanding of how one pays for something. Not to mention little knowledge of the world in general.How does health spending in the U.S. compare to other countries? - Peterson-Kaiser Health System Tracker
Most Western nations have universal healthcare funded by the government. ALL of them are cheaper then yours. This belies the statement that it's unsustainable. Life expectancy is higher in most of them then in the US. Further, if you fund something by paying more taxes but you pay WAAAAY less out of pocket then you end up paying less in total as the numbers bear out.
-I live in Belgium. We have more doctors per capita. The longest I've ever waited in an ER is 1 hour. Waiting lists are non existent for anything but elective surgeries. Something I know is true everywhere in the world. After all a surgeon can only work on one person at a time. So were exactly did you get your information?