patrick.net

Nomograph says

theoakman says

Ask anyone that received laser eye surgery. It’s probably the only area of health care that the market is allowed to function.

Lasik, breast augmentation, and tummy tucks market aren’t really the best examples now, are they?
What AdHominem and a couple others here are really demonstrating is that they place more value on their free market ideology than they do on their fellow human beings. If people must die on the alter of unregulated free markets, so be it because free markets are what is most important in life for these people (or so they think).
Most people place more value on their fellow human beings than they do on free market ideologies.

What's wrong with Lasik? It's a procedure that corrects eyesight. If you care to take notice, it works a hell of a lot cheaper and more effectively than the eyeglass industry despite its reliance on equipment that costs 10 times as much than the stuff your traditional eye doctor uses. Hell, they even advertise their prices in every newspaper.
Most people grossly exaggerate the necessities of health care. They want the government to pay for their antibiotic ointment. They want the government to pay for their pain meds after they get a tooth pulled. They want the government to pay for their flu shot.
If most people who advocate health care for everyone truly cared about the sick and needy, they would draw a distinction between essential medical care like heart surgery and everyday simple care. We could easily create a safety net for essential health care at relatively little cost.
I'm pretty sure no one in their right mind wants the government paying for people's aspirin and tylenol. Yet somehow, people think that anything that gets written on a blue piece of paper shouldn't be paid for out of pocket. There is no reason why we couldn't cover expensive medical procedures through the government yet leave your yearly checkup to be paid out of pocket. Am I still sounding like a free market ideologue?

theoakman says

We could easily create a safety net for essential health care at relatively little cost.

Really? How do you figure? Essential health is the most expensive... Do you think the flu shots are what is breaking the bank?

tatupu70 says

The problem is you can’t just “open” the state constraints. Do you mean get rid of all state constraints? Or provide a Federal mandate that overrides all state contraints? Seems like opening up a whole new can of worms to me. For very little gain.

As the Colorado article states, this already occurs for some other types of insurance, other services, etc. So there is certainly precedent. Whether this means getting rid of all constraints or some, what type of federal mandate, and even whether there would be very little gain is all conjecture at this point. You see very little gain, I see very little lost.... tomatoes tomahtoes, neither of us can definitively prove anything. However, this approach means less Federal government control over the solutions compared to current approaches (though it would actually take Federal government action to initiate), so I can see why one side would more or less dismiss it out of hand - doesn't fit the ideology.

tatupu70 says

theoakman says

We could easily create a safety net for essential health care at relatively little cost.

Really? How do you figure? Essential health is the most expensive… Do you think the flu shots are what is breaking the bank?

I might be mistaken but I'm pretty sure his examples went beyond the flu shot, and his examples were only a few of the possibile examples that could be given.

As a common peasant I don't see the [Ll]ibertarians ever protesting openly over the failings of capitalism. If there's ever a failing, it's always because we weren't PURIST enough. I never see any of them decrying billion-dollar paydays & insurance cartel behavior. Crony capitalism rigs the game, and that is the endpoint of it all. Alan Greenspan would tell us that fraud is not a valid reason to lock people up, because the "free market" self-regulates and fraudulent behavior results in exile for the bad people.

Paralithodes says

As the Colorado article states, this already occurs for some other types of insurance, other services, etc. So there is certainly precedent. Whether this means getting rid of all constraints or some, what type of federal mandate, and even whether there would be very little gain is all conjecture at this point. You see very little gain, I see very little lost…. tomatoes tomahtoes, neither of us can definitively prove anything. However, this approach means less Federal government control over the solutions compared to current approaches (though it would actually take Federal government action to initiate), so I can see why one side would more or less dismiss it out of hand - doesn’t fit the ideology.

I guess the devil is in teh details as far as I'm concerned. You ask a bunch of good questions but then dismiss them as if they are inconsequential. They are not, IMO.

And it seems to me that it would be more Federal control--you're basically taking states' power to regulate health insurance and giving it to the Feds. How does that reduce Federal government control??

It makes me wonder if you realize what you are asking for?

tatupu70 says

I guess the devil is in teh details as far as I’m concerned. You ask a bunch of good questions but then dismiss them as if they are inconsequential. They are not, IMO.

I don't dismiss them. I just happen to agree that the devil is in the details and I doubt either of us are really educated enough on them to come to any solid conclusions either way.

tatupu70 says

And it seems to me that it would be more Federal control–you’re basically taking states’ power to regulate health insurance and giving it to the Feds. How does that reduce Federal government control??
It makes me wonder if you realize what you are asking for?

If the state line solution is to have the Federal government force states to remove restrictions that interfere with interstate commerce, without significant Federal regulations of its own, then this Federal "control" is in line with the Constitution. As you say, the devil is in the details.... Do I realize what I am asking for? Maybe, maybe not... It depends upon the details... Certainly there are people who would propose varying government control for the same solution, from practically none to strict oversight.

I think Libertarianism is not about just having small government. In reality government can become a form of oppression and be out of the control by those it governs.

So I think the goal of libertarianism is to have a government that is too weak to oppress any individual yet have the power to stop those who break social contract or commit crimes if society desires such an action.

Of course a lot of people miss that point and with tunnel vision for some reason ask for unilateral deregulation instead.

Exactly Chris,

The problem is people like Greenspan. People who believe that "fraud doesn't exist" and that we need no policing and regulations. Ultimately they believe in fire departments at most, but perhaps not police and certainly not SEC. Glass-Steagall Act? Ptooey, don't need such nonsense, megabanks will always do what's right.

That ultimately was my problem with Libertarian Party and why I first left. There are moderate Libertarians with whom I can agree but far too many for whom "government is always the problem and we don't need any". Those people are unfortunately the ones who give the public face, and are the only ones with any real power.

thunderlips11 says

You can also remind them that the top rate was 90% back in the 1950s, when evil socialist Eisenhower kept the US economy in the doledrums after WW2, LOL.

To be fair, would you please also remind us what income bracket had that 90% top rate applied to, what would that be today in inflation-adjusted terms, and how many people in the whole country had been in that bracket? Somehow those who love to talk about that 90% rate NEVER mention those things.