The libertarian argument for Universal Healthcare.

[BeepBoo]

IP means nothing when the means of production is in a small number of hands, too.

What makes you think that would happen? There wouldn't be any laws stopping someone else from standing up something and the "few hands" wouldn't be able to crush someone out of a market with their protection laws/forces like they currently do. I digress.

OP's argument that insurance and such is un-libertarian and we should favor something that is decidedly the opposite of libertarian is an obvious bait or fallacious argument.

[Elegiac]

What makes you think that would happen?

Because it is what invariably tends to happen. The abolition of central power just creates smaller central powers.

There wouldn't be any laws stopping someone else from standing up something and the "few hands" wouldn't be able to crush someone out of a market with their protection laws/forces like they currently do. I digress.

There would be nothing stopping them from influencing the people that make laws to create such laws. You know, like what happened in the US.

OP's argument that insurance and such is un-libertarian and we should favor something that is decidedly the opposite of libertarian is an obvious bait or fallacious argument.

If the end goal of libertarianism is the removal of coercion then no, private insurance is significantly more coercive than single payer healthcare.

[Gestopft]

Private insurance companies should be abolished.

I'd prefer legislating them into redundancy.

They prevent doctors from competing with one another and cause prices to skyrocket.

Yes, insurers are an expensive middleman, and their higher overhead/administrative costs is one of the reasons we pay more for healthcare, but one of the largest reasons is that healthcare doesn't work in a free market. Markets only function efficiently when consumers have choice. You can choose a home that fits your budget, food that fits your budget, clothing, transportation, etc, but you can't choose healthcare needs that fit your budget. You can't choose to not have asthma, or to not get a heart attack, or cancer. "Competition" is not going to fix healthcare.

They essentially act as gatekeepers and serve only one function: to deny you service you could otherwise pay for.

Actually they exist to spread risk. Individual unforeseen healthcare expenses can be financially crippling, so the point of insurance is to create a risk pool that consists of people buying in with (theoretically) manageable and predictable installments. But yes, they do profit by denying coverage, and at minimum insurance companies should be made to be non-profits.

Libertarians cannot and should not ethically stand behind private insurance companies unless they want to be branded as statists.

Except the state has little to do with it (other than regulatory frameworks). And having no form of insurance would be fine for young healthy people as long as they don't have any serious healthcare emergencies, but for the people who actually need their insurance, it would be a disaster.

It's time to let Doctors enter the free market and for the economy to dictate the worth of their services.

"Competition" won't fix our healthcare costs. The reason we have the most expensive healthcare in the world (in the USA) is that we're the only developed country that still thinks it will.

- - - Updated - - -

Unconstitutional

Say what now?

[BeepBoo]

If the end goal of libertarianism is the removal of coercion then no, private insurance is significantly more coercive than single payer healthcare.

I'm ignoring the other two points since they aren't tied to the OP's position and I want to stick to "I digress" but I will address this one since it is topic appropriate: what makes you think getting rid of coercion is the end goal of libertarianism? People would be free to coerce. It's just that if you do it to the point where you make it actually worth starting up competition because the price is that much cheaper for what you're coercing on, someone will do it and you'll get screwed for coercing by the market naturally.

Simple example that ignores a lot of other factors involved but serves its purpose:

An MRI machine costs $100k. You get together to coerce with all 5 other doctors in your area and you all agree to charge $10k a scan. You estimate you get 1 scan a month each this way and your monthly payments are maybe 1700. Someone else comes in outside your little group, buys a machine, and charges $5k instead. He gets 5 scans a month now instead and you get none.

Point is, while there are efficiencies that are being exploited by someone, someone else will be happy to come in and undercut you. 10/10 times.

[Elegiac]

You estimate you get 1 scan a month each this way and your monthly payments are maybe 1700. Someone else comes in outside your little group, buys a machine, and charges $5k instead. He gets 5 scans a month now instead and you get none.

What happens if they both decide to scam me. Can I choose not to have an MRI?

[BeepBoo]

What happens if they both decide to scam me. Can I choose not to have an MRI?

You can and deal with the fallout of what comes from that. Just because you don't like the choice of choosing your health doesn't mean it's not still your choice. Such is the fate of someone who needs the help of someone else and is at their mercy.

Think of it like this. If those doctors and machines didn't exist, what would you be doing? Plenty of people "need" treatments that just flat don't exist for lots of things. Just because something that could help you exists doesn't mean you deserve it.

[Daelak]

Typical statist replies.

Why can't I buy my healthcare directly from the Doctor and pay a fair price?

How can you be a libertarian while still supporting a bureaucracy?

Because outside of a system of insurance or better yet universal healthcare, where there is one large risk pool (330 million in the US, or several smaller risk pools from private insurance) it would be out of reach for you and you would die.

[GreenJesus]

What police? The privately and optionally funded one, since "taxes are theft"? Also known as mafia. Corruption is surely never going to be part of such police force, no sir how could it!

Libertarians believe Government's function is to protect the enforcement of private property. Police officers/firefighters/military/intellectual property protection fit in that description. Libertarianism never meant "0 government".

[Wyrt]

You mean the aspects that you think are negative. Just because you think they are doesn't make that a fact. Also, there is nothing stopping libertarianism from instituting things that are optional from a participation standpoint, yet seek to correct things like "monopolies" that are typically regarded as those "negative" things you speak of. Also, kinda hard to have a monopoly when IP is nonexistent and anyone can rip off your bright idea you try to keep on lock.

Ah, yeah, child labor, slavery, uncontrolled pollution, and people dying of preventable diseases because they can't afford healthcare are totally positives. Silly me.

Like I said, libertarians are fucking nuts.

[Draco-Onis]

Libertarians believe Government's function is to protect the enforcement of private property. Police officers/firefighters/military/intellectual property protection fit in that description. Libertarianism never meant "0 government".

Well libertarians in 2019 are basically just one step removed from anarchists.

[BeepBoo]

So what you're arguing for is that we label who is 'worth' more expensive/harder to perform treatments.

Putting a price on people is a pretty sick way to advocate your point.

I wouldn't be the one putting a price on people. Regardless of if you agree or disagree with the premise, society already does this. People undoubtedly have a set worth to the society they participate in.

[GreenJesus]

So what you're arguing for is that we label who is 'worth' more expensive/harder to perform treatments.

Putting a price on people is a pretty sick way to advocate your point.

If doctors don't get paid what they are worth fewer/worse quality doctors will enter the work force. If they are forced to perform treatment on people that don't pay them what they are worth then might as well close up shop and work at Walmart.

[GreenJesus]

That's what single-payer insurance takes care of.

Doctors are appropriately compensated. People are, rightfully, not treated as 'lesser' just because they got an injury.

That's literally the idea behind it.

Who determines what "appropriately compensated" means? Can doctors set prices or no? Or is it the government that decides "prostate cancer doctors make this much per regular visit"

[BeepBoo]

That's what single-payer insurance takes care of.

Doctors are appropriately compensated. People are, rightfully, not treated as 'lesser' just because they got an injury.

That's literally the idea behind it.

But you're removing peoples' ability to choose if they want to participate in insurance or not, and their ability to hunt for better insurance elsewhere.

Say a fit person could realistically get together with a bunch of other fit people and they only needed to be concerned with major events. Their insurance would be cheaper than if they, say, had to cover people with pre-existing conditions.

So, now, you're boning people who are healthy and fit to support those who are not and be pooled with them. Definitely not a fan. I'm not here to carry people, and the idea that everyone be forced to share in a system is decidedly not libertarian, which OP argues it is.

Which is a problem, which should be solved, I agree.

Solved? It seems reasonable to me. I'm not doing shit for someone else unless I like them and/or feel compelled to for some reason. You're paying me so I can make my own life better selfishly if you want or need me to do something for you. I'll, in turn, promise to do the same. if I can't afford your goods/services? Well. Tough luck me.

Only way your system works is if you infringe on individual liberties to the point of authoritarianism simply because *you* think it's right (when the reality is, morals don't exist and there is no one set right or wrong). By default, you'd have to be vastly stronger than someone else to accomplish this. As a result, you deserve exactly the type of system required to support and enact your views, albeit with reversed set of morals being imposed, just so you learn your lesson about why "power" and "personal opinions" shouldn't be the governing force.

Basically, you deserve Trump (who I hate).

[BeepBoo]

And basically, you are Trump.

Ironic.

I'm not the one trying to tell people they can or can't do something I disagree with. People are free to get as many abortions as they want. marry whoever they want (it wouldn't come with special privs from a tax perspective anyways), do whatever drugs they want, etc. I want to control people precisely 0 percent.

As for "this is how society works and why it exists!" You're right! Societies got together to build something that the members involved wanted and worked towards for whatever reason. They also made decisions about what they didn't or don't want. Why are they not allowed to make decisions you disagree with because you erroneously say they universally care about all their members equally?

That's just a false pipe dream you tell yourself to feel like a good person. Decidedly not how they actually work or how reality functions. If society actually worked like this, it would ALREADY be working like this. The fact is, society is made of up individuals with all their own concerns/motivations/etc and things only get done when enough people have the same desires to make it worth their while to go for it.

[Low Hanging Fruit]

Honestly if the government just made some cost controls most of the system would find itself in a major state of repair. Well, for everyone besides the people making 10,000 bucks per dollar spent in the game of who lives and dies which seem to own the Republican party.

[BeepBoo]

Which is why campaigning is happening to force everyone on the same page as what a few people feel.

FTFY

It's no secret our healthcare system isn't working for us right now. It wasn't working before. It's why Obamacare was first thought of in the first place - Because there was a large enough majority in thinking "Our healthcare system isn't working."

Majority doesn't mean anything. It's people seizing power by popularity, also known as an Argumentum ad populum. If flat earth became popular enough and people decided "this whole globe thing just isn't working for me" would that make them right? Sorry. Just because you get shafted by some things doesn't mean you have a right to claim something that isn't yours.

Again, if you think otherwise, you deserve to have someone forcibly take something from you via the same methods.

If you don't agree you should pay into it, oh well - If you're still part of society, you'll be paying into it, because enough people had the same desires to make it worth their while to go for it.

You're taking words and twisting them to mean what you want. There's a marked difference between society choosing it wants to do something that doesn't obligate people within that society who choose differently. Enough people getting together to make a school doesn't mean they're going out and forcing everyone else who doesn't want to help out to contribute against their will.

If your healthcare changes were actually popular enough to warrant change, they wouldn't need the government.

It's already happening. It's just a matter of time.

CoolStoryBr0.

But your selfishness is still exactly like Trump. All you can think about is you.

Ah yes. You never think about yourself or do anything solely for your own benefit. You are benevolence incarnate. Also, just because I want the option to be selfish doesn't mean I would. Again, I'd personally choose to contribute to plenty of things. Wanting the option doesn't mean I'd use it. It means I'm not retarded enough to conflate my own desires with facts to the point that I think others should be living like my ideas are the word of god.

You say I'm virtue signaling, but hey - I'm the one who's trying to actually help people, and I don't ask you to recognize me for it. I ask you to help them too. It's you who then flings shit and says "I DON'T CARE ABOUT THEM" and pretends I should just keep associating with you.

I'm not pretending anything. You can feel free to not associate with whoever you want. You think the people who live in million dollar houses who will still find people to work for them and easily replace you give a shit if you associate with them or not?

Society baseline has shown it cares more about skill, intelligence, and capability than it does about character. Again, you wouldn't need government as a vehicle to change this if it wasn't in contradiction to what you feel. You're trying to seize power you don't have and act like it's fine. I vehemently disagree and hope the opposite happens.

Georgia's government just set them back 50/100 years in terms of female health care. But since a majority of them decided that's fine, it's fine right? Majority rules is all peachy? Or is it only fine when you agree with what's being done?

[Skulltaker]

Typical statist replies.

Why can't I buy my healthcare directly from the Doctor and pay a fair price?

How can you be a libertarian while still supporting a bureaucracy?

Fair price, eh? Okay. So, me and my fellow doctors will set the fair price at... oh, why don't we say... 5.000$ an hour? I think that's very fair.

[Elegiac]

You can and deal with the fallout of what comes from that.

And here we reach the point where "libertarian" arguments break down. I say "libertarian" because the ideology more resembles anarcho-capitalism, but it's decent enough shorthand. You can opt not to have an MRI. Just like you can work completely altruistically in a communist system. The problem is that these possibilities entirely discount how people actually behave - we've seen what happens when people are faced with skyrocketing medical expenses with no insurance, in that they tend to just incur huge debt or go bankrupt. It's what happened in the US prior to the introduction of the ACA, after all.

Just because you don't like the choice of choosing your health doesn't mean it's not still your choice. Such is the fate of someone who needs the help of someone else and is at their mercy.

Big independent man talk isn't a basis for social policy.

;Think of it like this. If those doctors and machines didn't exist, what would you be doing? Plenty of people "need" treatments that just flat don't exist for lots of things. Just because something that could help you exists doesn't mean you deserve it.

Yeah, but it does exist, so it should be made accessible.

[Grapemask]

I feel like the flaw in any libertarian argument is the assumption that the "free market" actually exists. All of our pains come from torturing a market that clearly only bends to the wills of a select few while insisting it's "free."