The best Health Care System for America would be a system with unlimited Freedom of Choice for the people. Where they decide for themselves where they get their Health Insurance and Health Care. That could even include a Non Profit Public Option thats run independently of the Federal Government. But where the people decide for themselves where they get their Health Insurance and Health Care. Not Private or Public Monopoly's.
Look, I can optimize a system for excellence, too - ignoring other factors, of course. But you don't get to make that choice under a libertarian system. This is why thoughtful libertarians have real questions about Reason Magazine, Cato Institute, and so on. As for Canada, my God, the system would collapse without the US being on the border. Please - step up your analysis, boys.
Matt, the goal isn't merely "great health care", it is liberty. It is not forcing someone else to pay for your poor decisions (if you make them :-) I have experienced French health care, too. You're right: it is quite good in France. But as Henry Hazlitt has taught us all, it is what is NOT observed that is at least as important as what IS seen. What you do not acknowledge, in France, is systemic unemployment, extremely low rates of new enterprise formation, and so on.
I think this is a good discussion and I really appreciate the equality and maturity in exchange of ideas. 2 things that I have to disagree with (disclaimer...I'm a Libertarian), is that in one big "pool", costs are shared "equally" and that the pool can tell big Pharma what they will pay. 1) the costs aren't shared equally because we don't respect the right to property. We tax "the rich" more so they pay more. This isn't equality. 2) Big Pharma won't invest in new drugs if they can't make money.
Socialized medicene, is NOT a libertarian idea. We belive in free-market based ideas.Our website gives an outline of a free market based idea. If you read this I would suggest going to our website and reading that insted of listening to a quasi-libertarian (socalist Libertarians exist belive it or not, there's just a very small amount of them)
@imre1000 John Stossel is a tool. If you think we're too regulated, you haven't been paying attention. Your right, we don't have a real free market, we have piranhas and monopolies who don't care about you or me. Regulation is the only saving grace we have.
@SandCmpbll Don't agree. If you look at the history of the US, especially the latter half of the 19th century, you will see very clearly that companies hate competition. If you need proof, search for this video by Murray Rothbard "The Decline of Laissez Faire" on YouTube. In terms of health care, everyone talks about competition between insurance companies but nobody talks about competition between different forms of medicine. Continuing in next post.
@thurstjo1963 There are types of medicines (i.e. Chinese, Ayurvedic, Homeopathy, etc) of which have been effectively used for thousands of years. These medicines offer treatments for different illnesses (such as cancer) that are alot cheaper and in many cases more effective than conventional treatments. People should be free to choose what the feel is the best and most cost-effective means of treating an illness. In the west, that choice is not available to the public because of "regulation".
Regulation has been the reason for the breakdown in the American healthcare system, and the incredible increase in costs as reflected in household income. The only kind of regulation that physicians would need is from the medical school that issues the medical diploma, and perhaps, those medical professional organizations for the respective medical specialties. Any other regulation, as in the bureaucratic-administrative kind has, in the main, been more bane than boon for individual consumers.
Libertarian principles do not espouse government intervention into free markets. This guy should qualify his opinion as a personal one and not as a Libertarian Magazine Editor.
Well, I can see how one might argue that if we throw quality standards out the window when it comes to health.
Then the cost might go down.
But that's not inexpensive healthcare, that's cheap healthcare.
Which is intolerable when that's literally a question of life and death.
_
That said, I still don't quite see your answer as to why all those other developed countries have both inexpensive costs, high quality care, and government involvement.
Matts basic arguement is that the free market can solve the health care issue. Unfortunately he isn't talking about the free market from everyone's perspective, only his, being his age and wealth status. The free market will deny the old and poor from their system because of profit margins. He hasn't put himself in the shoes of a 60 year old with a low income. That is the essential quality missing from Libertarians and free market thinkers, perspective of the poorest and most vulnerable.
The poor can be handled with a basic safety net designed for the poorest. It would be inefficient like all government programs but at least it would not try to do any pie in the sky projects like the futile quest to cover everybody.
Covering everybody without making governments go bankrupt will have to wait until tech like cheap fusion and mature genetic engineering make the costs manageable. This is in the future. For awhile we are stuck with what we have now.
@greyflcn lol, some of the data is so stark that Libertarian types simply ignore it. Tell them that such-and-such gets universal coverage, at nearly half the cost, with better outcomes, and it's in one ear and out the other. Magical thinking about markets always triumphs.
@Raptoreyes but we already have that system, it's called Medicaid. And it pisses a lot of people off because it's free health care for the poor, free health care for the elderly (Medicare), and everyone else has to pay for it. If it were everybody in, nobody out, we'd have lower costs, and people would be able to spend that leftover money in a sector of the economy where there's actually a free market, as opposed to shovelling it over to the useless private insurance monopolies.
I am more convinced than ever that no matter what is actually done to "improve" health care, it will only get worse as a result, and as in the past, "freedom" will be blamed and the need for yet more rules will be proposed. It is a death spiral like all of the others, but this time it will probably mean that I actually do die in the arms of the State at my end.
uggghhhh medicare is getting more expensive because of a failed private system and the healthcare bill does have a provision that allows for buying across state lines.
Matt needs to check his facts more and he never really articulated any good ideas other then going across state lines.
if that happened it would simply transfer power from the state to the federal government. instead of the states deciding how they want to regulate insurance companies as it has always been, big brother will get to decide for them. it's the federal government taking away power from state government and it's not what this country was founded upon.
simple minded creatures that believe whatever they want to believe.
the biggest issue is the fundamental issue of distrust of government, media propaganda, and the belief that money grows on trees in china. until that changes, we won't get any real change in this country. things have not changed for humanity in 5,000 years. even back in the roman era, we are still making the same foolish mistakes they have made.
I agree, this is childhood's end for America. America seems destined for a miserably acrimonious old age, with rotting infrastructure and a body of complaints.
Most people would not support government run health care if they understood that money does not grow on trees. (or that talented people gravitate to fields with low government involvement). Talented people will not take up medicine. Eventually the high level of competence we expect from doctors will disappear under socialized medicine. Such competence has disappeared already for teachers under a government run system.
@cvcdgftr7676545 Obama Care has not been around long enough to have these effects YET. It may take as much as 3 generations for socialized medicine to disincentive all the talented folk out of the system.
Doctors need high pay or their quality falls to the pay you give them... period. This process of adjustment take a LONG time which makes socialism look great until then.
@cvcdgftr7676545 What "studies" commissioned by who? using what methodology? If its a group known for preaching the supremacy of the state then all you have to do is move the goal post about to get the "result" you want.
In any case private schools would be better even without a performance edge as government has an incentive to make people ignorant to what freedom really is. Most poor parents vote with their feet to private schools when given vouchers. Reality is better seen that way.
Mr Jay may have more here and now factoids from this study or that study, but the man he is interviewing has more of an idea of how culture, law and incentives (perverse or otherwise) fit together to produce outcomes. Jay while knowledgeable sees the world as a bunch of separate issues in a box. Unfortunately its a variety of pressures that produce any single outcome. Reporters like soundbites but soundbites make horrible policy.
Well, Mr. Welch kicks things off by boasting how great the health care system is in France, not acknowledging that France has a mixed single payer/private insurance system. Also, he didn't seem to realize that inflation in private insurance is far far worse than it is in Medicare. Libertarian types always seem to assume that governments can't do anything efficiently, an idea the collapses under the mildest scrutiny; perhaps Mr. Welch should learn what the French pay for their health care.
France actually does a lot of medical research. Like that work on HIV and that face transplants. Medicare can't make medical decisions. That guy is trying to put words in Paul's mouth. Medicare actually ran a surplus until they gutted the money for other projects.
Medicare makes medical decisions in the sense that it drives healthcare reimbursements. If MC doesn't cover something, a MC beneficiary won't be able to afford it. Can you post a link about the surplus stuff? I've never heard that.
@jotunobsidianeyes Of course politicians were going to gut the money from medicare they are politicians. Leaving unattended piles of money their for them to use in buying their re-elections is too much temptation for a politician. Public works typically are spent badly by the nature of electoral politics itself. Better that most of the money was taken out of the hands of politicians period. Politicians do "stupid" things because their incentives are not your incentives.
I live in Belgium and as I'm student, I don't have to pay my doctors, anyone gets nice cuts for the indispensable medicine, and people only have to pay for a maximum amount (in relation with their income) for operation/medicine.
I pay like 7€/month and I know if I get cancer tomorrow, I'll be taken care of, I'll be able to afford anything despite my 700€ income...
So you think the private sector makes research because they're nice and want to help people? Maybe you also think you don't pay research anyways??? Silly you... Think again or differently...
And if you can avoid paying research, it's only because your neighbor is paying your part in your place...
Research as well ought to be 100% controlled by gov or an international NGO...
I am saying that nations that have socialized health care do not carry the burden of cost for research and development, yet get to use it when it is conveniently affordable to them.
Without the privatized capital investments that occur in the US, most of the advancements in health and medicine that you enjoy wouldn't even exist.
No I don't think you should think that way, here's another: if a large part of the population's demand isn't met (since corporations wouldn't do the job) that same people can ask for a research organization to be founded instead of relying on the greed of some people to sell you what they research.
Same applies for (public) transportation, it is now underdeveloped in many countries but the more cars (which are private) are banned/taxed, the bigger the first grows...
Well here is something that we can agree upon. I am not a strict libertarian. I believe the government's role should be to help fund infrastructure, such as highways, internet, airports. These all help facilitate and spur business growth.
However, I do not agree that the government should be in the business of owning or running what the private sector can do more efficiently.
I'm not saying politicians, I'm saying people, just read my comment...
Also, in a representative democracy, it's way more insane to leave research into the hands of money than in the hands of politicians that are at least SUPPOSED to "represent" us...
take a look at how most medical innovation has developed. A huge % based on lab accidents, etc. This is not something the government can direct - gov should fund some research via NIH etc. , private sector should fund its own research.
BTW- in practice there really is no such thing as a representitive democracy. Politicians simply represent their own interests.
I would dispute [some] of the comments regarding the healthcare here in the UK - while the NHS is FAR too bureaucratic which causes much waste (the bane of our system that none seem to have been able to cure), the real strength is NICE - which acts as a group buyer for pharmaceuticals. We then pay a flat rate of £7.50 ($10) per prescription or an annual payment of £100 ($150) for free scripts all year or nothing if on welfare. This group bargaining power is what keeps costs down.
Exactly! Plus the whole patents system is seriously flawed and adds unnecessary costs, for instance - stomach ulcers are predominantly caused by bacteria (H. pylori) and can be treated cheaply with antibiotics. However, drug companies often 'combine' these cheap drugs with expensive patented drugs to control stomach acid which add little to overall effectiveness, but lots to the cost.
Also, new anti-depressants appear every year, yet there hasn't been a new antibiotic since the 70s - very bad
Without a legal monopoly their is no incentive to make that new life saving drug. Life saving drugs are almost always make by young guys that want to get rich. No life saving drug has ever been developed by a selfless martyr. You have to pay the REAL costs of these medicines if you want the benefits.
Patent law however is their to give an incentive to spend a fortune and navigate legal issues to make the new drug. Without a few years of monopoly the great inventors and drug companies that fund them, will simply stop making new drugs.
Health in old age is expensive and without a fundamental tech breakthrough their is no way to avoid the costs. You can try to cheat reality and it can work for a few years before things are worse then before. Just look at central banking.
one thing you may not be taking into account is the fact that there's actually a lot of public funding behind some medical/pharmaceutical innovation, and the corporations get to name their price with no competition anyway, and even claim they have to make the price high to pay for the research, even when it was paid for by public funds. Especially with rare diseases, there's not enough consumer money to make some new drugs profitable and public funding is necessary, but it should lead to access.
Damn straight! insurance of all kinds is a scam and always has been. How many people are conned out of being able to claim due to 'technicalities'? Instead all that money should go into a pool - if you paid in you get treatment. Done.
@Raptoreyes And it looks like this is gonna be a weekly thing. TRNN are finally opening up, a little. And lol I get three thumbs down for praising diversity of opinion. Would be sad if this damaged TRNN economically lol.
Damaged them economically? Are you kidding. If they did more then a token amount of this stuff I might actually give them money and libertarians are less likely to be net tax consumers then your average socialist who hasn't yet been properly mugged by reality.
If you can find Jay's interview with Ron Paul you can smile a bit when Paul asks Jay why he is against invasions but has "touching and unshakable faith" in govt social spending.
Why not just have complete separation of my body and the State? I'll take care of my own health care and the rest of you busybodies keep your MFing hands to yourself! Get your mountains of regulations, licenses, and rules away! I will find whatever healer I think I need and you can butt out! However you won't do that, because you loathe freedom.
I don't want to live on an island, but rather, in a society of sovereign individuals that respects my right to choose the health care I feel best for me. Apparently, because I've used a road somewhere, you feel I have no rights at all, and even under my own skin, I am subject to your rule.
well, i would go on about how, in this bill, you would still have those choices, and if there was a public option, that would do merely add to those choices. This is all true, but i'm sure you've seen enough fox news show to think differently.
I tried donating 5 bucks but that's before I noticed the US only thing. So yeah, didn't work here in Sweden. But hey, I'll donate when I can! Keep up the great work!
Yes, but it's crap. I am in such a situation, being self employed. This issue is quite complex, and truth is much of us don't understand how to change it at all. The idiots who brand "socialistic medicine" as the worst thing possible are unfortunately a large portion of the population. It's amazing and tragic the ignorance in the US.
I'm betting Mr Welch will decline future interviews. He will be receiving a ton of flack for this interview from his 'libertarian" colleagues. Personally I found him bordering on incoherent. By the end of the interview I had absolutely no idea what it was that he was advocating as far as a national healthcare strategy.
Medicare costs less than private insurance so private sector is always better?
The whole world has cheaper, better, public health insurance but government is bad?
This guy has his ideology stuck up his ass. Why doesn't he complain about the ever increasing military budgets that result in the deaths of thousands?!
Anyone who complains about "entitlements" should move to Somalia, a libertarian paradise!
@micahgee He does complain about the ever increasing military budgets that result in the deaths of thousands. Very regularly. Know a little about the guy before you libel him.
Yeah he totally did, i wish he would had said Mass. isn't single payer/universal in the way they were discussing. Funny comment, Reason mag posts every video interview one of their guys does around the web/media, but this one is oddly absent.
On behalf of Libertarians I apologize...because antitrust lawsuits should be the first step in this process because I honestly believe that is all you need to do....no public option nor tax credits just break them up...law makers need to regulate...meaning MAKE REGULAR...and a multibillion dollar horizontal monopoly is not regular!!!!!!!
I have called my self a libertarian all of my life but I find myself really struggling to accept the arguments. Like this guy saying that Medicare would politicize payment for some procedures. But ignoring how private insurance companies decline payment for purely profitabitily reasons. Wouldn't you like to be able to turn to a representative or omsbudsman when Medicare decline payment instead of going to court with the insurance company?
The problem with the Massachusetts system was that it wasn't even a publicly provided Health Care system. It was just a system that attempted to push Its citizens into private insurance monopolies that were slightly more regulated. There was no competition, people did not have a choice, and the prices went up while quality went down. Massachusetts plan keeps being attacked by the right as an example of a failed public plan; but that wasn't the case. I wish Jay pointed this out.
Great rebuttal from Paul Jay.This libertarian fellow may have a lot of ideology, but none of the facts, it was funny when they were mentioning Mississippi as one of the most unregulated States, since it's in Mississippi and Arkansas were most the chicken an pig factory farms are located , because of the lack of regulations. the result is that you will wind up swimming in a pool of chicken and pig shit. not to mention you will have to drink shit flavor water.
Nice to hear from a real libertarian. I'm a liberal/progressive but nonetheless I respect other political ideologies when they're intelligently argued for.
How exactly is he a faux libertarian? is it because he said the french system is batter and cheaper while delivering a higher overall quality than what we have in this country? or that he continues to say that he wouldn't be satisfied with the french in america in place of a complete free market one.
That should be shocking to anyone paying attention.
Read more of the mans writings beforeu start calling him a faux libertarian.
He's a fake libertarian because he's using empirical evidence taken from reality, and comparing both pros and cons, and seeing which one stacks up to be better.
He's not basing his entire argument on prejudiced assumptions and dogmatic principles.
@greyflcn great point about the car, sorry but most of the libertarian approach is charactarized by this wishful simplicity, not only one size fits all but a few monolithic principles will magically solve all problems
"Wishful simplicity" is believing the government can create hundreds of thousands of Doctors and Nurses out of thin air to serve 300,000,000 legal and illegal Americans who are personally irresponsible with their eating habits.
The one point everyone fails to bring up in the health care debate are the two current social health care systems that exist in the US today. All anyone has to do is look into the health care offered by the Department of Veterans Affairs or the Department of Defense for the military. Now multiply those problems a 100 times and that is what socialized medicine would look like in the USA.
This guy doesn't even understand the race to the bottom model with unregulated shopping for health insurrance across states lines. Look at what happened to the under-regulated credit card market in the US. And if you don't know, you better ask somebody.
If republicans were serious about health care reform, State Compacts with the same regulation standards could of been proposed instead of their current delay tactics.
Why did they put this right wing profiteer on here? Real news is normally leftist. For some reason he advocates the French model but wants markets? He criticizes the British model but the reason it isn't as good is because they tried to bring in competition through private finance initiatives and public-private-partnerships. He says medicare for all would politize healthcare but it already is only under a neoliberal ideological guise that pretends otherwise. Make it democratic and open in public
The trouble with the libertarian party is that it is made up of mostly disenfranchised republicans. I watched the republicans take over several states at the 2008 libertarian convention. The real libertarians were ignored in favor of Barr who is really a republican in sheep's clothing. The libertarian party needs to figure out how to purge these republicans from the ranks or this party is dead already.
That is already happening. The purge of the neo-cons and the Religi-cons is underway.
BTW, I predict that the Democrats will be facing a similar purge this year and forward to oust their far left elements once mainstream Democrats realize that their party has also been hijacked.
Just a heads up to small government people and libertarians, expect to get your comments voted down a lot here. Real News has a large socialist following who are the polar opposite of libertarians.
I strongly suggest going to options and enabling all comments for visibility so that you don't miss anything.
What a crock .... Reason magazine and Glenn Beck Republicans love to call their neo-con agenda of aggressive wars and social program expansion 'Patriotic', 'American' and now 'Libertarian'.
It's complete horse sh-t!!!
These fux are faux .... they're fascists in sheep's clothing.
what kills me more then anything else... is per capita the US spends more then any other industrialized country.... and yet only delivers its system to 1/8th of the population roughly...
This is ridiculous.... Everyone loves to call themselves a libertarian nowadays and broadcast completely non-libertarian stances on every issue from the warfare to welfare state.
If you want a TRULY LIBERTARIAN perspective on health care, please check out / youtube John Stossel's "Sick in America" Special Report. It six parts. Great information to make a fully informed decision on the health care debate.
@SpeakUpFightBack I agree with you the discussion they are having is selling public option (if I understand them correctly) half way through this. I agree with the Libertarian stance, get the insurance co.'s out and get your employer out and the cost will come down making it affordable. I think we should go doctor direct and they should post their fees and one could shop around as with most goods and services.
Anyone who has been in a physicians office in the last thirty plus years can agree there are major problems with the current Healthcare System and they are foremost: 1) Bureaucrats and Accountants make decisions, not Doctors, 2) Limited Time with Doctor, and 3) Skyrocketing Costs.
Stossel affirms our system sucks and is getting worse, but replacing several GIANT Insurance companies, created by the HMO Act of 1973, with a GIANT single payer is a cure worse than the disease.
The best Health Care System for America would be a system with unlimited Freedom of Choice for the people. Where they decide for themselves where they get their Health Insurance and Health Care. That could even include a Non Profit Public Option thats run independently of the Federal Government. But where the people decide for themselves where they get their Health Insurance and Health Care. Not Private or Public Monopoly's.
FRSFreeStateNow 7 months ago
F Market Competition. Market competition kills people.
SandCmpbll 1 year ago
@SandCmpbll so does time
Governments kill people, pathogens kill people,natural disasters kill people ect. you essential have no point
mjbarrowful 5 months ago
Look, I can optimize a system for excellence, too - ignoring other factors, of course. But you don't get to make that choice under a libertarian system. This is why thoughtful libertarians have real questions about Reason Magazine, Cato Institute, and so on. As for Canada, my God, the system would collapse without the US being on the border. Please - step up your analysis, boys.
alisonalive 1 year ago
Matt, the goal isn't merely "great health care", it is liberty. It is not forcing someone else to pay for your poor decisions (if you make them :-) I have experienced French health care, too. You're right: it is quite good in France. But as Henry Hazlitt has taught us all, it is what is NOT observed that is at least as important as what IS seen. What you do not acknowledge, in France, is systemic unemployment, extremely low rates of new enterprise formation, and so on.
alisonalive 1 year ago
I think this is a good discussion and I really appreciate the equality and maturity in exchange of ideas. 2 things that I have to disagree with (disclaimer...I'm a Libertarian), is that in one big "pool", costs are shared "equally" and that the pool can tell big Pharma what they will pay. 1) the costs aren't shared equally because we don't respect the right to property. We tax "the rich" more so they pay more. This isn't equality. 2) Big Pharma won't invest in new drugs if they can't make money.
lilmac929 1 year ago
Socialized medicene, is NOT a libertarian idea. We belive in free-market based ideas.Our website gives an outline of a free market based idea. If you read this I would suggest going to our website and reading that insted of listening to a quasi-libertarian (socalist Libertarians exist belive it or not, there's just a very small amount of them)
Maragriz 1 year ago
youtube.com/watch?v=WExYUnAe73Q
noyouaintgettingit 1 year ago
Libertarian my ass lol....
sgthobbes2 1 year ago 2
This is a very skewed view of free market healthcare.
Having your health insurance cover routine dental work is like having car insurance covering check ups and car tuning.
The US does NOT have real free market healthcare. It is over-regulated and overly dependant on insurance.
For more, have a look at John Stossel's explanation here: /watch?v=aEXFUbSbg1I
imre1000 1 year ago
@imre1000 John Stossel is a tool. If you think we're too regulated, you haven't been paying attention. Your right, we don't have a real free market, we have piranhas and monopolies who don't care about you or me. Regulation is the only saving grace we have.
SandCmpbll 1 year ago
@SandCmpbll Don't agree. If you look at the history of the US, especially the latter half of the 19th century, you will see very clearly that companies hate competition. If you need proof, search for this video by Murray Rothbard "The Decline of Laissez Faire" on YouTube. In terms of health care, everyone talks about competition between insurance companies but nobody talks about competition between different forms of medicine. Continuing in next post.
thurstjo1963 1 year ago
@thurstjo1963 There are types of medicines (i.e. Chinese, Ayurvedic, Homeopathy, etc) of which have been effectively used for thousands of years. These medicines offer treatments for different illnesses (such as cancer) that are alot cheaper and in many cases more effective than conventional treatments. People should be free to choose what the feel is the best and most cost-effective means of treating an illness. In the west, that choice is not available to the public because of "regulation".
thurstjo1963 1 year ago
Regulation has been the reason for the breakdown in the American healthcare system, and the incredible increase in costs as reflected in household income. The only kind of regulation that physicians would need is from the medical school that issues the medical diploma, and perhaps, those medical professional organizations for the respective medical specialties. Any other regulation, as in the bureaucratic-administrative kind has, in the main, been more bane than boon for individual consumers.
whiff1962 11 months ago
Weird, I am confused, this is a libertarian and he's advocating for a public option?
Shalek 1 year ago 2
@Shalek he's one of those libertarians who doesn't ignore the reality of the world he lives in.
blingbling65943 1 year ago
@blingbling65943 Ah, my type of libertarian.
Shalek 1 year ago
Libertarian principles do not espouse government intervention into free markets. This guy should qualify his opinion as a personal one and not as a Libertarian Magazine Editor.
bertly71 1 year ago
shoud've interviewed Peter Schiff, Ron Paul, or somebody from Cato Institute.
judd73 1 year ago
@judd73 True but this is Paul Jay we are talking about so he will likely find the most wavering libertarian he could find.
Raptoreyes 1 year ago
"I would bet all the money I have that it won't pass".
Well ain't that a bitch?
majinspy 1 year ago 2
@nyl8nchz
Well I will say this.
I'm completely opposed to destroying the state line barrier entirely, unless there's some strong federal regulations to maintain quality.
I am however completely in favor of allowing for State compacts, which would allow multiple state markets with similar regulations to merge.
The catch of course, Constitutionally, state compacts have to be allowed by congress.
greyflcn 1 year ago
@nly8nchz
No it's not out of pocket costs.
It's total costs, as a percentage of GDP, per capita.
_
As for the "state barrier" thing.
If you wanted to make it so that every state had pre-existing conditions and mandates similar to say, California on a federal level.
Sure.
However the alternative you propose is to basically say that no state can regulate those.
greyflcn 1 year ago
So when I get pulled over will the new line be DL, registration, insurence, and health care papers please?
kiddpoor 1 year ago
@nly8nchz
Excellent point Nly8nchz. It isn't excessive
profit when government taxes the hell out
of a producer and the producer must pass
those costs on to stay in business.
All we are seeing is sociopath politicians
pretending the problem is anything but their
own lust for power and control.
Raptoreyes 1 year ago
@nly8nchz
Well, I can see how one might argue that if we throw quality standards out the window when it comes to health.
Then the cost might go down.
But that's not inexpensive healthcare, that's cheap healthcare.
Which is intolerable when that's literally a question of life and death.
_
That said, I still don't quite see your answer as to why all those other developed countries have both inexpensive costs, high quality care, and government involvement.
greyflcn 1 year ago
@nly8nchz
Well I'm not so certain about Mises or Rockwell.
But Cato doesn't seem to care about reality.
greyfalcon. net/ ideology.png
greyflcn 1 year ago
@greyflcn ha ha! very funny comic strip
SweatLaserXP 1 year ago
@nly8nchz
Well the simple fact of the matter is that 1 out of every 3 dollars in health insurance is spent on overhead.
And even when you include all the uncounted costs for public healthcare programs. We're still talking significantly less than 10% overhead.
Also, those figures aren't "personal out of pocket". It's national total spending, normalized by GDP and per capita.
greyflcn 1 year ago
@nly8nchz
Well that's the problem though.
The "REAL" free market
Or rather idealized free market
Doesn't exist. Never had existed. And most likely won't every exist.
Also just in general, the semantics are a bit odd
To say that markets that exist, aren't "real".
And markets that don't exist, are "real".
greyflcn 1 year ago
Matts basic arguement is that the free market can solve the health care issue. Unfortunately he isn't talking about the free market from everyone's perspective, only his, being his age and wealth status. The free market will deny the old and poor from their system because of profit margins. He hasn't put himself in the shoes of a 60 year old with a low income. That is the essential quality missing from Libertarians and free market thinkers, perspective of the poorest and most vulnerable.
sept62007 1 year ago
@sept62007
The poor can be handled with a basic safety net designed for the poorest. It would be inefficient like all government programs but at least it would not try to do any pie in the sky projects like the futile quest to cover everybody.
Covering everybody without making governments go bankrupt will have to wait until tech like cheap fusion and mature genetic engineering make the costs manageable. This is in the future. For awhile we are stuck with what we have now.
Raptoreyes 1 year ago
@Raptoreyes
Funny, considering there are a large number of countries that cover everyone around the world. At a fraction of the cost we spend.
All while maintaining quality standards comparable or better than ours.
greyfalcon. net/ healthcare
If anything, "what doesn't exist" is a country that has successfully implemented a libertarian style health program.
greyflcn 1 year ago
@greyflcn
Actually private mutual aid societies existed
before the welfare state perverted basic
human impulses toward sociability. Adjusted
for the limited resource base of the 19th
century and the earlyer state of technology,
these organizations (all private) did do
libertarian healthcare as you put it. It
worked very well given the limted tech of the times.
Raptoreyes 1 year ago
Comment removed
SweatLaserXP 1 year ago
@greyflcn lol, some of the data is so stark that Libertarian types simply ignore it. Tell them that such-and-such gets universal coverage, at nearly half the cost, with better outcomes, and it's in one ear and out the other. Magical thinking about markets always triumphs.
SweatLaserXP 1 year ago
@Raptoreyes but we already have that system, it's called Medicaid. And it pisses a lot of people off because it's free health care for the poor, free health care for the elderly (Medicare), and everyone else has to pay for it. If it were everybody in, nobody out, we'd have lower costs, and people would be able to spend that leftover money in a sector of the economy where there's actually a free market, as opposed to shovelling it over to the useless private insurance monopolies.
SweatLaserXP 1 year ago
Sounds good I like you guys.
kjpdqpb 1 year ago
I am more convinced than ever that no matter what is actually done to "improve" health care, it will only get worse as a result, and as in the past, "freedom" will be blamed and the need for yet more rules will be proposed. It is a death spiral like all of the others, but this time it will probably mean that I actually do die in the arms of the State at my end.
al2i 1 year ago
If there was a public option, it should e just that, an OPTION.
bradleyshorwith 1 year ago
I am sure it will be for quite a while.
al2i 1 year ago
false statement by the interviewer at 16.06. The public sector has increases at a higher rate than the private sector in the US.
Also nothing noted in this interview about the private system subsidizing Medicare through underpayment by the government to our doctors.
Expat1London 1 year ago
uggghhhh medicare is getting more expensive because of a failed private system and the healthcare bill does have a provision that allows for buying across state lines.
Matt needs to check his facts more and he never really articulated any good ideas other then going across state lines.
AndroidPolitician 1 year ago
if that happened it would simply transfer power from the state to the federal government. instead of the states deciding how they want to regulate insurance companies as it has always been, big brother will get to decide for them. it's the federal government taking away power from state government and it's not what this country was founded upon.
simple minded creatures that believe whatever they want to believe.
cvcdgftr7676545 1 year ago
the biggest issue is the fundamental issue of distrust of government, media propaganda, and the belief that money grows on trees in china. until that changes, we won't get any real change in this country. things have not changed for humanity in 5,000 years. even back in the roman era, we are still making the same foolish mistakes they have made.
cvcdgftr7676545 1 year ago
I agree, this is childhood's end for America. America seems destined for a miserably acrimonious old age, with rotting infrastructure and a body of complaints.
al2i 1 year ago
@cvcdgftr7676545
Wow you hit the nail on the head Cvcdgftr
Most people would not support government run health care if they understood that money does not grow on trees. (or that talented people gravitate to fields with low government involvement). Talented people will not take up medicine. Eventually the high level of competence we expect from doctors will disappear under socialized medicine. Such competence has disappeared already for teachers under a government run system.
Raptoreyes 1 year ago
@Raptoreyes we have had a shortage of primary care doctors for years, and not because of obama care.
you believe anything you are told don't you, like obama being a Christian citizen.
cvcdgftr7676545 1 year ago
@cvcdgftr7676545 Obama Care has not been around long enough to have these effects YET. It may take as much as 3 generations for socialized medicine to disincentive all the talented folk out of the system.
Doctors need high pay or their quality falls to the pay you give them... period. This process of adjustment take a LONG time which makes socialism look great until then.
Raptoreyes 1 year ago
@Raptoreyes studies show private schools ,and colleges are no better than public schools, and sometimes they are worse, or cost so much more.
cvcdgftr7676545 1 year ago
@cvcdgftr7676545 What "studies" commissioned by who? using what methodology? If its a group known for preaching the supremacy of the state then all you have to do is move the goal post about to get the "result" you want.
In any case private schools would be better even without a performance edge as government has an incentive to make people ignorant to what freedom really is. Most poor parents vote with their feet to private schools when given vouchers. Reality is better seen that way.
Raptoreyes 1 year ago
and kudos to you Matt!
redrajani 1 year ago
'inherently suspicious'
and rightly so!
redrajani 1 year ago
It seems like Mr. Jay has a better understanding of the health system than the guy he's interviewing.
SweatLaserXP 1 year ago 2
@sweatLaserXP
Mr Jay may have more here and now factoids from this study or that study, but the man he is interviewing has more of an idea of how culture, law and incentives (perverse or otherwise) fit together to produce outcomes. Jay while knowledgeable sees the world as a bunch of separate issues in a box. Unfortunately its a variety of pressures that produce any single outcome. Reporters like soundbites but soundbites make horrible policy.
Its wisdom vs information this time.
Raptoreyes 1 year ago
Well, Mr. Welch kicks things off by boasting how great the health care system is in France, not acknowledging that France has a mixed single payer/private insurance system. Also, he didn't seem to realize that inflation in private insurance is far far worse than it is in Medicare. Libertarian types always seem to assume that governments can't do anything efficiently, an idea the collapses under the mildest scrutiny; perhaps Mr. Welch should learn what the French pay for their health care.
SweatLaserXP 1 year ago
@SweatLaserXP
Add in government debts that are unpaid and
the true costs of govt healthcare are staggering
compared to any private option. Just because
the government uses funny math to compute
its own cost does not mean we should be
fooled by their a-moral accounting.
Raptoreyes 1 year ago
France actually does a lot of medical research. Like that work on HIV and that face transplants. Medicare can't make medical decisions. That guy is trying to put words in Paul's mouth. Medicare actually ran a surplus until they gutted the money for other projects.
jotunobsidianeyes 1 year ago
Medicare makes medical decisions in the sense that it drives healthcare reimbursements. If MC doesn't cover something, a MC beneficiary won't be able to afford it. Can you post a link about the surplus stuff? I've never heard that.
random63x 1 year ago
@jotunobsidianeyes Of course politicians were going to gut the money from medicare they are politicians. Leaving unattended piles of money their for them to use in buying their re-elections is too much temptation for a politician. Public works typically are spent badly by the nature of electoral politics itself. Better that most of the money was taken out of the hands of politicians period. Politicians do "stupid" things because their incentives are not your incentives.
Raptoreyes 1 year ago
I live in Belgium and as I'm student, I don't have to pay my doctors, anyone gets nice cuts for the indispensable medicine, and people only have to pay for a maximum amount (in relation with their income) for operation/medicine.
I pay like 7€/month and I know if I get cancer tomorrow, I'll be taken care of, I'll be able to afford anything despite my 700€ income...
sinekonata 1 year ago
Do you rely on the Belgian government to develop new treatments for Cancer and other health related issues?
Would you be willing to pay extra for the cost it takes to research and develop new medical break-throughs and send this check to the US?
Spectre11B 1 year ago
So you think the private sector makes research because they're nice and want to help people? Maybe you also think you don't pay research anyways??? Silly you... Think again or differently...
And if you can avoid paying research, it's only because your neighbor is paying your part in your place...
Research as well ought to be 100% controlled by gov or an international NGO...
EDIT: I found out that I pay 9€ not 7...
sinekonata 1 year ago
No thats not what I am saying at all.
I am saying that nations that have socialized health care do not carry the burden of cost for research and development, yet get to use it when it is conveniently affordable to them.
Without the privatized capital investments that occur in the US, most of the advancements in health and medicine that you enjoy wouldn't even exist.
Spectre11B 1 year ago
No I don't think you should think that way, here's another: if a large part of the population's demand isn't met (since corporations wouldn't do the job) that same people can ask for a research organization to be founded instead of relying on the greed of some people to sell you what they research.
Same applies for (public) transportation, it is now underdeveloped in many countries but the more cars (which are private) are banned/taxed, the bigger the first grows...
sinekonata 1 year ago
Well here is something that we can agree upon. I am not a strict libertarian. I believe the government's role should be to help fund infrastructure, such as highways, internet, airports. These all help facilitate and spur business growth.
However, I do not agree that the government should be in the business of owning or running what the private sector can do more efficiently.
Leave the creative freedom to the people.
Spectre11B 1 year ago
@sinekonata
you think the direction and selection of research should be decided by politicians?!? are you insane?
observer855 1 year ago
I'm not saying politicians, I'm saying people, just read my comment...
Also, in a representative democracy, it's way more insane to leave research into the hands of money than in the hands of politicians that are at least SUPPOSED to "represent" us...
sinekonata 1 year ago
take a look at how most medical innovation has developed. A huge % based on lab accidents, etc. This is not something the government can direct - gov should fund some research via NIH etc. , private sector should fund its own research.
BTW- in practice there really is no such thing as a representitive democracy. Politicians simply represent their own interests.
observer855 1 year ago 2
I would dispute [some] of the comments regarding the healthcare here in the UK - while the NHS is FAR too bureaucratic which causes much waste (the bane of our system that none seem to have been able to cure), the real strength is NICE - which acts as a group buyer for pharmaceuticals. We then pay a flat rate of £7.50 ($10) per prescription or an annual payment of £100 ($150) for free scripts all year or nothing if on welfare. This group bargaining power is what keeps costs down.
DeviantincTV 1 year ago
@DeviantincTV
Well that's the trick.
Demand side bargaining power is the only thing that can cut costs on an object which has a legal monopoly (patent)
Unlike say "Apples", which anyone can produce and sell on the open market.
greyflcn 1 year ago
Exactly! Plus the whole patents system is seriously flawed and adds unnecessary costs, for instance - stomach ulcers are predominantly caused by bacteria (H. pylori) and can be treated cheaply with antibiotics. However, drug companies often 'combine' these cheap drugs with expensive patented drugs to control stomach acid which add little to overall effectiveness, but lots to the cost.
Also, new anti-depressants appear every year, yet there hasn't been a new antibiotic since the 70s - very bad
DeviantincTV 1 year ago
Without a legal monopoly their is no incentive to make that new life saving drug. Life saving drugs are almost always make by young guys that want to get rich. No life saving drug has ever been developed by a selfless martyr. You have to pay the REAL costs of these medicines if you want the benefits.
Raptoreyes 1 year ago
@Raptoreyes
Indeed.
However what I'm saying is the only way to lower the cost of a "legal monopoly" on the supply side, is to use economies of scale on the demand side.
Or quite simply that austrian economics falls to pieces in the face of patent law.
greyflcn 1 year ago
Patent law however is their to give an incentive to spend a fortune and navigate legal issues to make the new drug. Without a few years of monopoly the great inventors and drug companies that fund them, will simply stop making new drugs.
Health in old age is expensive and without a fundamental tech breakthrough their is no way to avoid the costs. You can try to cheat reality and it can work for a few years before things are worse then before. Just look at central banking.
Raptoreyes 1 year ago
one thing you may not be taking into account is the fact that there's actually a lot of public funding behind some medical/pharmaceutical innovation, and the corporations get to name their price with no competition anyway, and even claim they have to make the price high to pay for the research, even when it was paid for by public funds. Especially with rare diseases, there's not enough consumer money to make some new drugs profitable and public funding is necessary, but it should lead to access.
Capitalocracy 1 year ago
Yes, but Patent Law also impedes progress.
So the two needs to come to balance, and 5 years is a good Balance, 12 years is not...
Ex0dus111 1 year ago
@nly8nchz
the insurance companies control your health care now, for profit. How's that working for you?
We need to get rid of insurance. period. it is a scam.
gmfutube 1 year ago
@gmfutube
Damn straight! insurance of all kinds is a scam and always has been. How many people are conned out of being able to claim due to 'technicalities'? Instead all that money should go into a pool - if you paid in you get treatment. Done.
DeviantincTV 1 year ago
It is not about Canada, France, it is about AMERICAN HEALTH. You do not get it. Laissez faire , laissez passez GOBAMA!!:)
arizonafb 1 year ago
yay more non-socialists on trnn pls kthnx
ack44 1 year ago
@ack44 Yeah I thought it would be a cold day in hell before they had somebody from Reason TV on. Looks like hell just froze over.
Raptoreyes 1 year ago
@Raptoreyes And it looks like this is gonna be a weekly thing. TRNN are finally opening up, a little. And lol I get three thumbs down for praising diversity of opinion. Would be sad if this damaged TRNN economically lol.
ack44 1 year ago
Damaged them economically? Are you kidding. If they did more then a token amount of this stuff I might actually give them money and libertarians are less likely to be net tax consumers then your average socialist who hasn't yet been properly mugged by reality.
If you can find Jay's interview with Ron Paul you can smile a bit when Paul asks Jay why he is against invasions but has "touching and unshakable faith" in govt social spending.
Raptoreyes 1 year ago
Fail. Once again, an American libertarian offers no real solutions to a serious problem. Does nothing to solve affordability.
porkchopexpress07 1 year ago
libertarian take on health care: fuck you, got mine
kstorm06 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
send $5 to TRNN text:
News to 85944
2020peter 1 year ago
Why not just have complete separation of my body and the State? I'll take care of my own health care and the rest of you busybodies keep your MFing hands to yourself! Get your mountains of regulations, licenses, and rules away! I will find whatever healer I think I need and you can butt out! However you won't do that, because you loathe freedom.
al2i 1 year ago
@al2i
What about all the roads, cops, firefighters, military, education, etc, etc, etc that we pay for collectively.
Isn't it easier for you to just leave the US and live your very own island?
You won't do that, because you loathe freedom. Simple idiots with foresight of moles.
n1njasause 1 year ago 2
Comment removed
al2i 1 year ago
I don't want to live on an island, but rather, in a society of sovereign individuals that respects my right to choose the health care I feel best for me. Apparently, because I've used a road somewhere, you feel I have no rights at all, and even under my own skin, I am subject to your rule.
al2i 1 year ago
well, i would go on about how, in this bill, you would still have those choices, and if there was a public option, that would do merely add to those choices. This is all true, but i'm sure you've seen enough fox news show to think differently.
n1njasause 1 year ago
omg the media can disagree with the person their interviewing? didnt think it was possible !
restlys 1 year ago
Sorry to see the choice to interview Matt Welch. He really didn't seem to have much depth of understanding.
iknownothingnow 1 year ago
I tried donating 5 bucks but that's before I noticed the US only thing. So yeah, didn't work here in Sweden. But hey, I'll donate when I can! Keep up the great work!
VolcanicPenguin 1 year ago
Americans,
Can you buy private health insurance without having to go through your employer?
andie2244 1 year ago
Yes, but it's crap. I am in such a situation, being self employed. This issue is quite complex, and truth is much of us don't understand how to change it at all. The idiots who brand "socialistic medicine" as the worst thing possible are unfortunately a large portion of the population. It's amazing and tragic the ignorance in the US.
tarfpir 1 year ago 2
@andie2244
you can if you are rich enough.
e.g. hubby has a very good employer plan which is valued at $23,000/yr.
that is almost half of his yearly pay. I would take the cash and pay the Dr. dircetly any day.
gmfutube 1 year ago
libertarians are cranks who don't know or understand jack shit. It's like a cult.
FreakishDonQuixote 1 year ago
I second that, they're closeted republican.
Representative45 1 year ago
You are a fucking idiot. I guess liberals are a cult too.
ChaoticSouls 1 year ago
Good interview Paul, you kept him honest when he tried to bend the truth.
mymojorisin 1 year ago 3
I'm betting Mr Welch will decline future interviews. He will be receiving a ton of flack for this interview from his 'libertarian" colleagues. Personally I found him bordering on incoherent. By the end of the interview I had absolutely no idea what it was that he was advocating as far as a national healthcare strategy.
shameoncanada 1 year ago
@shameoncanada
he was totally incoherent.
Competition is good but no public option?
Medicare costs less than private insurance so private sector is always better?
The whole world has cheaper, better, public health insurance but government is bad?
This guy has his ideology stuck up his ass. Why doesn't he complain about the ever increasing military budgets that result in the deaths of thousands?!
Anyone who complains about "entitlements" should move to Somalia, a libertarian paradise!
micahgee 1 year ago 2
@micahgee He does complain about the ever increasing military budgets that result in the deaths of thousands. Very regularly. Know a little about the guy before you libel him.
nightpotato 1 year ago
the libertarian doesn't know what he is talking about.
wastro8092 1 year ago 2
@wastro8092
That's pretty much how it sounded to me.
shameoncanada 1 year ago
excellent debate.
ejucatedhorse42 1 year ago
great segment... I thoroughly enjoyed that!
whatnameisavailablee 1 year ago
With this kind of debate, I think we're on our way to figuring things out. No mudslinging, just debating facts. Good job to Jay and Matt here.
sonnybrown 1 year ago 4
I'm only 4.5 minutes in.. And... Wow! Am I ever EVER happy to be in Canada.
whatnameisavailablee 1 year ago 2
haha I love how Paul Jay shut him down at the end of the interview.
Arkinight 1 year ago
Yeah he totally did, i wish he would had said Mass. isn't single payer/universal in the way they were discussing. Funny comment, Reason mag posts every video interview one of their guys does around the web/media, but this one is oddly absent.
cerebus2099 1 year ago
say it with me...and YES I AM A REGISTERED LIBERTARIAN...
ANTITRUST BREAK UP OF HEALTH INSURANCE COMPANIES FIRST
EVERYTHING ELSE LATER!!!!!
hiyukenmusic 1 year ago 3
@hiyukenmusic
funny how that was never mentioned...
All these "free market" libertarians seem to be OK with anti-trust exemption for an industry that is driving America into bankruptcy!
micahgee 1 year ago
On behalf of Libertarians I apologize...because antitrust lawsuits should be the first step in this process because I honestly believe that is all you need to do....no public option nor tax credits just break them up...law makers need to regulate...meaning MAKE REGULAR...and a multibillion dollar horizontal monopoly is not regular!!!!!!!
hiyukenmusic 1 year ago
I have called my self a libertarian all of my life but I find myself really struggling to accept the arguments. Like this guy saying that Medicare would politicize payment for some procedures. But ignoring how private insurance companies decline payment for purely profitabitily reasons. Wouldn't you like to be able to turn to a representative or omsbudsman when Medicare decline payment instead of going to court with the insurance company?
zthustra 1 year ago 2
The problem with the Massachusetts system was that it wasn't even a publicly provided Health Care system. It was just a system that attempted to push Its citizens into private insurance monopolies that were slightly more regulated. There was no competition, people did not have a choice, and the prices went up while quality went down. Massachusetts plan keeps being attacked by the right as an example of a failed public plan; but that wasn't the case. I wish Jay pointed this out.
Champraves311 1 year ago 2
Great rebuttal from Paul Jay.This libertarian fellow may have a lot of ideology, but none of the facts, it was funny when they were mentioning Mississippi as one of the most unregulated States, since it's in Mississippi and Arkansas were most the chicken an pig factory farms are located , because of the lack of regulations. the result is that you will wind up swimming in a pool of chicken and pig shit. not to mention you will have to drink shit flavor water.
Kioti077 1 year ago 3
That's why this will channel will never qualify as real news. They only tell you what they want you to hear.
They never mentioned that Mississippi was one of the largest recipients of Federal Aid, and Arkansas wasn't too far behind.
If they wanted the best example of a state that had the least regulation, they should have picked Texas. Zero state taxes.
Well what do you know...their economy is pretty stable.
These guys are a joke.
Spectre11B 1 year ago
Your comment is a joke.
FreakishDonQuixote 1 year ago
I dont care whether you think it's a joke or not.
Everything I said was true. All the information I posted is from the CBO.
Spectre11B 1 year ago
Paul Jay is definitely one of the sharpest knives in the drawer. Keep up the good work.
sabiki74 1 year ago 5
@sabiki74
A sharp knife that regularly gets accused propagandizing. As you can see here he is giving his philosophical opposition a good opportunity to speak.
Hierophant2 1 year ago
2:40 they pay. and they get EVERY penny BACK in a tax return.
4:00 WE CAN'T AFFORD IT- BECAUSE - THE MILITARY INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX
; Why'd he leave that nugget of truth out?
oldhacks 1 year ago
Nice to hear from a real libertarian. I'm a liberal/progressive but nonetheless I respect other political ideologies when they're intelligently argued for.
MassLiberal1 1 year ago 2
Lol, faux libertarians are funny, they don't know whether they want to be statists or not....
Charles0in0charge 1 year ago
This guy's perspective is worthless, he's a fucking hypocrite, sucking on the French public tit. Some libertarian he is eh?
Bunnicula71 1 year ago
@Bunnicula71
Amen.... what a faux libertarian piece of traitor trash!!!
snellonlove 1 year ago
How exactly is he a faux libertarian? is it because he said the french system is batter and cheaper while delivering a higher overall quality than what we have in this country? or that he continues to say that he wouldn't be satisfied with the french in america in place of a complete free market one.
That should be shocking to anyone paying attention.
Read more of the mans writings beforeu start calling him a faux libertarian.
uche007us 1 year ago
@uche007us
He's a fake libertarian because he's using empirical evidence taken from reality, and comparing both pros and cons, and seeing which one stacks up to be better.
He's not basing his entire argument on prejudiced assumptions and dogmatic principles.
Or quite simply,
He's results oriented.
Rather than being method oriented.
Rational.
So clearly he can't be a real libertarian.
greyflcn 1 year ago 5
Ha! Very true.
MarquisdeBarrabas 1 year ago
"the markets will solve it!"
umm no. fail. try something else...
oldhacks 1 year ago
competition and health just ...
doesn't seem right
but he makes a good point when saying that there should be a lot of different options and it should not be stuck with your job
as for big and costly innovations most of them come from really big companies and the state sector
greenhell666 1 year ago
@greenhell
Well thats the catch with most libertarians.
They generally have a "one size fits all" approach to markets.
And then usually compare physical commodity, or luxury goods markets to healthcare financing.
Once again, another type of logically false comparison.
greyfalcon. net/ healthcare2
For instance, a $200 car, and a $200,000 car have roughly the same function.
There are no cheap heart bypass surgeries.
And one company may have a legal monopoly (patent) on that medication.
greyflcn 1 year ago 2
true, it reminds me of those austrian economics methods that simplifies everything
I don't know how medication patents work in america
But here in brazil we have a system where medications with expired patents are sold cheaper for the public
greenhell666 1 year ago
@greyflcn great point about the car, sorry but most of the libertarian approach is charactarized by this wishful simplicity, not only one size fits all but a few monolithic principles will magically solve all problems
random0815 1 year ago
@random0815
"Wishful simplicity" is believing the government can create hundreds of thousands of Doctors and Nurses out of thin air to serve 300,000,000 legal and illegal Americans who are personally irresponsible with their eating habits.
snellonlove 1 year ago
@snellonlove
Good thing we aren't talking about "government doctors"
We're talking about Financing.
_
What's with your habit of dragging completely unrelated topics into the discussion?
Or is a strawman argument the only type of argument you can deal with?
greyflcn 1 year ago
@snellonlove so instead of just penalizing those who intentionally take risks you want to throw out solidarity in general?
random0815 1 year ago
I will be looking forward to more of these discussions with Matt Welch!
magichandpuppet 1 year ago
The one point everyone fails to bring up in the health care debate are the two current social health care systems that exist in the US today. All anyone has to do is look into the health care offered by the Department of Veterans Affairs or the Department of Defense for the military. Now multiply those problems a 100 times and that is what socialized medicine would look like in the USA.
wildshoobie05 1 year ago
@wolfshoobie05
Well the large problem with military healthcare programs is that they operate on a shoestring budget.
greyflcn 1 year ago
@greyflcn
And what do you think the budget for the WHOLE country on a state run / military health care program will look like???
SpeakUpFightBack 1 year ago
@SpeakUpFightBack
Well lets take a look around the world.
What do they look like:
greyfalcon. net/ healthcare.png
Oh and they would be horribly bloated with bureaucracy, right? Wrong.
greyfalcon. net/ overhead.png
greyflcn 1 year ago
@speakupfightback
Oops, wrong link
Here's the right one
greyfalcon. net/ healthcare
greyflcn 1 year ago
This guy doesn't even understand the race to the bottom model with unregulated shopping for health insurrance across states lines. Look at what happened to the under-regulated credit card market in the US. And if you don't know, you better ask somebody.
blackacadian 1 year ago
@blackacadian
Indeed, that is the issue with the state-line barrier.
Is that NOBODY would be able to regulate health insurance.
And if you want a good example why unregulated insurance is bad.
There is Credit Default Swaps. The key factor in this financial collapse we just had.
(i.e. Unregulated loan risk insurance)
_
That said, State Compacts do make sense.
Since it would be something like "a market of 5 states with similar regulation".
greyflcn 1 year ago
If republicans were serious about health care reform, State Compacts with the same regulation standards could of been proposed instead of their current delay tactics.
blackacadian 1 year ago
Libertarian? Sounds more like a liberal
joshv89 1 year ago
Why did they put this right wing profiteer on here? Real news is normally leftist. For some reason he advocates the French model but wants markets? He criticizes the British model but the reason it isn't as good is because they tried to bring in competition through private finance initiatives and public-private-partnerships. He says medicare for all would politize healthcare but it already is only under a neoliberal ideological guise that pretends otherwise. Make it democratic and open in public
jncoles 1 year ago 2
The trouble with the libertarian party is that it is made up of mostly disenfranchised republicans. I watched the republicans take over several states at the 2008 libertarian convention. The real libertarians were ignored in favor of Barr who is really a republican in sheep's clothing. The libertarian party needs to figure out how to purge these republicans from the ranks or this party is dead already.
redcloak676 1 year ago
@redcloak676
That is already happening. The purge of the neo-cons and the Religi-cons is underway.
BTW, I predict that the Democrats will be facing a similar purge this year and forward to oust their far left elements once mainstream Democrats realize that their party has also been hijacked.
.
kmg501 1 year ago
@kmg501
Let's hope you are right. I have not heard that myself. We desperately need a viable third party at the table.
redcloak676 1 year ago
@kmg501
Any thoughts on the "Constitution Party"?
tinyurl (dot) com/4h5kel
greyflcn 1 year ago
.
Just a heads up to small government people and libertarians, expect to get your comments voted down a lot here. Real News has a large socialist following who are the polar opposite of libertarians.
I strongly suggest going to options and enabling all comments for visibility so that you don't miss anything.
.
kmg501 1 year ago
Yeah, I know. As an advocate of small engines in Jumbo Jets, I have found my views constantly attacked by Commies.
facelesshorseman 1 year ago
Who doesn't love a system where you get free shit?
Where do I sign up to get free shit?
Spectre11B 1 year ago
lets make every thing free!
whippoorwillss 1 year ago
What a crock .... Reason magazine and Glenn Beck Republicans love to call their neo-con agenda of aggressive wars and social program expansion 'Patriotic', 'American' and now 'Libertarian'.
It's complete horse sh-t!!!
These fux are faux .... they're fascists in sheep's clothing.
snellonlove 1 year ago
what kills me more then anything else... is per capita the US spends more then any other industrialized country.... and yet only delivers its system to 1/8th of the population roughly...
bizkin 1 year ago
This is ridiculous.... Everyone loves to call themselves a libertarian nowadays and broadcast completely non-libertarian stances on every issue from the warfare to welfare state.
If you want a TRULY LIBERTARIAN perspective on health care, please check out / youtube John Stossel's "Sick in America" Special Report. It six parts. Great information to make a fully informed decision on the health care debate.
SpeakUpFightBack 1 year ago
@SpeakUpFightBack I agree with you the discussion they are having is selling public option (if I understand them correctly) half way through this. I agree with the Libertarian stance, get the insurance co.'s out and get your employer out and the cost will come down making it affordable. I think we should go doctor direct and they should post their fees and one could shop around as with most goods and services.
gina7177 1 year ago
@SpeakUpFightBack
The problem with Stossel is that he loves to use false logic.
For instance, Equivocation
"Hey look at these cashiers at a grocery store chain! They have a program which is essentially paying out of pocket, with a tax cut. Wonderful!!"
Catch being, claiming something that works for people who are significantly more healthy than the general population given their age group.
And then assuming that would work for the entire country is "intentionally dishonest".
greyflcn 1 year ago 2
@greyflcn
Anyone who has been in a physicians office in the last thirty plus years can agree there are major problems with the current Healthcare System and they are foremost: 1) Bureaucrats and Accountants make decisions, not Doctors, 2) Limited Time with Doctor, and 3) Skyrocketing Costs.
Stossel affirms our system sucks and is getting worse, but replacing several GIANT Insurance companies, created by the HMO Act of 1973, with a GIANT single payer is a cure worse than the disease.
SpeakUpFightBack 1 year ago