Libertarian for Universal Healthcare???

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Apostolic1ness

Again why do you believe the government should be responsible for our education, healthcare, social security, etc? Don't we need less government interference in our lives? If I had to guess I would say that you are on full disability and to keep you from total condemnation it necessitates that you stay on the left and make posts that defend this utter reliance on the government.

He's a federal employee (or works for a federal contractor). That's what he said once before.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Aquila

I agree. But you and I both know that they are fleecing us. Yep, defending our freedom. In 2007 I had the freedom to watch family die from a treatable illness because she didn't have health insurance. As did 45,000 other American families. There is also the question of our getting involved in unwarranted, unjustified, and questionable military conflicts. It seems like we're told there is never enough money for education, healthcare, TANF, Social Security, or Medicare... but there's always money for another war or giveaway in corporate welfare.

Land of the free... and yet we have the greatest number of citizens incarcerated per capita than any other Westernized nation. And libertarian organizations have shown that 19 nations rank higher than the U.S. as it relates to human freedom. So... when they say they are spending trillions to defend "freedom"... what "freedom" exactly are we talking about?

The public trust belongs to the American people, because it is our money. We should be careful to make sure that it serves us and what is in our best interests, not corporate greed or war profiteers. And we should only be going to war if absolutely necessary and warranted anyway. We are not the police of the world.

Weren't you in favor of "doing something about Assad"?

[Jito463]

Originally Posted by Aquila

I agree. But you and I both know that they are fleecing us. Yep, defending our freedom.

As with any branch of goobermint, there's always some wasteful spending that could be cut back; however, defense is one of the few Constitutionally legitimate roles of government, and thus is one of the few Constitutional reasons for them to spend our money.

Originally Posted by Aquila

In 2007 I had the freedom to watch family die from a treatable illness because she didn't have health insurance. As did 45,000 other American families.

That's regrettable, but how does that have anything to do with government? There is no Constitutional mandate for health insurance. There is no Constitutional mandate for gooobermint run health care.

Originally Posted by Aquila

There is also the question of our getting involved in unwarranted, unjustified, and questionable military conflicts.

That's a completely separate issue. I only brought up defense.

Originally Posted by Aquila

It seems like we're told there is never enough money for education, healthcare, TANF, Social Security, or Medicare... but there's always money for another war or giveaway in corporate welfare.

I agree with you completely about the corporate welfare, but just as there is no Constitutional justification for that, there is also no justification for their involvement in any of the other services you mentioned, either.

Remember, the Constitution is a document listing the *limits* on goobermint, not one listing our limits. Any powers not expressly granted to government by the Constitution rests squarely on the states and/or we the people. Abdicating those powers to the goobermint is a surefire way to end up with a dictatorship.

Originally Posted by Aquila

Land of the free... and yet we have the greatest number of citizens incarcerated per capita than any other Westernized nation.

I fail to see how prison populations have to do with this being a free nation.

Originally Posted by Aquila

And libertarian organizations have shown that 19 nations rank higher than the U.S. as it relates to human freedom.

Libertarians are more for anarchy than freedom, so I'd take those lists with a massive grain of salt.

Originally Posted by Aquila

So... when they say they are spending trillions to defend "freedom"... what "freedom" exactly are we talking about?

Freedom from being invaded by a foreign, hostile government. It was only a few decades ago that the USSR was a serious, imminent threat. A few decades before that when Germany became a force to be reckoned with that threatened the entire world. How quickly some people forget.

Originally Posted by Aquila

The public trust belongs to the American people, because it is our money. We should be careful to make sure that it serves us and what is in our best interests, not corporate greed or war profiteers.

Yes, it is our money, and we should ensure that it serves our best interests by limiting goobermint spending and reducing taxes, not by increasing taxes and spending more money on "social welfare" programs. We should be allowed to keep more of our money, not distributing it around. I'd prefer to keep the money I worked for and earned.

Originally Posted by Aquila

And we should only be going to war if absolutely necessary and warranted anyway. We are not the police of the world.

Again, complete separate issue from what I brought up.

[1ofthechosen]

Originally Posted by Aquila

.
Land of the free... and yet we have the greatest number of citizens incarcerated per capita than any other Westernized nation.

You know why? Prison is big business! And the prison system is just a model of society. They try it out on test subjects before they release it on society. It's modern day slavery, which is their plan for everyone and the more we are asking for hand outs and kick backs from them the more they enslave us. We need to get away from.that mentality not go deeper in it!

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Apostolic1ness

Again why do you believe the government should be responsible for our education, healthcare, social security, etc? Don't we need less government interference in our lives? If I had to guess I would say that you are on full disability and to keep you from total condemnation it necessitates that you stay on the left and make posts that defend this utter reliance on the government.

I don't believe that our entire society, even government, has a stake in ensuring that the population is educated at least to the high school level. But public education should be decentralized and run entirely on the state level without federal standardization. I believe that online learning and facilitating home schooling is also a good idea.

As for healthcare and social security, these things aren't mandated by the Constitution. However, with epidemics on the rise, biological warfare threats, and entirely new strains of diseases being found every day, though most don't see it as such, it is a national security issue. It is also an issue of the common welfare of our society. Also, Americans pay far more than any other Westernized nation on their healthcare for results that are far less desirable in comparison. That's an immense drain on the national economy. Not to mention that employer provided health insurance is an unnecessary drain on businesses whose role should be rather simple, make money & generate jobs. We already pay enough in taxes that we could see this happen.

Right now, we see people unable to see the doctors they'd like to see, go to specialists they'd like to go to, etc. because those physicians aren't "in network". Compare to those in Canada, Britain, Netherlands, or Denmark who can easily go and see any physician they'd like. Who has more "intrusion" or "limitations" placed on them? We do. So technically, in these nations, as it relates to healthcare, they have far more freedom and less intrusion than we do.

Social Security's goal was to ensure that retirees and the elderly were able to maintain a basic standard of living on top of anything they were able to save for their retirement on account of their having been productive citizens who contributed to the system. Any system paid into isn't an entitlement...it's like a contract for services. Generations of Americans have been paying into Social Security. We expect it to be left alone and allowed to work as it was designed.

People tend to worry about government intrusion and obstructions in healthcare etc... but if you've ever been to Canada or Britain, or any other Westernized nation, you'll discover that intrusions and obstructions abound in the private system we have in America today. Obstructions and intrusions that don't exist in these other countries.

[Apostolic1ness]

Originally Posted by Aquila

I don't believe that our entire society, even government, has a stake in ensuring that the population is educated at least to the high school level. But public education should be decentralized and run entirely on the state level without federal standardization. I believe that online learning and facilitating home schooling is also a good idea.

As for healthcare and social security, these things aren't mandated by the Constitution. However, with epidemics on the rise, biological warfare threats, and entirely new strains of diseases being found every day, though most don't see it as such, it is a national security issue. It is also an issue of the common welfare of our society. Also, Americans pay far more than any other Westernized nation on their healthcare for results that are far less desirable in comparison. That's an immense drain on the national economy. Not to mention that employer provided health insurance is an unnecessary drain on businesses whose role should be rather simple, make money & generate jobs. We already pay enough in taxes that we could see this happen.

Right now, we see people unable to see the doctors they'd like to see, go to specialists they'd like to go to, etc. because those physicians aren't "in network". Compare to those in Canada, Britain, Netherlands, or Denmark who can easily go and see any physician they'd like. Who has more "intrusion" or "limitations" placed on them? We do. So technically, in these nations, as it relates to healthcare, they have far more freedom and less intrusion than we do.

Social Security's goal was to ensure that retirees and the elderly were able to maintain a basic standard of living on top of anything they were able to save for their retirement on account of their having been productive citizens who contributed to the system. Any system paid into isn't an entitlement...it's like a contract for services. Generations of Americans have been paying into Social Security. We expect it to be left alone and allowed to work as it was designed.

People tend to worry about government intrusion and obstructions in healthcare etc... but if you've ever been to Canada or Britain, or any other Westernized nation, you'll discover that intrusions and obstructions abound in the private system we have in America today. Obstructions and intrusions that don't exist in these other countries.

Could not agree more about education take the Fed out of it and let the states compete. But this is how I feel about healthcare also get the government out of it and allow the free market compete for customers. That will drive down prices and increase quality. Thats what capitalism is all about.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Apostolic1ness

Could not agree more about education take the Fed out of it and let the states compete. But this is how I feel about healthcare also get the government out of it and allow the free market compete for customers. That will drive down prices and increase quality. Thats what capitalism is all about.

See, we agree on education. Let me explain why I hold my views on healthcare.

I don't see healthcare in capitalist terms. But here's my reasoning as to why...

If someone were to go to a car dealership without cash in hand or financing they will be denied the purchase of a vehicle and invited to leave and come back when they have the money or have financing. In healthcare, if someone is in need of medical attention and is taken to the ER they are treated, given necessary tests, and given routine procedures relating to their condition. Lastly, if serious, they are referred to a specialist. If they don't have the cash to pay for this ER visit, or if they don't have insurance, they are billed. Most who don't have health insurance either work part time, don't make enough to afford the insurance and have opted out, or are unemployed. That means that the bill will be a slow pay at best, but as most report, these bills go unpaid. A portion of this loss can be written off in some states, but the remainder is passed down in higher healthcare costs to the consumer. This rising cost in healthcare has the effect of also increasing the cost of monthly premiums. And so, the uninsured drive up the cost of healthcare and health insurance for the rest of us. And as it gets more expensive, more people opt out, which only continues the cycle by adding to the problem of increased costs.

Imagine a car lot giving cars to a third of the people who walk in the doors who don't have money or financing, only to bill them. Then imagine over half of those billed not paying the bill! Would that not drive up the cost of cars on his lot? Would that not eventually put him out of business? Of course it would. Therefore, I don't see how capitalist principles can help our current healthcare system. It's handled like a public service. Therefore, the entire public has to be made to pay into it, or the burden of the uninsured falls on the consumer in higher costs.

The painful truth is... we're already paying for the uninsured. However, we're also paying the fees, processing costs, etc. So, we're paying for the uninsured in the most expensive way possible. Nearly 30% of healthcare costs is administrative alone.

And, back to your statement... healthcare isn't managed as a capitalist enterprise. If run by pure capitalist principles, anyone without cash or insurance would be denied treatment at the doors of every hospital and ER. If this happened tomorrow we'd see healthcare costs begin dropping steadily as the loss generated by the uninsured would cease to exist. But most would find it cruel in our society to see droves of people turned away from ERs and hospitals only to suffer and/or die in the shadows of healthcare facilities. Therefore, a system that is available to all and that treats all, cannot be sustained by a narrow margin of people who pay into the system via their insurance policies without it eventually costing too much for almost everyone. The best way to stabilize costs is to have all pay into an insurance system that is available to all.

So, I don't see how sound capitalist principles can apply to this system as it currently exists.

Why should the able bodied uninsured get away with not paying their bills and passing that cost down to the rest of us??? Why not have every able bodied working American pay into the system that we all eventually turn to throughout our lives?

[Jito463]

Originally Posted by Aquila

I don't see healthcare in capitalist terms. But here's my reasoning as to why...

Let's see what a Canadian has to say about universal health care.

[Esaias]

Is "universal healthcare" in the constitution? If it isn't, then anyone arguing we should have it is arguing we should jettison the constitution. (Which would be strange coming from someone who once supposedly took an oath to uphold that constitution...) If it is, then why after 200 plus years has nobody figured that out?

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Jito463

Let's see what a Canadian has to say about universal health care.

I invite you to any number of Canadian forum wherein we can talk to real Canadians about their system. You'll find what I found. Some will point out problems with it and critique it openly. But you'll find almost none of them wanting a system like ours.

That's been my experience.