5 ms·

A Libertarian Convert to Socialized Medicine

16 points by gnosis 17y ago

philwelch 17y ago
From the guidelines: "Please submit the original source. If a blog post reports on something they found on another site, submit the latter."
- lurkinggrue 17y ago
  http://reason.com/archives/2009/12/07/why-prefer-french-health-care http://reason.com/archives/2009/12/07/why-prefer-french-heal...
  - philwelch 17y ago
    Now submitted at http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1184642 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1184642 I was going to do so myself but thought it would be better HN etiquette to let the submitter (or someone) edit the URL here.
maxharris 17y ago
This is a great example of why libertarians are not to be confused with Objectivists. Objectivism provides the essential philosophical basis for individualism and long-term rational selfishness required to properly support political conclusions in favor of freedom. Libertarians, on the other hand, don't know or understand the philosophy from which many of their political conclusions were copied, and are thus susceptible to reverting to political conclusions that appear momentarily practical, or consistent with altruism (which many libertarians implicitly embrace). On top of that, "libertarian" has come to means so many things that it means nothing - there are libertarians in favor of and against abortion, in favor of and against anarchy, in favor of and against anti-trust regulation, to name a few random examples. Objectivism isn't pervasive enough yet for political change based on it to occur, and libertarianism is a political dead end (because it's not consistent with the terrible mixed bag of present-day American values, or with itself.) So if you consider yourself a libertarian, and you don't like where Welch and his ilk are heading, I invite you to read Ayn Rand and new scholarly works that examine her philosophy deeply (Tara Smith's "Ayn Rand's Normative Ethics: The Virtuous Egoist".)
- TheTarquin 17y ago
  You attack Libertarianism on the grounds that it has adherents that disagree widely on several topics. So does that mean that if I found some Objectivists that disagreed on points of policy, that Objectivism would "mean so many things that it means nothing?" Your argument certainly seems to imply as much.
- chrispine 17y ago
  > Libertarians, on the other hand, don't know or understand the philosophy from which many of their political conclusions were copied You are aware that libertarianism predates objectivism? I invite you to consider that to be rational is to WIN. Libertarians, unlike most objectivists, understand this (or at least appear to, in that they tend to take the pragmatic view, with pretty much amounts to the same thing). If you want good health care, and one system gives you good health care, but is somehow philosophically impure... don't you think maybe the philosophy is irrelevant?
- ubernostrum 17y ago
  Objectivism is -- literally -- orthodox Marxism with different words filled into key blanks. Don't believe me? Try it for yourself: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=965622 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=965622
  - lmkg 17y ago
    I'm no fan of Objectivism by a long stretch, but I think that's being unfair because there's more to the (academic) philosophy than just whining about parasites. What is fair to say, is that the emotional appeal of Objectivism is similar to the emotional appeal of Marxism. "You're important because you're the only one getting any work done around here, and you should kick out those leeches who suckle on the sweat of your brow" summarizes both the Communist Manifesto and the Fountainhead. However, the ideal society that Ayn Rand would erect after the revolution is noticeably different than the one that Marx would erect. Nonetheless, the similarity of the surface appeal does bear discussion. tl;dr I broadly agree with the main point, but I don't want to cheapen it by letting stand the fact that it is an exaggeration.
jessriedel 17y ago
"Need a prescription for muscle relaxers, an anti-fungal cream, or a steroid inhaler for temporary lung trouble? In the U.S. you have to fight to get on the appointment schedule of a doctor within your health insurance network ... then have him or her scrawl something unintelligible on a slip of paper, which you take to a drugstore to exchange for your medicine. ...In France, by contrast, you walk to the corner pharmacist, get either a prescription or over-the-counter medication right away, shell out a dozen or so euros, and you’re done." Unless I'm confused, this is conflating two issues. Requiring patients to have a full doctor's visit in order to get a prescription for simple but non-OTC medicines is logically distinct from single-payer/non-single-payer. If you require more visits, you will of course spend more money.

16 points by gnosis 17y ago

From the guidelines: "Please submit the original source. If a blog post reports on something they found on another site, submit the latter."

lurkinggrue 17y ago
http://reason.com/archives/2009/12/07/why-prefer-french-health-care http://reason.com/archives/2009/12/07/why-prefer-french-heal...
- philwelch 17y ago
  Now submitted at http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1184642 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1184642 I was going to do so myself but thought it would be better HN etiquette to let the submitter (or someone) edit the URL here.

maxharris 17y ago

This is a great example of why libertarians are not to be confused with Objectivists. Objectivism provides the essential philosophical basis for individualism and long-term rational selfishness required to properly support political conclusions in favor of freedom. Libertarians, on the other hand, don't know or understand the philosophy from which many of their political conclusions were copied, and are thus susceptible to reverting to political conclusions that appear momentarily practical, or consistent with altruism (which many libertarians implicitly embrace). On top of that, "libertarian" has come to means so many things that it means nothing - there are libertarians in favor of and against abortion, in favor of and against anarchy, in favor of and against anti-trust regulation, to name a few random examples. Objectivism isn't pervasive enough yet for political change based on it to occur, and libertarianism is a political dead end (because it's not consistent with the terrible mixed bag of present-day American values, or with itself.) So if you consider yourself a libertarian, and you don't like where Welch and his ilk are heading, I invite you to read Ayn Rand and new scholarly works that examine her philosophy deeply (Tara Smith's "Ayn Rand's Normative Ethics: The Virtuous Egoist".)

TheTarquin 17y ago
You attack Libertarianism on the grounds that it has adherents that disagree widely on several topics. So does that mean that if I found some Objectivists that disagreed on points of policy, that Objectivism would "mean so many things that it means nothing?" Your argument certainly seems to imply as much.
chrispine 17y ago
> Libertarians, on the other hand, don't know or understand the philosophy from which many of their political conclusions were copied You are aware that libertarianism predates objectivism? I invite you to consider that to be rational is to WIN. Libertarians, unlike most objectivists, understand this (or at least appear to, in that they tend to take the pragmatic view, with pretty much amounts to the same thing). If you want good health care, and one system gives you good health care, but is somehow philosophically impure... don't you think maybe the philosophy is irrelevant?
ubernostrum 17y ago
Objectivism is -- literally -- orthodox Marxism with different words filled into key blanks. Don't believe me? Try it for yourself: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=965622 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=965622
- lmkg 17y ago
  I'm no fan of Objectivism by a long stretch, but I think that's being unfair because there's more to the (academic) philosophy than just whining about parasites. What is fair to say, is that the emotional appeal of Objectivism is similar to the emotional appeal of Marxism. "You're important because you're the only one getting any work done around here, and you should kick out those leeches who suckle on the sweat of your brow" summarizes both the Communist Manifesto and the Fountainhead. However, the ideal society that Ayn Rand would erect after the revolution is noticeably different than the one that Marx would erect. Nonetheless, the similarity of the surface appeal does bear discussion. tl;dr I broadly agree with the main point, but I don't want to cheapen it by letting stand the fact that it is an exaggeration.

jessriedel 17y ago

"Need a prescription for muscle relaxers, an anti-fungal cream, or a steroid inhaler for temporary lung trouble? In the U.S. you have to fight to get on the appointment schedule of a doctor within your health insurance network ... then have him or her scrawl something unintelligible on a slip of paper, which you take to a drugstore to exchange for your medicine. ...In France, by contrast, you walk to the corner pharmacist, get either a prescription or over-the-counter medication right away, shell out a dozen or so euros, and you’re done." Unless I'm confused, this is conflating two issues. Requiring patients to have a full doctor's visit in order to get a prescription for simple but non-OTC medicines is logically distinct from single-payer/non-single-payer. If you require more visits, you will of course spend more money.