4 ms·

> This is what libertarian and 'eliminate regulation' types want. False. Healthcare is not a human right, but the insane inflation of healthcare costs would be

> This is what libertarian and 'eliminate regulation' types want. False. Healthcare is not a human right, but the insane inflation of healthcare costs would be avoided by removing a large portion of the regulation surrounding it. If hospitals actually had to compete to get patients, based on affordability, among other factors, healthcare would be far cheaper, and private charity/need-sharing would take the place of insurance.

vernie 8y ago
Hot dog, there's a cheaper ER 30 minutes from here!
- DuskStar 8y ago
  I can certainly imagine situations when I would choose waiting another 30 minutes over paying an extra $10k... Can't you?
  - vernie 8y ago
    Ooh, THIS one reuses sharps and passes the savings on to me!
- mcguire 8y ago
  Yeah, but this one provides free mosswort and radium supplements with all limb reattachments!
- devcpp 8y ago
  Communism would have all ERs equally shitty and expensive [to the taxpayer]. Is that all that better? I mean, your argument holds true for everything. And yet, look around us and compare to any instance of communism on various extents. Capitalism is always better.
  - dragonwriter 8y ago
    > I mean, your argument holds true for everything. And yet, look around us and compare to any instance of communism on various extents. Capitalism is always better. Modern mixed economies are better, but there is a reason capitalism as a system (rather than a component of another system) died sooner than Soviet-style communism, to the extent that we now unironically call mixed economies with large socialized elements “capitalism”. Among mixed economies, it's not the more strongly capitalist ones that have the most efficient, effective, or publicly popular health care systems, either.
  - vernie 8y ago
    This is a very cool dichotomy you've presented me with.
  - crankylinuxuser 8y ago
    You can stay off our communist roads then. Enjoy bartering and purchasing your way across private property to something distant. (Yeah, fat chance you actually hold to your criticisms.)
    - conanbatt 8y ago
      Bartering? You dont need to State to exchange money :S
  - conanbatt 8y ago
    Damn this was a crude comment.
tacomonstrous 8y ago
Patients in distress are usually not very able to make distinctions between hospitals based on pricing or really any other factor apart from perhaps proximity. This key point seems to not be addressed by any of the standard libertarian takes. Edit: Also, I grew up in a country (India) where healthcare was definitely part of the market economy. And what that meant (and still does) was that people with money get high quality immediate care, and those without get shafted. That's what the market does to healthcare.
- crankylinuxuser 8y ago
  Oh, they do have a choice: Pay up for the nearest facility, IF you have the funds to do so. Or die.
corodra 8y ago
That's not true. Healthcare has always been expensive. Even before regulations. Hundreds, even thousands of years back. The same regulations you're whining about made snake-oils illegal and other quacks from practicing on people who don't know better. The good old days of unregulated healthcare... Google "doctors agree cigarette" and look at the Images. See all those ads. Those ads that cigs are good for your health and infants. Yea... Back when people thought that healthcare should not be regulated. Now, there's a lot of fuckery in the healthcare industry. A lot. Both, business side and gov side. Both are to blame. But just saying regulation is flat out bad. That's stupid. There are many issues and each have to be addressed. Not just a one MAGIC PILL solution.
crankylinuxuser 8y ago
> False. Healthcare is not a human right, but the insane inflation of healthcare costs would be avoided by removing a large portion of the regulation surrounding it. ....So it can only be for the rich. Insurance is simple - you have a group pool their risk together so that everyone's protected. Yet, when we try to discuss making an insurance pool the size of the country, for everyone, people like you go all "not a right". When I see "not a right", I read into it as "Fuck you I got mine".. when there is plenty to go around for everyone. > If hospitals actually had to compete to get patients, based on affordability, among other factors, healthcare would be far cheaper Citation needed: prices are NOT linked to how much thing is, but how much the market will bear. Stating falsehoods to cover up your intent is disgusting. We know how c(r)apitalism works. We're rejecting that. Tried it, didn't work. Reiterating for better. > private charity/need-sharing would take the place of insurance. Uh huh. So non-christians need not apply? I know how this plays out... This is a citizenry issue, for the whole country. And you end up wanting to make it a fractured "small group" issue. People fall in cracks, and you don't care. Some "mythical" group will fix it.
AtlasBarfed 8y ago
Oh, hello Dwight Schrute. You actually just pointed out exactly why you are wrong with that phrasing. Thank you!
aplummer 8y ago
False, healthcare is a human right
- vokep 8y ago
  False. Healthcare requires care, as in, labor. A right to someone else's labor is a right to enslave. Healthcare is about the most sugar-coated version of it imaginable, but it doesn't change that fundamentally the "right to healthcare" is the right to force others to take care of you.
  - will_brown 8y ago
    >A right to someone else's labor is a right to enslave. And yet there is a Constitutional right to a lawyer in most criminal cases if you can’t afford one. I can assure you, while public defenders might not get paid well and maybe many can’t afford their student loans, they are not slaves.
    - lovich 8y ago
      Even the right to life and liberty requires the government to have people work at jobs to maintain security. Other than an-caps, even the most rabid libertarian thinks the government should provide national security. Isn't that all forced "slave labor" by this same argument?
    - conanbatt 8y ago
      The slaves are the tax payers in your analogy, because they pay for the public defenders. But that case is more defensible: the enforcing of the rule of law is powerful for freedom. So sacrificing some freedom to get a lot of freedom is an easy case. Health services do not relate to freedom, but to the cost of insurance. If the government can provide a cheaper healthcare then it should provider a cheaper healthcare, and citizens can choose the government's plan and it will eat out the competition. Why would the government need to ban the competition if its so good at providing insurance?
      - 8y ago
wtracy 8y ago
I can't imagine a human right more fundamental than health care. What good is freedom of speech or assembly or trade to a dead person?

vernie 8y ago

Hot dog, there's a cheaper ER 30 minutes from here!

DuskStar 8y ago
I can certainly imagine situations when I would choose waiting another 30 minutes over paying an extra $10k... Can't you?
- vernie 8y ago
  Ooh, THIS one reuses sharps and passes the savings on to me!
mcguire 8y ago
Yeah, but this one provides free mosswort and radium supplements with all limb reattachments!
devcpp 8y ago
Communism would have all ERs equally shitty and expensive [to the taxpayer]. Is that all that better? I mean, your argument holds true for everything. And yet, look around us and compare to any instance of communism on various extents. Capitalism is always better.
- dragonwriter 8y ago
  > I mean, your argument holds true for everything. And yet, look around us and compare to any instance of communism on various extents. Capitalism is always better. Modern mixed economies are better, but there is a reason capitalism as a system (rather than a component of another system) died sooner than Soviet-style communism, to the extent that we now unironically call mixed economies with large socialized elements “capitalism”. Among mixed economies, it's not the more strongly capitalist ones that have the most efficient, effective, or publicly popular health care systems, either.
- vernie 8y ago
  This is a very cool dichotomy you've presented me with.
- crankylinuxuser 8y ago
  You can stay off our communist roads then. Enjoy bartering and purchasing your way across private property to something distant. (Yeah, fat chance you actually hold to your criticisms.)
  - conanbatt 8y ago
    Bartering? You dont need to State to exchange money :S
- conanbatt 8y ago
  Damn this was a crude comment.

tacomonstrous 8y ago

Patients in distress are usually not very able to make distinctions between hospitals based on pricing or really any other factor apart from perhaps proximity. This key point seems to not be addressed by any of the standard libertarian takes. Edit: Also, I grew up in a country (India) where healthcare was definitely part of the market economy. And what that meant (and still does) was that people with money get high quality immediate care, and those without get shafted. That's what the market does to healthcare.

crankylinuxuser 8y ago
Oh, they do have a choice: Pay up for the nearest facility, IF you have the funds to do so. Or die.

corodra 8y ago

That's not true. Healthcare has always been expensive. Even before regulations. Hundreds, even thousands of years back. The same regulations you're whining about made snake-oils illegal and other quacks from practicing on people who don't know better. The good old days of unregulated healthcare... Google "doctors agree cigarette" and look at the Images. See all those ads. Those ads that cigs are good for your health and infants. Yea... Back when people thought that healthcare should not be regulated. Now, there's a lot of fuckery in the healthcare industry. A lot. Both, business side and gov side. Both are to blame. But just saying regulation is flat out bad. That's stupid. There are many issues and each have to be addressed. Not just a one MAGIC PILL solution.

crankylinuxuser 8y ago

> False. Healthcare is not a human right, but the insane inflation of healthcare costs would be avoided by removing a large portion of the regulation surrounding it. ....So it can only be for the rich. Insurance is simple - you have a group pool their risk together so that everyone's protected. Yet, when we try to discuss making an insurance pool the size of the country, for everyone, people like you go all "not a right". When I see "not a right", I read into it as "Fuck you I got mine".. when there is plenty to go around for everyone. > If hospitals actually had to compete to get patients, based on affordability, among other factors, healthcare would be far cheaper Citation needed: prices are NOT linked to how much thing is, but how much the market will bear. Stating falsehoods to cover up your intent is disgusting. We know how c(r)apitalism works. We're rejecting that. Tried it, didn't work. Reiterating for better. > private charity/need-sharing would take the place of insurance. Uh huh. So non-christians need not apply? I know how this plays out... This is a citizenry issue, for the whole country. And you end up wanting to make it a fractured "small group" issue. People fall in cracks, and you don't care. Some "mythical" group will fix it.

AtlasBarfed 8y ago

Oh, hello Dwight Schrute. You actually just pointed out exactly why you are wrong with that phrasing. Thank you!

aplummer 8y ago

False, healthcare is a human right

vokep 8y ago
False. Healthcare requires care, as in, labor. A right to someone else's labor is a right to enslave. Healthcare is about the most sugar-coated version of it imaginable, but it doesn't change that fundamentally the "right to healthcare" is the right to force others to take care of you.
- will_brown 8y ago
  >A right to someone else's labor is a right to enslave. And yet there is a Constitutional right to a lawyer in most criminal cases if you can’t afford one. I can assure you, while public defenders might not get paid well and maybe many can’t afford their student loans, they are not slaves.
  - lovich 8y ago
    Even the right to life and liberty requires the government to have people work at jobs to maintain security. Other than an-caps, even the most rabid libertarian thinks the government should provide national security. Isn't that all forced "slave labor" by this same argument?
  - conanbatt 8y ago
    The slaves are the tax payers in your analogy, because they pay for the public defenders. But that case is more defensible: the enforcing of the rule of law is powerful for freedom. So sacrificing some freedom to get a lot of freedom is an easy case. Health services do not relate to freedom, but to the cost of insurance. If the government can provide a cheaper healthcare then it should provider a cheaper healthcare, and citizens can choose the government's plan and it will eat out the competition. Why would the government need to ban the competition if its so good at providing insurance?
    - 8y ago

wtracy 8y ago

I can't imagine a human right more fundamental than health care. What good is freedom of speech or assembly or trade to a dead person?