3 ms·

> There are certainly regulatory inefficiencies and other inefficiencies in healthcare markets, but a truly "free market" in healthcare not morally justifiable

> There are certainly regulatory inefficiencies and other inefficiencies in healthcare markets, but a truly "free market" in healthcare not morally justifiable Socialized healthcare has its own "immoral" trade-offs. We essentially reduce per capita quality in favor of all-inclusive coverage. Proponents of free-market healthcare would argue that the inefficient allocation of resources inherent to socialization is immoral. Libertarians would argue that forcing money from one person to give to another for medical care is immoral. It's not really a question of morality, more of preferred philosophy and practicality. Framing it around morality makes the other side seem abhorrent and the situation difficult to find common ground.

xenadu02 8y ago
> Socialized healthcare has its own "immoral" trade-offs. We essentially reduce per capita quality in favor of all-inclusive coverage That's a false dichotomy; there are many mixed systems where the government provides a baseline level of care with private insurance providing additional services or benefits (eg: government covers a shared hospital room, private insurance covers a private room). >Libertarians would argue that forcing money from one person to give to another for medical care is immoral True libertarians also argue that all taxation is theft (if they're purists anyway), making road construction immoral. > Framing it around morality makes the other side seem abhorrent and the situation difficult to find common ground. A "free market" in healthcare requires us to condemn people to death or debilitating injury when they cannot afford care. Unlike nearly every other area, this one literally involves life and death so I believe it must meet a different standard than other activity (economic or otherwise).
- edanm 8y ago
  > True libertarians also argue that all taxation is theft (if they're purists anyway), making road construction immoral. No, it doesn't make road construction immoral in the eyes of libertarians. It makes taking money from other people, by force, in order to build a road, immoral. People are totally free to build roads privately and pay for it themselves, and even band together to build these roads. (Part of where the standard libertarian argument falls apart, in my eyes, is that government in many ways really is just a scaled up version of "people banding together to build a road". There are there are legitimate moral/philosophical questions around opt-in vs. opt-out though).
  - nybble41 8y ago
    > Part of where the standard libertarian argument falls apart, in my eyes, is that government in many ways really is just a scaled up version of "people banding together to build a road". There is a significant qualitative difference in that "people banding together to build a road" is an entirely voluntary activity, whereas government is nothing of the kind. It's not merely a matter of "opt-in vs. opt-out". Even in an opt-out system one can choose not to participate without penalty, but if you inform a government that you're choosing to "opt out" they won't just leave you alone to live as you please. They draw their arbitrary lines on a map and consider everything within those lines to fall under their control. Even if you move halfway around the world and renounce your citizenship, and in doing so cut off all ties to everyone and everything you once knew, you may find that they still claim a share of your income to pay for that road you'll never be able to use. The "scaled-up" version of "people banding together to build a road" is a co-op or corporation. Such an organization does not have the power to tax or to impose regulations on anyone who doesn't explicitly and voluntarily agree to them.
- mcv 8y ago
  > True libertarians also argue that all taxation is theft (if > they're purists anyway), making road construction immoral. Why would you call those people "true" libertarians? There are a lot of people who consider themselves libertarians of various sorts who strongly disagree with this. Some consider property to be theft. There are many kinds of libertarianism, and the American-style extreme capitalist libertarianism is not the only one, and probably one of the most irrational forms of libertarianism. Personally, I feel providing essential care to everybody equally does the most to free people from oppression and extortion by those who wield power over them at a time when they're vulnerable.

xenadu02 8y ago

> Socialized healthcare has its own "immoral" trade-offs. We essentially reduce per capita quality in favor of all-inclusive coverage That's a false dichotomy; there are many mixed systems where the government provides a baseline level of care with private insurance providing additional services or benefits (eg: government covers a shared hospital room, private insurance covers a private room). >Libertarians would argue that forcing money from one person to give to another for medical care is immoral True libertarians also argue that all taxation is theft (if they're purists anyway), making road construction immoral. > Framing it around morality makes the other side seem abhorrent and the situation difficult to find common ground. A "free market" in healthcare requires us to condemn people to death or debilitating injury when they cannot afford care. Unlike nearly every other area, this one literally involves life and death so I believe it must meet a different standard than other activity (economic or otherwise).

edanm 8y ago
> True libertarians also argue that all taxation is theft (if they're purists anyway), making road construction immoral. No, it doesn't make road construction immoral in the eyes of libertarians. It makes taking money from other people, by force, in order to build a road, immoral. People are totally free to build roads privately and pay for it themselves, and even band together to build these roads. (Part of where the standard libertarian argument falls apart, in my eyes, is that government in many ways really is just a scaled up version of "people banding together to build a road". There are there are legitimate moral/philosophical questions around opt-in vs. opt-out though).
- nybble41 8y ago
  > Part of where the standard libertarian argument falls apart, in my eyes, is that government in many ways really is just a scaled up version of "people banding together to build a road". There is a significant qualitative difference in that "people banding together to build a road" is an entirely voluntary activity, whereas government is nothing of the kind. It's not merely a matter of "opt-in vs. opt-out". Even in an opt-out system one can choose not to participate without penalty, but if you inform a government that you're choosing to "opt out" they won't just leave you alone to live as you please. They draw their arbitrary lines on a map and consider everything within those lines to fall under their control. Even if you move halfway around the world and renounce your citizenship, and in doing so cut off all ties to everyone and everything you once knew, you may find that they still claim a share of your income to pay for that road you'll never be able to use. The "scaled-up" version of "people banding together to build a road" is a co-op or corporation. Such an organization does not have the power to tax or to impose regulations on anyone who doesn't explicitly and voluntarily agree to them.
mcv 8y ago
> True libertarians also argue that all taxation is theft (if > they're purists anyway), making road construction immoral. Why would you call those people "true" libertarians? There are a lot of people who consider themselves libertarians of various sorts who strongly disagree with this. Some consider property to be theft. There are many kinds of libertarianism, and the American-style extreme capitalist libertarianism is not the only one, and probably one of the most irrational forms of libertarianism. Personally, I feel providing essential care to everybody equally does the most to free people from oppression and extortion by those who wield power over them at a time when they're vulnerable.