44 ms·

This is one of the fortunate things about living in the UK. I live in a crappy part of London but the hospital is good and 100% included in my tax. Through my

by meaty 14y ago

This is one of the fortunate things about living in the UK. I live in a crappy part of London but the hospital is good and 100% included in my tax. Through my wife's 2x emergency c-sections, a broken arm, my physically disabled daughter, an eye socket infection thanks to a mosquito bite, an umbillical hernia operation and an ingrown toe nail, its been perfect and cost no excess, insurance begging or legal intervention. I'm not afraid to call an ambulance in case it costs money.

dmix 14y ago
I consider myself a libertarian and I still support public health insurance. I grew up in Canada and spent time living in the states. I don't agree with most government expenditure, but I have no problem paying taxes for healthcare. There are much more wasteful things governments spend our money on.
- paulgb 14y ago
  I have a similar political mindset, but I'm afraid to apply the label "libertarian" to myself because it conjures images of Rand-following Objectivists who believe tax is theft and externalities don't exist. I wish there were another name for that quadrant of the political compass that had less connotations.
  - antidoh 14y ago
    My libertarian cube mate calls me a progressive libertarian. Which I believe describes me literally, although the term has all the feel of that other marketing term, "compassionate conservatism." Still, I think it's pretty close, as a literal term.
  - ryanwaggoner 14y ago
    Neoliberal? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo-classical_liberalism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo-classical_liberalism
- ericingram 14y ago
  I consider myself a Libertarian also. The problem with government funded health care is what you can't see. True market based competition leads to lower prices and greater innovation in all observable areas over time. That would mean more access for more people in the case of health care, but instead with deep government intrusion for decades, we have seen ever increasing prices and sluggish innovation. Libertarian philosophy has a lot to do with a belief in sound market principles. Why should all that go out the window for health care? The problems facing health care today, in my view, are largely a result of the free market being trampled on. People who don't really understand market principles will tell you the exact opposite, that health care has been nothing but a free for all, totally unregulated. Do you believe that? It sounds like you might generally agree with libertarian ideas and some research on scholars like F.A. Hayek and Ludwig von Mises might help focus your libertarian perspective.
  - tzs 14y ago
    Hayek doesn't fit in well with most Libertarians nowadays. From his "The Road to Serfdom": There is no reason why, in a society which has reached the general level of wealth ours has, the first kind of security should not be guaranteed to all without endangering general freedom; that is: some minimum of food, shelter and clothing, sufficient to preserve health. Nor is there any reason why the state should not help to organize a comprehensive system of social insurance in providing for those common hazards of life against which few can make adequate provision. and Where, as in the case of sickness and accident, neither the desire to avoid such calamities nor the efforts to overcome their consequences are as a rule weakened by the provision of assistance – where, in short, we deal with genuinely insurable risks – the case for the state’s helping to organize a comprehensive system of social insurance is very strong. There are many points of detail where those wishing to preserve the competitive system and those wishing to super-cede it by something different will disagree on the details of such schemes; and it is possible under the name of social insurance to introduce measures which tend to make competition more or less ineffective. But there is no incompatability in principle between the state’s providing greater security in this way and the preservation of individual freedom. To the same category belongs also the increase of security through the state’s rendering assistance to the victims of such ‘acts of God’ as earthquakes and floods. Wherever communal action can mitigate disasters against which the individual can neither attempt to guard himself nor make provision for the consequences, such communal action should undoubtedly be taken. Post that in many Libertarian forums nowadays and you'll be called a leftist or statist.

by meaty 14y ago

dmix 14y ago

I consider myself a libertarian and I still support public health insurance. I grew up in Canada and spent time living in the states. I don't agree with most government expenditure, but I have no problem paying taxes for healthcare. There are much more wasteful things governments spend our money on.

paulgb 14y ago
I have a similar political mindset, but I'm afraid to apply the label "libertarian" to myself because it conjures images of Rand-following Objectivists who believe tax is theft and externalities don't exist. I wish there were another name for that quadrant of the political compass that had less connotations.
- antidoh 14y ago
  My libertarian cube mate calls me a progressive libertarian. Which I believe describes me literally, although the term has all the feel of that other marketing term, "compassionate conservatism." Still, I think it's pretty close, as a literal term.
- ryanwaggoner 14y ago
  Neoliberal? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo-classical_liberalism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo-classical_liberalism
ericingram 14y ago
I consider myself a Libertarian also. The problem with government funded health care is what you can't see. True market based competition leads to lower prices and greater innovation in all observable areas over time. That would mean more access for more people in the case of health care, but instead with deep government intrusion for decades, we have seen ever increasing prices and sluggish innovation. Libertarian philosophy has a lot to do with a belief in sound market principles. Why should all that go out the window for health care? The problems facing health care today, in my view, are largely a result of the free market being trampled on. People who don't really understand market principles will tell you the exact opposite, that health care has been nothing but a free for all, totally unregulated. Do you believe that? It sounds like you might generally agree with libertarian ideas and some research on scholars like F.A. Hayek and Ludwig von Mises might help focus your libertarian perspective.
- tzs 14y ago
  Hayek doesn't fit in well with most Libertarians nowadays. From his "The Road to Serfdom": There is no reason why, in a society which has reached the general level of wealth ours has, the first kind of security should not be guaranteed to all without endangering general freedom; that is: some minimum of food, shelter and clothing, sufficient to preserve health. Nor is there any reason why the state should not help to organize a comprehensive system of social insurance in providing for those common hazards of life against which few can make adequate provision. and Where, as in the case of sickness and accident, neither the desire to avoid such calamities nor the efforts to overcome their consequences are as a rule weakened by the provision of assistance – where, in short, we deal with genuinely insurable risks – the case for the state’s helping to organize a comprehensive system of social insurance is very strong. There are many points of detail where those wishing to preserve the competitive system and those wishing to super-cede it by something different will disagree on the details of such schemes; and it is possible under the name of social insurance to introduce measures which tend to make competition more or less ineffective. But there is no incompatability in principle between the state’s providing greater security in this way and the preservation of individual freedom. To the same category belongs also the increase of security through the state’s rendering assistance to the victims of such ‘acts of God’ as earthquakes and floods. Wherever communal action can mitigate disasters against which the individual can neither attempt to guard himself nor make provision for the consequences, such communal action should undoubtedly be taken. Post that in many Libertarian forums nowadays and you'll be called a leftist or statist.