Libertarian Healthcare

cracklingkraken, ASN, RN · Oct 10, 2015

Whenever I think of a Libertarian, I picture Ron Swanson. Who, despite our political differences, is a fantastic fictional character.

Me, too. I particularly enjoy his ethics when it comes to food.

Nurse Leigh · Oct 10, 2015

Me, too. I particularly enjoy his ethics when it comes to food.

I loved the solo birthday celebration Leslie threw for him...she had him terrified of what to expect though.

cracklingkraken, ASN, RN · Oct 10, 2015

I loved the solo birthday celebration Leslie threw for him...she had him terrified of what to expect though.

They make a great team. Sometimes, I wonder if the gov't has those kind of people in the background running it...

AcuteHD · Oct 11, 2015

They make a great team. Sometimes, I wonder if the gov't has those kind of people in the background running it...

It's more like VEEP. According to a survey of D.C. insiders on the most accurate political show.

cracklingkraken, ASN, RN · Oct 11, 2015

It's more like VEEP. According to a survey of D.C. insiders on the most accurate political show.

I had to Google that. I've never heard of that show. Is it any good?

AcuteHD · Oct 11, 2015

I had to Google that. I've never heard of that show. Is it any good?

I liked it. We dropped HBO before the latest season, but the 3? that I've seen are funny.

Farawyn · Oct 11, 2015

I had to Google that. I've never heard of that show. Is it any good?

VEEP is good. I'm not glued to it, but good.

CryssyD · Oct 12, 2015

Even in that "horrible" Gilded Age things were steadily getting better for the common man.
Markets respond to the public interest and generally gets it right. Those who aren't right go out of business. Centralized planners tell the public what its interest is and when it is wrong causes shortages which leads to rationing and in the long run cause disasters like the starvation we've seen in socialist countries.

Please define your terms. "Better for the common man"? In what way? Filthy cities? Air pollution? Industrial accidents? Child labor? Rickets? Tuberculosis? Declining life expectancy in the working class? The vast gulf between the rich and the poor? I would submit that progress has taken place in reaction to the ills of industrialization, not because of its direct benefits.

Waiting for "market response" is a woefully inadequate way to improve quality and/or prevent harm in many markets (say, pharmaceuticals, since this is a healthcare site), and in any case is certainly inadequate to today's instant and worldwide markets via the Internet and rapid transportation of goods and money. The days when the local snake oil salesman harmed one too many and finally got run out of town on a rail are over. Today's swindler is in some undefined location and, once his/her harm is discovered, all he/she has to do is rename the company and/or website and remarket the harmful product; market forces alone are too slow. You need oversight and rules.

Markets don't really respond to "the public interest"-- markets respond to loss of revenue, not loss of life/limb/health/productivity or other silly "public interest" concerns. And as for "the public interest" per se, it's called a social contract. You don't get to eat your cake and have it, too. If you want safe streets on which to conduct your business, someone has to train and pay the police. If you don't want your car to blow up after you put market-friendly cheapest-gas-in-town into it, someone has to make some enforceable rules about what kind of gas and gas-additives can be sold. If you want your family doctor to be a verifiable non-quack who won't kill your kids, there have to be some licensing standards. On the plus side, however, relying on market forces alone will certainly help with local and global overpopulation problems.

Rationing and starvation? Huh? In which socialist countries--Sweden? Switzerland? Or China? Chinese kids aren't obese, but they aren't starving. What about starvation and disease in countries lacking these "collectivist" "public interest" social-welfare programs and government regulations you dislike so much--say, Central African Republic or Congo? El Salvador is a nice free-for-all kind of place, full of guns and sweatshops, as well as poverty and disease; greedy juntas are notoriously unconcerned with the "public interest" stuff--want to live there?

The Soviet Union fell apart for a myriad of reasons--the arms race, Afghanistan, corruption, international pressures, and some strong-willed reformers come to mind; failures of centralized planning and stagnation of industrial production were among the problems but don't account for the whole thing. Since I assume you were referring to the USSR.

Look. Libertarianism is a beautifully simple concept that, like a commune, can work wonderfully on a very small scale; in large, complex societies, it is completely unworkable. Just my opinion, but I'm afraid history is on my side. Read more of it.

CryssyD · Oct 12, 2015

Do you really think that Big Pharma isn't right in there making the rules?

That's the whole point, 1edwood79! Big Pharma, allowed to roam free of everything but market forces, would be a real ravaging beast, don't you think? I mean, they have waaay too much power and influence (graft and corruption, dang it!) as it is...imagine if government were completely toothless; what could the revenue-starved beast of government do if it were stripped of regulatory authority? How would it restrain the corporate beasts run amok? And, while awaiting the mitigating influences of market forces, how many would sicken and die because they couldn't afford medication? How would we be sure medications were safe if there were no FDA (imperfect as it is?)

MBsGirl · Mar 18, 2016

As far as 'who will build the roads..?" Private companies already do that and taxpayers fund it. So where, exactly, does the government, fit in here?

heron, ASN, RN · Mar 18, 2016

As far as 'who will build the roads..?" Private companies already do that and taxpayers fund it. So where, exactly, does the government, fit in here?

That's true ... Private companies have collected quite a bit for quite a while for public jobs. The drive to privatize services needed and paid for by everyone - like health, defense, transportation, sanitation - is as old as capitalism. As is deregulation. Behold the state of those services today. As a taxpayer, I can't say I'm all that impressed by the private sector's performance.

But, to answer your question, the government fits in by keeping the predators - both public and private - in check. It's there to ensure that those private companies do the jobs they were hired to do with a minimum of damage to the rest of us.

Unchecked private enterprise inevitably leads to fraud, perjury, disease and pointless destruction. I refuse to pay them more for the privilege of cleaning up their messes. Much cheaper, in my view, to prevent the mess in the first place. That's why I want government in there.

1edwood79 · Mar 18, 2016

The US government is, exponentially, the biggest polluter in the nation. Why? Because it far too frequently acts as an unchecked entity. If you want to see an example of the kind of destruction caused by unchecked government fraud, incompetence, perjury and disease just explore the Flint water crisis. There were no private companies involved in that one. Or, maybe take a look at some of the devastation the Tennessee Valley Authority has caused over the years.

I'd also point out that competition has very little to do with many public contracts. It is the shortsightedness and sometimes fraudulent behavior of your beloved government personnel that lead to the "predators" getting the contracts. How you going to fix that? More government to oversee your government?

This isn't a black and white issue. Instilling some libertarian values into our leadership doesn't mean ending government. It means decentralizing power and allowing market competition as often as possible.