Affordable Care Act (AKA Obamacare)

[Tim]

So let me this straight, we want the same folks who run the VA, to run the health care for the entire country?

Yup, like every other First World country on earth. Like the way we entrust those folks with every other piece of crucial infrastructure. My health or lack thereof should never be anyone else's profit center.

And I'd argue that my health or who provides my health care should never be determined by someone in Washington DC.

You've entrusted your country's defense (military) to the folks in Washington, among other things.

Who do you think is determining your health care now? The health care industry is the biggest fraud in America, by far. Someone needs to reel them in. I'd love it if my government at least tried to.

You're right. And I don't think they are doing a bang up job of it either.

I have some determination over who provides my health care. I am concerned that my level of determination will decrease dramatically once government is further entrenched. Trust me, I am a physician and my wife is a pharmacist. I agree the industry needs an overhaul. I just don't want folks in DC doing it.

[Tim]

The thing I keep coming back to is the Postal Service. It is a great example of a business-like government entity that has very little corruption and is highly efficient. It just shows that it's not impossible for government to do something pretty efficiently. I have a small side business where I have to ship small things often. I can ship pretty much anywhere in the continental US for between $2.50 and $3.00. To ship the same thing via UPS would cost like ~$12. Granted, UPS guarantees delivery within 2 days. It's a nice option to have UPS if I need something urgent, but it's not a "need" since the $3 USPS option still gets it there within 3 to 5 days usually.

Health insurance truly is a "need". If rich people want some other more premium option for health care, I'm sure that would still be available one way or another.

You are probably more knowledgeable than I am, but I don't think the postal service is very efficient.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fed ... y-efforts/

Savings from efficiency efforts and increased revenues from some categories of business were not enough to prevent the U.S. Postal Service from posting a loss of $1.9 billion in its second fiscal quarter, postal officials announced Friday.

The report, which follows a previous loss of $1.3 billion in the first quarter, spurred officials to once again call on Congress to enact changes the Postal Service has proposed, including switching to five-day delivery of mail while continuing six-day delivery of packages, and savings on employee health insurance, retirement and other costs.

[Socnorb11]

I have some determination over who provides my health care. I am concerned that my level of determination will decrease dramatically once government is further entrenched. Trust me, I am a physician and my wife is a pharmacist. I agree the industry needs an overhaul. I just don't want folks in DC doing it.

Who else is going to do it, if not them?

You're OK leaving your health care in the hands of for-profit corporations, like we currently do?

I guess I'm not sure what you're suggesting, unless I've missed something.

[Tim]

I have some determination over who provides my health care. I am concerned that my level of determination will decrease dramatically once government is further entrenched. Trust me, I am a physician and my wife is a pharmacist. I agree the industry needs an overhaul. I just don't want folks in DC doing it.

Who else is going to do it, if not them?

You're OK leaving your health care in the hands of for-profit corporations, like we currently do?

I guess I'm not sure what you're suggesting, unless I've missed something.

I am not knowledgeable enough to have the answer. It is my opinion that more government is not the answer. I realize I am complaining without a solution, but that is how I feel.

Here are my personal opinions. I have a hard time with my taxes paying for people to receive treatment for COPD when they decided to smoke cigarettes for 40 years. I have a hard time paying for other people to receive dialysis because their kidneys are shot, because instead of spending $4 a month on Lisinopril, they spent it on cocaine and worsening their hypertension.

Again, these are TAX dollars, not voluntary charity.

Please don't misunderstand where I am coming from. I have mentioned this before and do not say it to receive congratulations or pats on the back. My wife and I volunteer at a medical clinic in North Charleston. It receives absolutely no government funding. Zero. All drugs are free. All visits are free. We provide primary care, mental health care, and we have two therapists to provide counseling. In addition to the time we spend volunteering, we also give financially.

If I am taxed less then I will have more finances to give to this clinic. I think there is a place for voluntary charity. In my experience, it is efficient and provides good outcomes. My patients are invested because they know that I am doing this without any compensation.

When government is involved, we think that the poor are being taken care of. It is an after thought. When government gets out of the way, it allows for more clinics and better care. Again, MY OPINION.

I think we should also think about insurance. Why do we buy insurance? You don't buy car insurance to pay for oil changes. You buy car insurance for when you are in an accident and the immediate out of pocket costs would be too high. Somehow, some way, I think this mindset could be used in the medical field. Why should insurance be involved when I am going in for a yearly check up, some blood work, and the finger to the prostate? Insurance companies are a huge problem. One reason I like working in a prison system and as an ED psych consultant is because I don't have to deal with them. I just don't think further government interference is the answer.

[Tim]

Let me also add, nothing challenges my libertarian/free market leanings like this issue. I am still working my way through it.

[pioneer98]

This is a pretty knotty problem from a Liberty standpoint, but I would think that like, roads, fire departments, police, immigration/borders, etc, would be tougher ones.

You can argue that our current health care system is monopolistic and far from being a "free market", and you'd be right. That is a big part of the problem. But even if we busted up these monopolies and had a very efficient market, I still doubt any insurance company would want to insure people with pre-existing conditions, which is the core problem Obamacare is trying to solve. If you have cancer or something, being able to shop around for the best deal probably isn't going to help much. The price wherever you go will be really, really high. I think what it boils down to is that letting the free market dictate the price of things that are basic human needs can get us into a bad place. Our current system isn't the best solution to this problem though either.

[Schlich]

Let me also add, nothing challenges my libertarian/free market leanings like this issue. I am still working my way through it.

There's nothing libertarian about not being able to be healthy because you don't have enough money. People who own wealth are restricting the liberty of those who do not. Do no harm.

[AWvsCBsteeeerike3]

Little late to teh party here. But, libertarians don't equate to anarchists. There are obvious public services that are necessary: police, fire, infrastructure, etc. But, it's a breath of fresh air to hear people openly question the need for a war on drugs (massive failure), war on terror (massive costs), etc. I don't trust the government any less than I do the insurance industry to overhaul healthcare. So, yeah, like tim it's tough to offer an answer. There are way more examples of universal healthcare working as opposed to only private healthcare working or whatever the opposite is.

Still, libertarians believing in smaller government and social acceptance for everyone is nice. How that translates to policies under johnson still seems to be, as has been mentioned, too idealistic instead of pragmatic. And, healthcare is an another instance where they seem to be idealistic as opposed to pragmatic.

[Schlich]

What's the difference between the government threatening to throw you in jail if you don't pay taxes and a hospital telling you that you have to die or live with debilitating injury because you can't afford treatment? edit: directed to Tim

[Schlich]

Little late to teh party here. But, libertarians don't equate to anarchists. There are obvious public services that are necessary: police, fire, infrastructure, etc. But, it's a breath of fresh air to hear people openly question the need for a war on drugs (massive failure), war on terror (massive costs), etc. I don't trust the government any less than I do the insurance industry to overhaul healthcare. So, yeah, like tim it's tough to offer an answer. There are way more examples of universal healthcare working as opposed to only private healthcare working or whatever the opposite is.

Still, libertarians believing in smaller government and social acceptance for everyone is nice. How that translates to policies under johnson still seems to be, as has been mentioned, too idealistic instead of pragmatic. And, healthcare is an another instance where they seem to be idealistic as opposed to pragmatic.

Anarchists have a much more coherent political philosophy then Libertarians. Don't lump us in as the "worse" version of them.