The Libertarian Viewpoint

[Reverend Rick]

The problem being that medicine is such a technical and complicated field. It's like car repair except ten times worse. If a doctor says someone needs something, 85% of people are going to go with it, if not more. After all, the doctor is the one who went to medical school for 4 years.

Too many tests are performed for profit or to cover the doctor from a malpractice suit.

Agreed. The problem is you're still saving for the possibility of something happening. If my deductible is $6,000, right now, that's more than 2 months salary for me. I don't exactly have that kind of money just sitting around.

Most folks only have a serious medical problem every now and then if at all. They could make payments and probably would be paid off before the next big bill came. Folks who are not sick could sock money away and would be prepared if and when they do get sick.

People get sick just like cars break down. You have to put a little money back for the bumps on the road of life. Just as you know you have to change your oil, your going to have to see the doctor now and then. These bills are manageable. It is the new engine or transmissions that can really set you back. Thats why they have a power train warranty for a few extra bucks. Obviously it does not cover windshield wipers, just as health insurance should not cover the small stuff. Catastrophic health insurance would be like a drive train warranty.

 

[Jackytar]

I used to be a Libertarian. In theory, it sounded good.

It could be like communism. Good in theory, we're just the wrong species.

Jackytar

 

[Jackytar]

Okay, so let's suppose that libertarian ideals are Utopian. What is the alternative?

Is it okay to "know better" what is best for society, and to impose those ideas on everybody? Say, forced retirement savings (social security) or forced medical savings (Medicare) or banning self destructive behavior (drugs) or favoring certain technologies (corn ethanol) or certain economic activity (home buying). Why have these programs failed? What, exactly, did we get wrong and was it foreseeable at the time of implementation? Is it just a matter of making tweaks or is it fundamentally flawed?

Jackytar

 

[Magic Man]

An excellent point, mball. And while this reluctance to go against your doctor will always factor in, libertarian economics always has a keen eye to what motivates people. That CT with IV contrast your doctor wants you to have to see of you have a kidney stone is well north of 1000 dollars with the radiologist's fees. If this were your money, as in taking it out of savings, wouldn't you give the cost some thought? Educate yourself on the web. Maybe ask somebody you know and trust in the medical field, perhaps a family member, if it is worth it? Of what benefit it is? How it impacts the outcome? And, on top or that, the only thing you think of now - what the risks are? Maybe even shop around for price?

I might, but in the ends, I think most people will just go with what the doctor says. They might get a second opinion, but people do that now. A lot of people don't have access to people who know a whole lot about medicine, and trying to diagnose yourself or find out whether a procedure is worth it or whatever over the internet is dangerous. That's why people go to medical school for 4 years. I'm fine with doing that kind of thing when it's my car or my computer or something around the house, but when it comes to my body, do-it-yourself analysis via the internet is not something I'd trust.

I was adequately treated for a kidney stone in Canada with a urinalysis and a prescription for codeine. It could have been worse than it was, but if it was we would go from there. I'd opt for that plan today, knowing what I know, even if it didn't cost me a dime to go full court press.

Jackytar

Well, sure, but there are times when more involved procedures are prescribed.

 

[Magic Man]

Too many tests are performed for profit or to cover the doctor from a malpractice suit.

And?

Most folks only have a serious medical problem every now and then if at all. They could make payments and probably would be paid off before the next big bill came. Folks who are not sick could sock money away and would be prepared if and when they do get sick.

Assuming that people who can't afford $6,000 all at once could just make payments is naive. First of all, that would most likely end up costing interest. Second of all, I don't have $6,000 sitting around, and I don't have an extra $200 a month to put towards paying off a medical bill. And I have more than a lot of people.

Socking money away in case they get sick is just like having insurance. Why not just have insurance at that point? Since you never know whether you're going to need that money (meaning there's no point where you can say "OK, I made it, I'll just spend this on something else"), you might as well just pay insurance or taxes and put it into a pool where those who do actually need more than they've saved up can use it, and you can be assured it will be there for you as well.

People get sick just like cars break down.

Except that a car breaking down is quite a bit less dramatic.

You have to put a little money back for the bumps on the road of life. Just as you know you have to change your oil, your going to have to see the doctor now and then. These bills are manageable. It is the new engine or transmissions that can really set you back. Thats why they have a power train warranty for a few extra bucks. Obviously it does not cover windshield wipers, just as health insurance should not cover the small stuff. Catastrophic health insurance would be like a drive train warranty.

Except that when my windshield wipers get worn, I can let them go for a long time. I can wait 5-6,000 miles to change my oil if I don't have the money. Etc. Plus, there's a big difference between $800 to fix a car and $8,000 to fix a body. If absolutely need be, I could manage the $800 with some finagling. I couldn't possibly manage the $8,000.

Plus, a bunch of the people who can't afford health insurance also can't afford a car.

 

[Magic Man]

It could be like communism. Good in theory, we're just the wrong species.

Jackytar

I think that's exactly what it's like. It's sort of the other end of the spectrum, but in theory both sound great. In practice they both need some mitigation.

 

[Magic Man]

Okay, so let's suppose that libertarian ideals are Utopian. What is the alternative?

Is it okay to "know better" what is best for society, and to impose those ideas on everybody? Say, forced retirement savings (social security) or forced medical savings (Medicare) or banning self destructive behavior (drugs) or favoring certain technologies (corn ethanol) or certain economic activity (home buying). Why have these programs failed? What, exactly, did we get wrong and was it foreseeable at the time of implementation? Is it just a matter of making tweaks or is it fundamentally flawed?

Jackytar

Yes, it's OK to know better what's best for society. If you can get a group of intelligent, reasonable people together who have no ulterior motives other than to make society better for everyone, then you can figure out what's best for society.

What we got wrong with social security is that we don't take nearly enough out for it. It's capped at, what, somewhere around $93,000 and anything over that, you don't pay social security tax on. We also got it wrong there when we started dipping into it for other things.

What are the problems with Medicare?

Banning certain self-destructive behavior (possibly all, I only say "certain" because there might be an example I'm not thinking of) like drugs is just wrong. We went wrong there in banning those things. The sad part is that with most drugs it had nothing to do with trying to stop people from harming themselves. It was generally prompted by other factors like racism (not wanting black men to get high and horny on cocaine and go raping white women) and other ridiculous notions.

I think promoting home buying is just another way of promoting spending to boost the economy.

And yes, it's just a matter of tweaking.

 

[dale1257]

Low taxes and a laissez-faire government has been tried repeatedly. It fails every time. It produces a tiny, predatory group of rich men on top; a vast, complient, insecure, underpaid, impoverished lower class; and almost no middle class to buy the goods and services the corporatists produce. It is unsustainable. Friedman is just plain wrong.

It fails because of disproportionate government spending, lack of govt. oversight (note my use of the term oversight, as in not control) and skewed priorities.

Three times (that I know of) we have had massive tax cuts. (Kennedy, Reagan, Bush43). All three times revenues to the govt. have increased, but it has ultimately failed because of the reasons afore mentioned. Its not the system that is flawed, but those administering the system.