Question for Libertarians

[observe]

Doctors become doctors so they can help people..in a utopian society he still a doctor so he can help people..thread closed..

 

[Prince.Skeletor]

everyone here is so biased it would be impossible to have a scholarly discussion!

Just look at the responses

You know what the biggest problem I got with Liberals?
Firstly they use words like Utopia, as if libertarians claim such a thing exists.
Secondly they say hey about about poor people? Well frig...what about poor people NOW under ur stupid political structure?

People are just so damn dumb

 

[acri1]

everyone here is so biased it would be impossible to have a scholarly discussion!

Just look at the responses

You know what the biggest problem I got with Liberals?
Firstly they use words like Utopia, as if libertarians claim such a thing exists.
Secondly they say hey about about poor people? Well frig...what about poor people NOW under ur stupid political structure?

People are just so damn dumb

Another refusal to actually answer the question. Doesn't reflect very well on the ideology if people can't even answer a basic question.


In the current system, said person would simply go to the ER. This isn't ideal though, since they'd likely come out with a massive bill that they are unable to pay. The hospital would have to absorb the costs of treating said person, which would be passed on in what they charge other people for their services. Still better than simply letting the man die though.

In my ideal system, we'd have socialized, single-payer healthcare, so "not having insurance" wouldn't even be an issue. Said person would not only be able to go to the ER, but he'd also be able to get follow-up, preventative medical care in hopes of preventing another heart attack.

 

[Prince.Skeletor]

Another refusal to actually answer the question. Doesn't reflect very well on the ideology if people can't even answer a basic question..

And other people don't even have basic thinking skills.

You say what about a man that is about to die? People will die, people will always die.
Under your current system people are dying, under the Canadian free healthcare system people are also dying.
People will always die.

Free healthcare is horrible because it will always be reactive and it will never be preventive.
Whether you need a kidney expert or a whatever expert you may be in a waiting list and have you wait for many many months.
There's absolutely nothing preventive about free healthcare.

So my answer is whatever your system is that you support people will die in that system as well.

There is no utopia, there's no libertarian utopia and no free healthcare socialistic utopia.

In the current system, said person would simply go to the ER. This isn't ideal though, since they'd likely come out with a massive bill that they are unable to pay. The hospital would have to absorb the costs of treating said person, which would be passed on in what they charge other people for their services. Still better than simply letting the man die though..

All you are doing here is creating a ripple effect so not only that poor person but even somewhat well to do patients would not be able to afford it either.

In my ideal system, we'd have socialized, single-payer healthcare, so "not having insurance" wouldn't even be an issue. Said person would not only be able to go to the ER, but he'd also be able to get follow-up, preventative medical care in hopes of preventing another heart attack.

Do you disagree with the fact that the private sector always does a better job than the public sector?

The Western world is the last place where socialized medicine should be put in place.
Almost Every socialized service is bankrupt, do your homework.

 

[acri1]

And other people don't even have basic thinking skills.

You say what about a man that is about to die? People will die, people will always die.
Under your current system people are dying, under the Canadian free healthcare system people are also dying.
People will always die.

Miss me with that, the fact that people die sometimes is not the issue here. The issue is what type of healthcare system is actually better and minimizes the number of people dying. How about we look at the facts?

A peer-reviewed comparison study of health care access in the two countries published in 2006 concluded that U.S. residents are one third less likely to have a regular medical doctor, one fourth more likely to have unmet health care needs, and are more than twice as likely to forgo needed medicines.[40] The study noted that access problems "were particularly dire for the US uninsured." Those who lack insurance in the U.S. were much less satisfied, less likely to have seen a doctor, and more likely to have been unable to receive desired care than both Canadians and insured Americans.[40]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compar...da_and_the_United_States#Health_care_outcomes

Free healthcare is horrible because it will always be reactive and it will never be preventive.
Whether you need a kidney expert or a whatever expert you may be in a waiting list and have you wait for many many months.
There's absolutely nothing preventive about free healthcare.

So my answer is whatever your system is that you support people will die in that system as well.

That is not an argument for completely privatized healthcare.

Waiting to see a doctor >>> Not seeing one at all because you don't have insurance.


And do you REALLY think Canadian's have no preventative healthcare? Like there's no such thing as a primary doctor in Canada? If so you need to stop getting your information from biased right-wing sources.

Overall they're probably better off in terms of preventative healthcare since poor people can still go to the doctor and get medicine. Also, in Canada there are only wait times for non-emergency surgeries. It's not like somebody having a heart attack has to wait in line.

All you are doing here is creating a ripple effect so not only that poor person but even somewhat well to do patients would not be able to afford it either.

Which is why I said the current system isn't ideal. It's still better than the libertarian ideal where everything is completely privatized and emergency rooms aren't mandated by law to accept everyone. Meaning that people without insurance are completely SOL.

Do you disagree with the fact that the private sector always does a better job than the public sector?

Yes. The public sector is better for some things and the private sector is better for others. Saying one or to other is ALWAYS better is nonsense.

Should we also have privatized fire departments? Yeah, I'm sure it would benefit society as a whole when fire departments refuse to put out fires because the owners of a building don't have fire insurance and/or can't afford to pay for it.

The Western world is the last place where socialized medicine should be put in place.
Almost Every socialized service is bankrupt, do your homework.

 

[Morph]

Ron Paul was asked a similar question, but he evaded it

He answered it... 2 years ago... @ 30 seconds:


"Freedom is about taking your own risks"

A government is a system in which a community is governed.

Our government was meant to be a Republic, not a "take care of everyone in the community" system, but more of a "do it yourself" system. A Republic is a system where the people have control over their government, not the other way around ("nanny state").

What "libertarians" want is a society approaching caste/slavery and a government that allows it. Don't be fooled, that is the ultimate end game on their part. Instead of electing our government, they want the government to be dictated by the wealthiest which have risen to the top through private means, which ironically, is what we have now.

Slavery is impossible in a libertarian state because under a true libertarian state the government is too weak to enforce rules that violate anyone's civil liberties. Remember that Jim Crow was implemented and strengthened by Southern Democrats, not libertarians .

No, today, we have the opposite of a libertarian state. What we have is a system where civil liberties are almost non-existent (did you hear what the imbecile Obama said about PRISM?). Today we have:

• The Patriot Act
• Never-Ending Foreign Wars
• NDAA
• PRISM
• War on Drugs and the ever growing prison system it has created
• Excessive taxation with very little representation

In a libertarian society, you should be allowed to privacy to your email and phone calls and text messages, and to put whatever substances you want into your body without some government goon throwing you in jail for it. But we don't have that. Not even the rich are immune to PRISM or drone surveillance. Do you know who the biggest advocate of racial profiling is? It's a liberal named Michael Bloomberg.

Firstly they use words like Utopia, as if libertarians claim such a thing exists.

Liberals have an unhealthy obsession with Ron Paul. OP's first paragraph name dropped Ron Paul's without hesitation.

In my ideal system, we'd have socialized, single-payer healthcare, so "not having insurance" wouldn't even be an issue

That's a terrible idea because government doesn't create health services. The government contracts private sector providers with funds subsidized by the tax payer.

"Obamacare" is like 70,000 pages deep. Can you believe that? 70,000 of tax raises. Our entire constitution is what, barely 10 pages? Obamacare is going to give us rationed health care. You know it's bad when even Unions are losing 40,000 members at a time due to it:

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Govern...bamacare-40-000-Longshoremen-Quit-the-AFL-CIO

And other people don't even have basic thinking skills.

You say what about a man that is about to die? People will die, people will always die.
Under your current system people are dying, under the Canadian free healthcare system people are also dying.
People will always die.

Free healthcare is horrible because it will always be reactive and it will never be preventive...There's absolutely nothing preventive about free healthcare.

THIS!!

 

[DEAD7]

In the most general, abstract possible sense, no one would deny the bolded. Even Marx didn't. The question is whether or not libertarianism can achieve that goal. As of now, the more privatized forms of healthcare are empirically losing out to other models.

The point about government action being wrong is simply begging the question (the logical fallacy, that is,) since you're already assuming your view is correct. There's no issue of realization here, because the question of socialism or generally more collective forms of social organization against those you favor in terms of rights and wrongs isn't a rational one, but rather a moral one. There are no inherent rights, individual or otherwise, so how could it be?

Not sure where you get this from(the red)? There is no government free privatized healthcare anywhere with which to compare.


"Government action" has a track record too long to ignore, and history is full of nations that implemented socialism(or a system resembling socialism) and subsequently falling to ruin/extreme poverty/famine/tyranny etc. It takes an especially smart person to ignore history

We should err on the side of liberty, and stop with the force.

 

[DEAD7]

To answer the OP, he would die.