The "Free Market" Failure of the American Healthcare System

[quote=“Zeppelin795, post:107, topic:230931, full:true”]
What are the costs in a universal system?[/quote]

No idea; those figures are from a Time article I read recently. I’ll track it down and post it in a bit.

At this point, i have to imagine it is because you have a masochistic streak.

2 Likes

He is 100% right.

One of my favorite quotes…

3 Likes

No adult (in America) is ‘forced at gunpoint to help others.’ Yes, I know this rhetorical gambit is popular among libertarian types. But the fact is, if an American citizen doesn’t like the policies of the United States (including the redistribution of tax monies to the less fortunate), said American is free to emigrate at any time. Participation in our redistribution system is strictly voluntary.

If the door isn’t locked, you aren’t a prisoner. And if the chain around your neck isn’t locked in place, you aren’t a slave.

1 Like

I’ll tell you the same thing I told Zeb, norse…(and It’s the same thing I would tell Penn or Teller? I forget which one he is…)

I don’t call it compassion…I call it "shared risk "

We Live under a system of shared risk…

I’ll say it again…

Let’s hope that you (nor Zeb, nor Penn or Teller)… nor none of your family ends up splattered across a Highway due to an accident…and that you or your Loved ones require months of Intensive Care and Rehab. Or that someone you Love develops a malignant cancer.

The Premiums you pay; regardless as to how “high” you think they are; wouldn’t cover the cost of the Helicopter Flight or one course of Chemo.

This “I’ll take care of our own” is an admirable sentiment…and I share it…

But it’s hallow words when faced with the realities of the cost of Health Care in the U.S…

(Penn or Teller better be a Billionaire…or hope that he is never faced with catastrophic cost…)

Agreed. Taken to its logical conclusion, this is nothing but anarchy - after all, every government service is backed by “force” at some point.

When we as a society decide some good or service is better produced by the state as agent, it isn’t categorically tyranny at gunpoint. Tyranny at gunpoint is tyranny at gunpoint.

The ol, “leave if you don’t like it” eh? What a silly sentiment. Leave if you don’t like an injustice?

All that little sentiment does is shut down discussion.

Ahh, the worst case scenario examples because that’s how we should dictate policy, right? IALTO.

In this hypothetical situation, are we using today’s insurance/ healthcare or something that it seems Zeb, BG and I would like to see that could lower costs and give the American people the freedom to choose what they want to cover and pay for?

No, not really. It was the old ‘the fact that you can leave means you’re not being forced to do anything against your will.’

Once again, not really. It’s a fact, not a sentiment.

No; NOT "hypothetical. These are in fact COMMON scenarios.

Look up the statistics and estimated cost for catastrophic auto accidents in the U.S.; cancer incidence and average cost; rehabilitation and disability; intensive care cost; ER cost…

THEN look up the odds that the average American will be directly and/or indirectly by one of these catastrophic cost.You will find that what I have listed are far from being “hypothetical/worst-case scenarios”.

And I tell you something else that is not a hypothetical…

That many “let me choose what I pay for” people would look at a Loved one suffering from severe trauma or the early stages of cancer and say "…naw…let 'em die, because I didn’t want that coverage…

With all due respect this isn’t accurate. It is very difficult and expensive to renounce US citizenship. Applications to renounce US citizenship are denied if they are filed on the basis of tax protest or financial gain.

You have to come up with a better excuse like marrying a foreign national and moving to his/her country. Potential expats have to pay a one time fee equal to 30% of their net worth to renounce citizenship, regardless of their reason for leaving.

If you attempt to live and work in another country without renouncing citizenship you owe US tax on those earnings, even if you leave for decades. The US is arguably the hardest country to leave (according to Forbes), and the only one that taxes expats this way. The state owns you and the products of your labor.

As a guy with libertarian/ancap leanings I find this topic incredibly interesting, I’ve thought about writing a book on it that at least 5 people would read.

I would point out that no one on this thread consented to be governed. I sure didn’t. I do not believe in the social contract, but this puts me at odds with every western political/economic philosopher from Socrates to Keynes. Hobbes’ argument that the fact that we don’t rise up in violent revolt = consent not withstanding.

Alas there is nowhere to escape to without some measure of government.

It would take a book to articulate the argument, and it wouldn’t matter anyway. We’re stuck with government of some kind as it seems to be part of the human condition. Since all countries have governments and armies, a country of free-er people without a standing army would be crushed.

I simply believe that humans with power over other humans will abuse that power given time and opportunity. The conclusion of the book would be to limit government for the sake of limiting potential abuse. Minarchy.

Sorry. Derail.

2 Likes

Fair enough. But I don’t think that negates my basic point.

The old ‘Spooner’ argument.

Why not? Especially in light of the fact that (as you point out) some seriously smart people do.

1 Like

'Tis merely the price of freedom.

Can you think of another place in the world in which you’re permitted to work? Marry? Procreate? Watch television, surf the internet, and listen to the radio?

Didn’t think so.

The social contract is predicated upon the “consent of the governed”. The main argument that the governed do indeed consent: if people don’t rise in violent revolt, and win… they must consent to being governed.

To me this is tantamount to WSM Brian Shaw raping a 5 foot tall 75lb woman. Because she didn’t resist and win, she must have consented to the intercourse.

In no other legal framework or cultural understanding does consent mean what it needs to mean in the context of the social contract. In order for the social contract to be valid consent must be:

  1. Collective,
  2. Cross generational: the consent of the original citizens must transfer to their progeny.
  3. Irrevocable and Unconditional: the citizens cannot decide at any point that they want to revoke their consent.

Imagine for a second a government based on consent as we understand it in every other context.

“Mr. Gainz you’re under arrest for murder.”
“I would like to take this moment to revoke my consent to be governed.”
“Let him go boys”

So, government cannot be based on consent, it wouldn’t work. So what is it based on?

Imagine a “Nobel savage” situation where stone age humans are wondering around, getting along and trying to survive. What do they need a tribal chief for? How did the first chief happen? I submit that human nature has a dark side, and these stone age people made a permanent trade of their individual sovereignty for protection from miscreants in their tribe and against other tribes. Or that first chief violently seized power, but the rest of the tribe submitted to him for the same reason.

That permanent trade of sovereignty was specifically for protection against human nature. They gave the leader the right to use force to enact that protection against antisocial behaviours. So the government has a charter and force to achieve that charter, consent plays no role. The problem in all this is that flawed humans with dark natures run government. Hence the call to minimize it.

I could go on for pages, but it would take me a long time to express what I’m trying to get accross. Just one man’s musings in the basement… still my set. Gotta go.

1 Like

I know this was a joke. But, the entire West?

It isn’t freedom if you aren’t free to leave.

Just the West? Is there anywhere you wouldn’t be free to do the things I listed, provided you did those things in a permissible manner?

At its best, it’s based on protecting the governed from those that would do them harm. At its worst, it enables some to victimize others under the cover of legitimacy.

By the way…BG has come up with some intriguing scenarios for both choice and reigning in cost.

Hmm…I’m not sure I’m buying the notion that rejection of ‘implied consent’ requires that the people revolt and win. That is, it seems to me that even an unsuccessful revolt would be prima facie evidence of a refusal to give consent by the people involved in said revolt. Can you educate me as to why a revolt has to be successful to validate the claim that consent was never granted by the individuals involved?

Aren’t all three of these obviated by the fact that people can leave if they don’t want to live under the constraints imposed by the social contract?

People sign binding contracts all the time. Why can’t implied consent under the social contract be considered binding in like manner?

When you take up arms against your country you are committing treason. If you fail to overthrow the government, then you will be found guilty of breaking the laws against treason. You are still subject to the power and laws of the government you never consented to. The only way to be free of those laws is to win.

I would agree with you if it didn’t cost 30% of your net worth and tens/hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees and 5 years to renounce citizenship. Only the rich can leave (co-founder of facebook).

So if your dad signed a contract that you would be an indentured servant are you bound by it?

Contracts cannot be one sided. The citizens are required to abide by laws. Governments break laws every day (unwarranted search and seizure for example). So if a citizen finds the government to be in breach of the social contract, and they cannot leave and they cannot hope to win an insurrection. What choice do they have?

The dude is a moron with a thick skull. I wish I could block his idiotic ill-informed America-hating rants.

2 Likes