How to Fix Health Care Without Spending a Dime [Video]

ryanh29

This is useless. You disregarded 90% of my post, ignore all the points I make, and then attack me for not answering vague, impossible to comprehend question (such as ". . . how many would be expected to join" without mentioning what the hell you're talking about: who would join what? Your question doesn't make this clear whatsoever).

You obviously haven't even been reading what I've been writing as shown here:

Are you for each individual state regulating the industry as opposed to the federal government?

YES. A million times YES. YES, YES, YES, YES. BUT ERISA bars this. The individual states regulate all other forms of insurance without federal interference, see the McCarran-Ferguson Act, and there isn't a pending federal takeover of those areas and, despite their faults, they work reasonably well.

So here, I'll write it again: ERISA, a federal law, bars the states from regulating pre-existing condition denials. The individual states cannot regulate pre-existing condition denials in any way, shape, or form so long as the employer purchases the benefits for the insured. That's my whole fucking point: the health care industry is so fucked up because of federal interventions into it such as this one. This is just one example. I haven't listed others because you haven't grasped this one.

Note, you're getting "mixed signals" because I use the term "the State" (capital S) to refer to government generally (be it local, state, or federal) and "the states" to refer to the individual states that make up the United States.

So let's start over.

Simple point: ERISA--one of many government interventions into the health insurance industry--allows insurance companies plenary power to deny for pre-existing conditions when an employer purchases insurance for an insured. This leads to many of the arbitrary denials you're so enraged about. Yet, curiously, you see the federal government, which has directly caused this situation that you're rightfully angered about, as a Holy Do-Gooder that is going to come in and save the day by making everyone purchase insurance. And somehow this solution isn't "horribly simplified," but one that addresses the nuances of insurance law, economics, and the legal system is. Go figure.

ryanh29

when you stop seeing so many submissions about the social side of libertarianism, and instead the focus becomes obsessively about the economic side.

To be fair, that's what is in the news right now.

ryanh29

B-b-b-b-but it's not in the bill!

ryanh29

I don't see taxation as a form of theft.

So you have an ideological disposition to accept the second of the two possible definitions that I proffered. Just admit it rather than continuing to dance around the point. Either that, or offer a definition that somehow makes taxation not an act of theft.

The money that is taxed is returned to the people in the form of services (like healthcare).

If the money was returned anyway, then taxation makes no sense in the first instance. You know this simply isn't true. Those on the receiving end of government handouts (the "political class" if you want it in class analysis terms) gets a net gain wholly at the expense of the "plundered class" that lacks the political power or lack of ethical restraint to use the State's apparatus to take from others for their own benefit.

Society, almost like a super-organism, restructures itself to take care of the most vulnerable.

Again, you're conflating "government" and "society." I see no point in this debate if you aren't even reading my posts. I've pointed out time and time again that you do this.

So let me restate it in bold as this may catch your attention: I have no problem with "society" taking care of people. I think this is a worthy goal. However, I DO have a problem with you wanting to rob others to fund the social goal of the moment.

if you feel that taxation is theft, why don't you live in a society with no taxation?

As a threshold matter, I don't "feel" like it's anything. I'm not making an emotional argument here, though you continue to do so. I'm making a logical one. But anyway, the point is that it's not my duty to leave; it's the duty of others not to rob their fellow members of society whether it's done personally or impersonally through the state.

we're not going to pass laws for religious reasons.

Laws are made for religious reasons all the time. This is perfectly constitutional even. What isn't constitutional is establishing religion; not legislating for religious reasons. A ban on gay marriage, for instance, is perfectly constitutional even if done for religious reasons. You may hate this policy (I know I do) and that's my point: the State can force the viewpoint of one group onto another group, even if the group having those views forced on them despises it. Just because you think health care "reform" (yeah right) is a good idea, doesn't mean that (1) it is and (2) it's ethical to force it on people that disagree.

How much cheaper would health care be without government interference?

Much.

Anyway, I haven't looked into whether more hospitals and doctors would be created.

Yet I'm that one that hasn't "thought this one through." It won't create any new doctors or hospitals and, in fact, creates a massive disincentive to get into the medical field or to build new hospitals. In fact, the New England Journal of Medicine reports that 46% of Primary Care Physicians will quit if ObamaCare passes. Sure, these numbers are probably inflated but my point remains: government control creates a disincentive to get into medicine, thereby exacerbating all the problems you're worried about.

What if there are still some people who can't afford it? Unless you can answer each of these questions, I'm sorry to say it, but your proposed solution is horrible oversimplified at best, and an unrealistic construct used to dismiss a REAL solution at worst.

You haven't made one logical argument to defend a government takeover of ~15-20% of the economy. The burden of proof lies with you, not with me. I'm at least versed in economics and pointed out all the things you're overlooking. You've addressed none of them and then asked for very specific statistical proofs. This doesn't help your argument nor does it weaken mine.

See, an insurance company right now can decide to refuse treatment that the doctor deems completely necessary.

And this is because of ERISA, a federal law that bars state courts from regulating this practice. I initially made this point regarding pre-existing condition limitations and various other of your objections and you continue to ignore it. Hell, just repealing this law would be better reform than anything in the 2,000+ craptastic bill that you're blindly supporting.

Anyway, the rest of your post is largely histrionic, emotional drivel. Here are my points that you haven't addressed nor do I expect that you can:

Supply and demand set price. If you have "single-payer" or force people to buy insurance, people will use health care more than they would but for those governmental interferences. This drastically increases costs. Government must then respond in one of two ways: (1) drastically increase taxes (unpopular) or (2) cut services and ration who gets care via a unaccountable bureaucracy. Surprise, surprise, pols always pick door #2, even if these means encouraging people to die prematurely. All your whining about "need" and such can't get around this point: government interference doesn't address these problems; it exacerbates them.
You obviously ignored the link I posted about insurance and fail to see how it creates a safety net when properly understood and used. The current system doesn't do this and I suggested that insurance be used in a manner to create a safety net, not to treat routine conditions.
For every dollar taken from a taxpayer, that's a dollar that one can't use to support a sick family member, friend, or stranger. Redistribution doesn't make the pie larger (it in fact makes it smaller); it just merely screws some people over for the sake of satisfying politically popular groups.
"The rich" aren't some amorphous group of people with a never ending supply of money that can be plundered whenever impatient children want others to provide them with consumer goods. People that enviously want to rob others just because they have more aren't ethical or have some sort of moral high ground. It's petty thievery and nothing more, though you obviously like to dress it up with ideology.
As for the good-things-government-has-done-rant, the government has also caused the deaths of millions of people over the past hundred years (I suspect state control over the distribution of health care resources will add drastically to this). Yet I'm supposed to believe government will give a rat's ass about people's health and welfare. If you believe this, I have some beautiful swampland that you might be interested in for development. It just needs some "reform."

ryanh29

You mean our government isn't deficit spending us into a shithole?

Are you implying that it isn't?

ryanh29

I don't see this happening.

ryanh29

In response to (1), whether taxes is a form a theft is an opinion.

Actually, it's a matter of semantics. If you define theft as using violence or the threat of violence to take the property of another, then taxation is theft. If you define theft as non-governmental actors using violence or the threat of violence to take the property of another, then taxation isn't theft. My point is that adopting the second definition requires an ideological commitment to putting government actors on a pedestal or higher plane than everyone else.

On those lines, I believe we should TAX (not rob) Peter along with everyone else an amount based on how much they earn, to make sure nobody suffers with a severe disease they can't treat. People should not go bankrupt because they get a disease.

Now, this is a matter of opinion. The religious right will tell you that people shouldn't do X because it's un-Christian or what have you. This view is as important to them as your views regarding health care are to you. I'm sure you wouldn't want to be forced to live in a society that requires forced chastity, religious worship, etc. Is it that hard to conceive that people don't want the fruits of their labor taken from them and give to others based on the subjective opinion of who "should" get what consumer products, such as insurance and health care?

Look, I'm really glad your allergies are covered, but there are people who have Muscular Dystrophy who can't get coverage.

I think you need to look into what insurance is and what it isn't. The point is to spread risk, not to act as a pseudo-, government controlled charity system. She can't get coverage because the risk has already occurred. The problem with the system is that insurance or government handouts are the 2 best means for access rather than allowing a third: first-party payment. Of course, both insurers and government have an interest in not allowing this to happen, which is accomplished through the maze of regulations, taxes, subsidies, and legislation that you (paradoxically) favor.

It's creating a situation where the people who need medical attention THE MOST are the ones who can't get it without government assistance.

The excessive price of health care, which is largely caused by government interference via the means I mentioned above, creates this problem. You're not recognizing that the current system makes third parties responsible for payment of health care rather than the person consuming the goods and services. This jacks prices up because when the consumer is disconnected from the cost, there's no reason not to maximize consumption. It's very much a tragedy of the commons-type problem.

That is an extremely vague solution to a very real problem many Americans face.

No, I'm stating one solution. This is the "macro" solution that I'd personally advocate. It would increase supply, cabin demand, and not require a government-run social engineering scheme. What is a vague solution is pretending that government has magic powers that allow it to make scarcity disappear.

but it all comes down to how we view the actions that our government takes.

No, it doesn't. Government can only exist by turning citizens into subjects. It creates nothing productive and exists only because it has a monopoly on the "legitimate" use of initiatory force in society. If I rob you to provide my friend with health care, I'm a petty criminal. When government does it it's considered "helping people" or whatever.

First of all, we must impose regulations to prevent monopolies, which would go against the principles of "voting with out wallets".

Which requires a massive monopoly over the use of force . . .

Also, I'd recommend reading contemporary economists on monopoly theory (Rothbard, Armentano, DiLorenzo, and Block). The high school and college versions of US history are a joke when it comes to the evil "Robber Barons." Not once has the harm that monopolies supposedly will lead to (willful restriction of output to reach a "monopoly price") ever occurred, even prior to the passage of the Sherman Act

Second of all, we must not use this system for matters of life and death or else we will see people die unnecessary deaths because they couldn't afford to pay for life-saving services that many companies are ready to extend to those with bigger paychecks

First, like I said, feel free to attempt to fix the problems yourself and convince others to join you. Why is plundering faceless strangers via the government the first option?

It seems to work pretty well for other "life-and-death" matters such as the production and distribution of food. My whole point is that government involvement will do nothing to alleviate the problem but, instead, will increase demand while restricting supply. Governments always deal with this by denying care (the very problem you have) and cutting services to control runaway costs. Here's the worst-case scenario when the government controls the supply and distribution of health care.

At the end of the day, we live in a world of scarce resources and seeking the various ends that we want requires tradeoffs. The question really is: who is in the best position to make those choices--a bureaucrat in Washington or individuals? Further, what gives you the right to make that choice for me or anyone else?

Well, as I pointed out before, there are people who are in desperate need for healthcare NOW

And legislation magically creates more doctors, more hospitals, more medical equipment, etc.? Please tell me how. Further, how does their need for health care come before the needs of others for many of the things they won't be able to afford to pay for when they have even more of their paycheck confiscated from them each month?

ryanh29

Sure, it was used that way in the past - I don't think that's how it's being used now.

My point is that the information provided is supposed to be confidential and be used only for the stated purposes. The government has repeatedly used it for other things, the worst of which was to inter Japanese-Americans. I see no reason to participate (1) out of principal and (2) out of self-interest.

but folding your arms and "I don't wanna" for the whole thing seems a little over the top, yea?

But asking personal questions with the threat of a stiff fine for failure to submit isn't over the top!?

ryanh29

I just went back and looked but I can't find the source that I read about this. I could swear it was from Thomas DiLorenzo or Thomas Woods. I'm going to keep looking. It might be from Burton Folsom's The Myth of the Robber Barons: A New Look at the Rise of Big Business in America.

ryanh29

Are you denying that census information--in violation of federal law--was used to round up Japanese-Americans during the 1940s?

My point is, it's none of the government's business, and Washington has proven time and again (hell, it even admits) that it will use census information for non-apportionment purposes. I didn't say it will be used this time in a similar manner as it was used against the Japanese; I'm saying that it was used that way and there's no reason to trust that it won't be used for nefarious purposes once again.

ryanh29

Because the CBO score is bullshit, though people will hear what they want to hear.

ryanh29

I didn't downvote you.

Also, there was far more competition prior to the Sherman Act; the major consolidation of economic power occurred during the Progressive Era with FDR's corporate-fascism and banksterism.

ryanh29

I suppose pointing out that an economically ignorant idea on the economics subreddit is "anger" now.

ryanh29

It won't. The pols just moved the start dates for the calculations in a manner that would lower its CBO score and then moved expensive spending items into other bills.

It's all bullshit.

ryanh29

Hardly a big deal.

It was a pretty big deal for the Japanese-Americans that were rounded up and interred using census information. Or for WWI draft dodgers that were sought using census data.

ryanh29

Is every harebrained spending scheme now considered "stimulus"?

Maybe we can make diamond toilets. Those sound expensive and no one would ever consider wasting resources on them unless the government were involved. Therefore, we should stimulate the shit out of the economy with them.

ryanh29

Slavery seems to be a pretty good kick in the nuts for pre-progressive era US.

That was also ended pre-progressive era.

I consider the progressive era to have started around the turn of the century (as do most historians) so really your depression point further strengthens my argument. And as for the "robber barons" many were just successful businessmen that progressives demonized in the history books (quite effectively, I might add).

So your sole point is an arguable one about Robber Barons. Awesome. I'd imagine most people would find putting Japanese-Americans in concentration camps (how progressive) to be a greater sin than satisfying customers.

ryanh29

Kevin Carson is actually a Left-Libertarian.

But hey, keep up the tradition of idiotic partisans labeling libertarians "fucktard Republicans" when they enjoy getting bent over by Democrats and something like "a hippy faggot liberal" by those that enjoy getting pounded by Republican pols.

ryanh29

About what? The US government? From a libertarian perspective, there were fewer wars, no federal income tax, no Fed (though central banks existed off and on), no central economic planning, and an imperfect but bearable constitutional republic. Now? The government occupies most of the globe, much of the economy is being nationalized, the central bank can do whatever the fuck it wants, and we have a bizarro corporatist social democracy thing going. Awesome.

ryanh29

This is the economics subreddit. Not the hope-n-change-n-puppies-n-sunshine reddit.

ryanh29

Take it to politics.

ryanh29

The US government pre-Progressivism.

Also, it's easier for those countries to have a high standard of living despite their backwards economic policies when (1) they aren't maintaining a military empire that spans the globe and (2) have already spent the incomes of the next two generations.

ryanh29

Go ahead, tell me what harm there is...

It was used to round up Japanese-Americans and put them in concentration camps.

Thanks, but no thanks.

ryanh29

I imagine local security firms wouldn't be very worried about outlaws once they leave the area

But they'd be very concerned about outlaws from other areas coming into their area. After all, they'll lose market share if they can't keep their customers safe. There's no reason to think they wouldn't have an interest in apprehending such individuals and holding them until the interested parties come get the outlaw. Hell, this is done today between governments that use extradition agreements for the transfer of criminals after they flee a jurisdiction.

Also, imagine the amount of resources freed up to pursue actual criminals when the goal is security and not controlling the habits of people that legislators deem to be vices. The focus would be on murderers, rapists, burglars and their ilk. Not pot heads and prostitutes.

ryanh29

I've read a few of your comments regarding what an AnCapistan or Libertopia woud look like and want to point out a few practical and economics-based points to your (implicit) objections:

You haven't established how this purely libertarian society would come into being. Would us libertarians be starting this society on a desert island with no established means of production, or are you asking if we would take the status quo, abolish government, and then go from there? Your question above about material prosperity essentially hinges on this point. Obviously, starting an entire society from scratch would mean a lower standard of living; getting the government to quit mismanaging resources (by no longer existing) would do nothing to lower the standard of living.
You're criticisms neglect the time element. Sure, assuming a society with no roads would make for a lower standard of living. But over the long haul, novel solutions to what you're assuming are insurmountable problems would reveal themselves. Hell, just look at the post-office. The founders thought it was so difficult and important to deliver the mail that the government had to run it. Now, you can send mail through a series of intertubes with a click of a button on these newfangled portable gizmos. Meanwhile, the post-office runs multi-billion dollar deficits, makes competition with it illegal, and is threatening to raise prices while cutting services (in a depression no less!).
You're assuming that only a legislature can regulate activity and that market actors would have no incentive to produce safe products in the absence of government. This simply isn't true. Libertarians have no problem with requiring compensation when someone injures another. Imposing liability on road owners would create an economic incentive to create their own safety rules. Moreover, I'm really baffled by the argument that roads would be less safe absent government control. Right now, about 50,000 people die a year from auto accidents. Would this death rate by acceptable with any product produced on the market and used by consumers? Hell, one kid gets hurt diving into a clearly labeled ("NO DIVING") above ground swimming pool and the manufacturer is sued for design defect. But God forbid the government be sued for designing one-size-fits-all roads that are packed with bumper-to-bumper traffic, drug abusing truck drivers, and drunken assholes.

ryanh29

TROPHY CASE

you'll need to login or register to do that

create a new account

login