Real Affordable Healthcare: Remove 'Government' Regulation

[futurepremed]

I will start off by saying I'm an AnCap (Anarcho-Capitalist). This is a branch of of libertarian philosophy grounded in three main ideals: voluntary exchange, private property and the non-aggression principle. For a simple beginner's guide go here: Link


To start off, I'm against government/the state in all form, including government regulation. I am not against natural market/private regulation that that comes thru voluntary exchange and consumer's rights.
_________________________________________________
An example of market regulation:

Store owners have liability for the products they sell. If a customer is harmed by one of their products then they'll get sued, their reputation will be diminished, they'll be advertised against by competition, and competitors will take away their customer-based.
Not to mention, the store owner's insurance company is gonna want some 'standard of quality' from the store owner, if they are gonna insure his/her business. The insurance company want to reduce their liabilities and prevent possible lawsuits.

more here....

__________________________________________________
TL;DR version, government regulation is inefficient, bureaucratic, coercive, arbitrary and needlessly inflates the cost of healthcare for the average person. Get rid of all state-created(artificial) barriers to the healthcare market and the cost of providing it will go down astronomically.

In a free/ancap society every person has personal liability for their behavior, add to that reputation, insurance, social cooperation, contracts, common sense etc... This is the "invisible hand" at work; people pursuing their own interest in a non-aggressive manner, respecting property, engaging in social cooperation to accomplish goals, and taking accountability for their behavior.

That is all the regulation you need, minus the bureaucratic red-tape.
_________________________________________________
The whole debate about "is healthcare a right or a privilege" is a false dichotomy. Healthcare is a service. And like every service it cost time and money for a person to provide. We can't ignore those cost or try to regulate or mandate them out of existence.

Instead we should aim to make them as affordable as possible. Market competition does just that. Before government interference, it took a day's wage to pay for 1 YEAR'S worth of medical coverage, healthcare and insurance for low-to-no income families was available and much more efficient:

Mutual-Aid Societies for Insurance

Article: MUTUAL AIDE SOCIETIES: Origins of the Welfare State in America

Book: From Mutual Aid to the Welfare State

Article: Welfare before the Welfare State
______________________________________________________
Fraternal Societies for Medical Assistance

Short Video: How Government "Solved" the Health Care Crisis!

Article: How Government Solved the Health Care Crisis by by Roderick T. Long
_____________________________________________________

The list of reasons to oppose state regulation are endless, but are summed up in the following short videos(full list go *here):

*State Regulation* -- leads to favoritism, promoting the revolving door mentality in government-business collusion i.e. lobbying , destroys jobs for the lower classes.
_____________________________________
How Cronyism is Hurting the Economy
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gSgUENZ9O94)

The State Is Not Great: Legal Plunder
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TJIMqwJI2uI)

Is Capitalism "Pro-Business?"
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hjh7mXPfMKs)

Economic Freedom & Income Equality
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8B_btJT8kzw)

The Reality of the State | Stefan Molyneux
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7iA3sAPmlQE)

___________________________________________________________________

Some links covering all the common hangups:

Ancap 101 package: LINK

The Poor and Less Able: LINK

Corporation vs. Business and the Environment: LINK

Eliminating IP law: LINK

Roads: LINK

War and Defense: LINK

Law and Order: LINK

Public Schools: LINK

I know this is SDN so, this thread could go either way. I'm hoping for some good discussion.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[sinombre]

Before I decide how much effort I want to put into reading this post in its entirety, I'll respond with the following claim: there are obvious perils of bureaucracy, but the belief that the free market will sufficiently self-regulate is extremely naive.

 

[futurepremed]

Before I decide how much effort I want to put into reading this post in its entirety, I'll respond with the following claim: there are obvious perils of bureaucracy, but the belief that the free market will sufficiently self-regulate is extremely naive.

Thanks for the response. Hopefully, when you get the the time, you'll check out the sources. All the common objections have been answered a million times over by some of the most influential economists and political thinkers like Friedrich Hayek, Murry Rothbard, Ludwig von Mises etc...

These ideals aren't new, they've be around since the birth of the Classical Liberalism in the 1600s.


common readings 1

common readings 2

common reading 3

 

[red7]

Actually, the most efficient, accessible, and well-organized health systems are heavily government-based. e.g. Australia, Canada, UK, France, Germany, Japan, Taiwan, etc. Of course, there are bureaucratic problems in every large system, but all of these countries have better health indicators (i.e. morbidity/mortality) and lower cost than the more market-based "competition" model in the US.

Most people point to waiting times for certain procedures in those countries as indications of their failure; it's true that some procedures have long waiting lines (maybe up to 5-6 months sometimes), but it's also true that if all of the people who actually needed care in the US were able to access care, the US system would be overwhelmed - that is to say, if a significant swath of the population were not excluded from the private system as they are now, the medical shortages and waitlists in the US would be much larger.

All of this said, I'm still not sure it was worth responding to you.

 

[NickNaylor]

Before I decide how much effort I want to put into reading this post in its entirety, I'll respond with the following claim: there are obvious perils of bureaucracy, but the belief that the free market will sufficiently self-regulate is extremely naive.

Agreed. And I'm a pretty conservative guy.

 

[Stumpyman]

I'm not all that well-read on this, but what about the success the single-payer healthcare system has had in countries? Why is this better than that?

 

[PKAguy2202]

Actually, the most efficient, accessible, and well-organized health systems are heavily government-based. e.g. Australia, Canada, UK, France, Germany, Japan, Taiwan, etc. Of course, there are bureaucratic problems in every large system, but all of these countries have better health indicators (i.e. morbidity/mortality) and lower cost than the more market-based "competition" model in the US.

Most people point to waiting times for certain procedures in those countries as indications of their failure; it's true that some procedures have long waiting lines (maybe up to 5-6 months sometimes), but it's also true that if all of the people who actually needed care in the US were able to access care, the US system would be overwhelmed - that is to say, if a significant swath of the population were not excluded from the private system as they are now, the medical shortages and waitlists in the US would be much larger.

All of this said, I'm still not sure it was worth responding to you.

Not to start yet another heated debate on what is suppose to be a kind and supportive premed site, but have you been to any of those countries. Have you actually studied their health care delivery systems and how effective they are. I have been to Italy, Canada, and France. All of these programs run in debt each year, waiting times are absolutely horrendous and I would argue the competition in their system is significantly decreased, leading to quality of doctors being well below ours here in the states.

 

[futurepremed]

I would also love to get some feedback from physicians on the cost of government regulation to their practice.

Do you feel like your practice would be more efficient/streamlined without it? Assuming personal liability, third-party insurance, private "consumer watch" accreditation is in place?

Similar to this:

Thread: Could you expect compensation from a drug company, in an ancap society, if a drug you bought from them made you sick?

Are their any doctors that love government regulation and want more of it? That work an interesting conversation.

 

[lobo.solo]

Not to start yet another heated debate on what is suppose to be a kind and supportive premed site, but have you been to any of those countries. Have you actually studied their health care delivery systems and how effective they are. I have been to Italy, Canada, and France. All of these programs run in debt each year, waiting times are absolutely horrendous and I would argue the competition in their system is significantly decreased, leading to quality of doctors being well below ours here in the states.

How would you explain their WHO ranking? How about Cuba, an underdeveloped country?

 

[wjs010]

One simple way to get rid of a big part of the bureaucratic cock block would be to make medical billing and records completely electronic. The paper pushers we have working the system are just unnecessary and end up making doctors unhappy.

 

[futurepremed]

Actually, the most efficient, accessible, and well-organized health systems are heavily government-based. e.g. Australia, Canada, UK, France, Germany, Japan, Taiwan, etc. Of course, there are bureaucratic problems in every large system, but all of these countries have better health indicators (i.e. morbidity/mortality) and lower cost than the more market-based "competition" model in the US.

This is simply not true.

It's well-known that in Canada/UK and other western nations healthcare is often rationed (and people are eternally wait-listed), because they have a socialized healthcare system.

There are even real-life stories of Canadians and UKers that have to come over to the US if they want to be seen sooner.

This is a good thread covering the rationing and preferential treatment problem in socialized healthcare systems:

I live in Slovenia (EU). We have words "social state" in our constitution and we are a living, breathing AnCap nightmare. AMA

 

[PKAguy2202]

How would you explain their WHO ranking? How about Cuba, an underdeveloped country?

• Health (50%) : disability-adjusted life expectancy
  • Overall or average : 25%
  • Distribution or equality : 25%
• Responsiveness (25%) : speed of service, protection of privacy, and quality of amenities
  • Overall or average : 12.5%
  • Distribution or equality : 12.5%
• Fair financial contribution : 25%

This is what the WHO based their 2000 ranking you alluded to on. So distribution, obviously pre-PPACA we would be ranked low because many can't afford our healthcare. Life expectancy, of course we are bad there we are the MOST obese country in the world. Universal healthcare sure as hell isn't going to make us thin. The reason we have bad life expectancy is more than 1/3 of our country is obese. Number one killer of American's is heart disease something that can be preventable. Then you have 25% based on fair financial contribution...who exactly decides what is fair. Is fair giving it to 40 million people for free, while others pay a absorbitant amount? Also this WHO ranking in no way takes into account the economic stability of said programs. Hence why I said these programs run in debt EVERY year! They are not sustainable in the long term when you have a world that runs on capital. Lastly, there is no bonus in this ranking for research. Our medical research in the US is far and beyond superior to the rest of the world and as a result we have many of the best specialty physicians in the entire world. So in short a ranking put out that decides to "holistically" evaluate health care systems but then fails to address many pertinent aspects means jack.

 

[lobo.solo]

This is simply not true.

It's well-known that in Canada/UK and other western nations healthcare is often rationed (and people are eternally wait-listed), because they have a socialized healthcare system.

There are even real-life stories of Canadians and UKers that have to come over to the US if they want to be seen sooner.

This is a good thread covering the rationing and preferential treatment problem in socialized healthcare systems:

I live in Slovenia (EU). We have words "social state" in our constitution and we are a living, breathing AnCap nightmare. AMA

Why are you using a blog as your source? Truth is that the WHO rankings and reports don't lie. The U.S spend a lot more than other countries, don't cover everyone and sometimes falls below or equal in ranking with countries that have a non-profit (or at least regulated) approach to their systems. I agree that an electronic medical record system will reduce expending some.

Edit: nobody denies the technological power the U.S has but the scientific advances for the most part don't benefit the majority of people who can't afford health insurance.

 

[wpierce118]

Is fair giving it to 40 million people for free, while others pay a absorbitant amount?

On the flip side, is it fair to deny coverage to people who cannot support themselves (children, the elderly, etc)?

 

[lobo.solo]

• Health (50%) : disability-adjusted life expectancy
  • Overall or average : 25%
  • Distribution or equality : 25%
• Responsiveness (25%) : speed of service, protection of privacy, and quality of amenities
  • Overall or average : 12.5%
  • Distribution or equality : 12.5%
• Fair financial contribution : 25%

This is what the WHO based their 2000 ranking you alluded to on. So distribution, obviously pre-PPACA we would be ranked low because many can't afford our healthcare. Life expectancy, of course we are bad there we are the MOST obese country in the world. Universal healthcare sure as hell isn't going to make us thin. The reason we have bad life expectancy is more than 1/3 of our country is obese. Number one killer of American's is heart disease something that can be preventable. Then you have 25% based on fair financial contribution...who exactly decides what is fair. Is fair giving it to 40 million people for free, while others pay a absorbitant amount? Also this WHO ranking in no way takes into account the economic stability of said programs. Hence why I said these programs run in debt EVERY year! They are not sustainable in the long term when you have a world that runs on capital. Lastly, there is no bonus in this ranking for research. Our medical research in the US is far and beyond superior to the rest of the world and as a result we have many of the best specialty physicians in the entire world. So in short a ranking put out that decides to "holistically" evaluate health care systems but then fails to address many pertinent aspects means jack.

Dude the United Kingdom system has been in place for a long time. Sure there has been some financial stress lately but that is because of the global economy situation. I agree we have an epidemic of chronic diseases that are super expensive, but that is the reason preventive medicine and coverage to everyone could help with the our # in comparison to other countries.

 

[futurepremed]

I'm not all that well-read on this, but what about the success the single-payer healthcare system has had in countries? Why is this better than that?

I'm not aware of any success only healthcare rationing, massive debt put of the backs of future generation(the credit card will eventually max out), and and preferential treatment for those "connected" to employs.

Look at any socialist economy that seems to be prosperous, then look at their debt. It's always unsustainable and financed thru theft(taxation) and coercive violence(state regulation). That would be the main Ancap objection to all government financed activities.

In other words, the market can do it more efficiently and thru voluntary means(i.e. without stealing from you or future generations).

Thread: South Korea and Universal Healthcare

 

[lobo.solo]

I'm not aware of any success only healthcare rationing, massive debt put of the backs of future generation(the credit card will eventually max out), and and preferential treatment for those "connected" to employs.

Look at any socialist economy that seems to be prosperous, then look at their debt. It's always unsustainable and financed thru theft(taxation) and coercive violence(state regulation). That would be the main Ancap objection to all government financed activities.

In other words, the market can do it more efficiently and thru voluntary means(i.e. without stealing from you or future generations).

Thread: South Korea and Universal Healthcare

.

 

[firecoins]

We really don't have a "free market" it assumes that customer I.e. the patient is 1. Knowledgeable, 2 paying for their own healthcare and 3 will shop around based on price.

Patient don't shop around based on price, usually have a private or government third party I.e insurance/Medicare / Medicaid paying the bill and if its life threatening, you can't shop around. Sort of eliminates a free market.

 

[futurepremed]

Agreed. And I'm a pretty conservative guy.

If you're even just a little bit conservative you should already know this, most of all:


The State Is Not Great: Legal Plunder
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TJIMqwJI2uI)

 

[pkwraith]

Anarchist Capitalist, eh? Good thing I'm a FasComT (Fascist-Communist-Theocrat).

 

[Cornu Ammonis]

Unregulated markets work well when there is perfect and equal knowledge of transactions and when there are no perverse incentives or externalities. In such cases, government involvement is unwarranted and often adds inefficiencies and rents. Fortunately, most markets, like consumer goods, resemble this simple model. Unfortunately, health care is not such a market. Finally, society has decided that it will pay a certain price to ensure access to health care for certain people. In America, the scope is smaller than in the rest of the first world, though the costs are higher.

I would invite you to examine health care and economics in general more deeply and broadly than reading from the sampling of heterodox economists you have listed, but I'm sure you won't bother. This thread has been done and redone so many times I no longer have the enthusiasm to explain the complex reality to the endless stream of idealist zealots who keep bringing this up.

 

[ComradeDoktor]

I'm not aware of any success only healthcare rationing, massive debt put of the backs of future generation(the credit card will eventually max out), and and preferential treatment for those "connected" to employs.

Look at any socialist economy that seems to be prosperous, then look at their debt. It's always unsustainable and financed thru theft(taxation) and coercive violence(state regulation). That would be the main Ancap objection to all government financed activities.

In other words, the market can do it more efficiently and thru voluntary means(i.e. without stealing from you or future generations).

Thread: South Korea and Universal Healthcare

Now look at any anarcho-capitalist country in the world... ohhh... wait a second

 

[RomanTaylor]

Healthcare is the ultimate social practice of any society.

The healthcare industry is not about social obligation, it's about profit.

If you let the industry run amok (are we forgetting the market crash following the age of deregulation!?), they will scrap all morality and drain us dry.

Deregulation only works if you trust the deregulated industry to hold the best interest of the people at heart. That is almost the direct antithesis of the American business culture. Stop being naive in thinking that profiteers are not greedy to the point of self-destruction.

 

[TipToad]

While we're at it, let's also end physician licensure, as it's also a form of government regulation, and subject the healthcare industry to real market forces.

 

[wpierce118]

Now look at any anarcho-capitalist country in the world... ohhh... wait a second

Somalia? They should be a model for those who want no government!

 

[Cornu Ammonis]

Somalia? They should be a model for those who want no government!

The evidence for the greatness of anarcho-capitalism, libertarianism, minarchism, and all the other cool "philosophies" constantly trying to crawl their way out of the gulch of teenage angst is the pedigree of all the world's greatest nations. Just think of all the countries that became rich and powerful because of their small governments, low taxes, and lack of regulation:








Yeah.

 

[wpierce118]

The evidence for the greatness of anarcho-capitalism, libertarianism, minarchism, and all the other cool "philosophies" constantly trying to crawl their way out of the gulch of teenage angst is the pedigree of all the world's greatest nations. Just think of all the countries that became rich and powerful because of their small governments, low taxes, and lack of regulation:








Yeah.

Fun fact: In the years when the United States was the most powerful, prosperous, and the economy grew the fastest (the few decades after WWII) the highest tax bracket was 90%.

 

[freshbagels]

Thanks for the response. Hopefully, when you get the the time, you'll check out the sources. All the common objections have been answered a million times over by some of the most influential economists and political thinkers like Friedrich Hayek, Murry Rothbard, Ludwig von Mises etc...

These ideals aren't new, they've be around since the birth of the Classical Liberalism in the 1600s.


common readings 1

common readings 2

common reading 3

You might not want to cite Rothbard in support of your 'anarcho-capitalist' leanings...

Do you have any original positions that aren't just pulled directly from reddit?

 

[Cornu Ammonis]

Fun fact: In the years when the United States was the most powerful, prosperous, and the economy grew the fastest (the few decades after WWII) the highest tax bracket was 90%.

While this is true, it's not really due to the tax distribution. It had a lot more to do with banking regulations (and self-regulatory behavior, which is entirely missing today), unionization, and an incredible prior and ongoing investment in education and infrastructure. Unfortunately, the government has ground down relative spending in our discretionary budget and entitlements have grown out of proportion. Most of our growth and revenue problems would be solved by addressing these issues.

While I would agree that taxes could be slightly more progressive and much more efficient, it should be by eliminating some deductions and social benefits for the rich, making the capital gains tax progressive, and ending the payroll tax. Welfare, too, would be better off as a negative income tax, as per the earned income tax credit.

Military spending, too, is a canard; it is actually relatively smaller as a percentage of GDP than it was at its height during the Korean war, and the economy was really at its healthiest during the 1950s. While we all wish it were not so, it is the unfortunate truth that without the disproportionately powerful military of the United States the world would be destabilized by regional powers and hopeful world powers like China. I would prefer that power be in our sometimes bloody hands than in the hands of the unabashedly heartless and evil.

 

[NickNaylor]

Dude the United Kingdom system has been in place for a long time. Sure there has been some financial stress lately but that is because of the global economy situation. I agree we have an epidemic of chronic diseases that are super expensive, but that is the reason preventive medicine and coverage to everyone could help with the our # in comparison to other countries.

The NHS reported "overspending" (a lovely term) problems even in 2006 - the height of the economic boom.

Also, I'm not sure why providing excellent preventative care and providing insurance coverage for all people is exclusive to single payer systems.

(sent from my phone)

 

[Cornu Ammonis]

The NHS reported "overspending" (a lovely term) problems even in 2006 - the height of the economic boom.

Also, I'm not sure why providing excellent preventative care and providing insurance coverage for all people is exclusive to single payer systems.

(sent from my phone)

It's not, nor is there only one kind of single-payer system. I prefer single-payer because I think it is the cheapest way to do this, or it at least has the potential to be the cheapest. It is also the most democratic way I know.

 

[NickNaylor]

It's not, nor is there only one kind of single-payer system. I prefer single-payer because I think it is the cheapest way to do this, or it at least has the potential to be the cheapest. It is also the most democratic way I know.

How exactly is it democratic? That's a pretty silly assertion unless there's some perspective I'm not aware of.

I will agree with you that it has the potential to be the cheapest. That attribute is generally derived from the ability of the government to unilaterally determine the prices of everything (one of the great advantages of being the only one with the money). Prescriptions eating up too much of the budget? Just pay less for them, and all those affected figure out a way to deal with it. Using the authority of the majority to dictate how the resources of a minority are used is democratic in the strict sense of the word, but I'm not sure that's the kind of democracy our government was intended to support.

Unfortunately that is one of the things we give up in the US (at least for now). I'm not sure that not giving the government the power to organize a healthcare system is all that terrible of a thing when perfectly feasible private options exist, though.

(sent from my phone)

 

[annonymous819]

Oh look, another martyr come to die in the pre med forum...

 

[DHURT]

I would also love to get some feedback from physicians on the cost of government regulation to their practice.

I would also like to hear more on this. So, are you in favor of the balanced choice model OP??

 

[487806]

OP, you're a failing troll.

 

[PKAguy2202]

Dude the United Kingdom system has been in place for a long time. Sure there has been some financial stress lately but that is because of the global economy situation. I agree we have an epidemic of chronic diseases that are super expensive, but that is the reason preventive medicine and coverage to everyone could help with the our # in comparison to other countries.

Some financial stress...violent riots in the streets, verge of bankruptcy along with the rest of Europe. All I am saying is I do not see countries with mainly capitalistic programs verging on bankruptcy, it is mainly the countries with huge socialistic programs that are in trouble.

 

[Renaissance Man]

While we're at it, let's also end physician licensure, as it's also a form of government regulation, and subject the healthcare industry to real market forces.

+1

I stayed at a Holiday Inn and tricked my neighbors into giving me their house for my healthcare "services." Idiots didn't see the free market coming.

 

[Cornu Ammonis]

Some financial stress...violent riots in the streets, verge of bankruptcy along with the rest of Europe. All I am saying is I do not see countries with mainly capitalistic programs verging on bankruptcy, it is mainly the countries with huge socialistic programs that are in trouble.

Which countries have "mainly capitalistic programs?" Also, how does a country go bankrupt? Do you understand how governments fund their debt and what high public debt actually means? Do you know when and why each country's debt has grown as a percent of GDP? How do you account for Scandinavian countries that have enormous public sector spending but are also very rich and very stable?

 

[Cornu Ammonis]

How exactly is it democratic? That's a pretty silly assertion unless there's some perspective I'm not aware of.

I will agree with you that it has the potential to be the cheapest. That attribute is generally derived from the ability of the government to unilaterally determine the prices of everything (one of the great advantages of being the only one with the money). Prescriptions eating up too much of the budget? Just pay less for them, and all those affected figure out a way to deal with it. Using the authority of the majority to dictate how the resources of a minority are used is democratic in the strict sense of the word, but I'm not sure that's the kind of democracy our government was intended to support.

Unfortunately that is one of the things we give up in the US (at least for now). I'm not sure that not giving the government the power to organize a healthcare system is all that terrible of a thing when perfectly feasible private options exist, though.

(sent from my phone)

Your point is well taken. I would argue that if we choose to pay less to doctors and biomedical researchers to cut costs then the moral culpability is ours. As it stands, the decision is not up to the consumer but to the owners and managers of healthcare capital, and there is only one direction in which they wish to move the pay of their employees. In most markets this is perfectly healthy, but in health care it is toxic, and a lot of savings can be obtained simply by removing capital owners from the equation.

 

[askamsky51]

"For profit" any model is a terrible idea when it comes to providing adequate medical service for an entire population. This requires at least some regulation.

this libertarian ideology that the market will regulate itself is pretty ignorant, tbh. Wealth disparity will become rampant. Human nature dictates an extension of survival instincts (ie hoarding to survive) and in monetary terms is coined greed.

When your motives are profit driven, the masses can never win. It's just human nature.

This ideology banks on the thought that people wont vote with their dollar for the company that doesn't fulfill their needs. Except this thought is an over-simplification. What stops a corporate interest from grouping together with another and price-negotiating. It happened in the 1970's in the soy industry.

I'm not for socialism, nor am I for our current system. Though we have socialized medicine within the United States, and it works amazing. It's called the military. If we allocated a quarter of the GDP spent on weaponry into putting back into the healthcare system for our entire population I am sure we would be leaps and bounds ahead of where we are. If we added a non-profit system on top of that (read: non-profit =/= government run) I am confident we would be on the road to success.

I perfect solution? Probably not. Though market-run anything is just stupid.


...I've had a few beers, so I'm confident I haven't properly represented all my thoughts.

 

[calvnandhobbs68]

You might not want to cite Rothbard in support of your 'anarcho-capitalist' leanings...

Do you have any original positions that aren't just pulled directly from reddit?

I go to reddit for all my reference needs.

 

[askamsky51]

Pretty lengthy first troll post there bud. You will be successful in inflaming the community though. For some reason people never get sick of these threads.

We just have nothing better to do. There are no more status updates for the day, but still can't withstand checking SDN.

 

[futurepremed]

On the flip side, is it fair to deny coverage to people who cannot support themselves (children, the elderly, etc)?

Calling something "fair" is highly subjective. From an AnCap perspective it's not "fair" to steal from people thru taxation and inflation(FED money printing,QE 1,2, 3 etc...) and force debt onto future generations(borrowing money that future generations have to pay back).

Keep in mind that the government only gives lip service to helping the poor. But have you ever looked at where the money actually goes? To inflationary wars, crooked pocket-stuffing politicians, their connected corporate pals etc.... "Public" money is never accountable because it's garnered at the barrel of a gun(taxation).
__________________________________________________
Most of the "welfare" money spent by government bureaucrats never makes it to recipients.

Mother Jones Report 2012: How Much Do We Spend on the Nonworking Poor?

Forbes Article: Dramatic Increase in Poverty Rate: One Small Step for Obama, One Giant Step for the So-Called War on Poverty

More Sources on Government Welfare

Video: Stefan on Government Lip Service to the Poor

Private charity and mutual-aide societies are better and more efficient than a state welfare system.

Family and friends are the first line of support. Charity would be better at judging who needs help because they don't run on arbitrary rules like government welfare. They can discriminate at the individual level. That makes private charity more efficient and less likely to be abused. Charity is not treated as a shortcut to an easy life, and since it is voluntary, recipients of charity aren't viewed as parasites to begin with.


The market is better because it's accountable in all these activities. You voluntarily choice what organizations you want to support and you have variety of choice thru competition.
__________________________________________________

Leaders and authority in a free society:

Thread: Humans want leaders. Anarcho-Capitalism is incompatible!


**Response by Rob777:

I've always believed that to be one of the weakest arguments against anarcho-capitalism. It's not that there will not be leaders, there will not be a rigidly centralized authority. Leaders will emerge naturally in institutions that provide value/utility in society. The difference between the two lies in the nature of their skills and abilities: the stateless leaders emerge from mastering the skills and abilities in their field as well as understanding the necessary administrative wisdom; the political leaders emerge from their skill in manipulating a largely static system to their favor and becoming popular. I think it is more "against human nature" to have this type of rigid authority, and I believe history can provide an appropriate track record.

 

[theWhat]

Sounds like somebody just read Atlas Shrugged.

 

[Cornu Ammonis]

"For profit" any model is a terrible idea when it comes to providing adequate medical service for an entire population. This requires at least some regulation.

this libertarian ideology that the market will regulate itself is pretty ignorant, tbh. Wealth disparity will become rampant. Human nature dictates an extension of survival instincts (ie hoarding to survive) and in monetary terms is coined greed.

When your motives are profit driven, the masses can never win. It's just human nature.

This ideology banks on the thought that people wont vote with their dollar for the company that doesn't fulfill their needs. Except this thought is an over-simplification. What stops a corporate interest from grouping together with another and price-negotiating. It happened in the 1970's in the soy industry.

I'm not for socialism, nor am I for our current system. Though we have socialized medicine within the United States, and it works amazing. It's called the military. If we allocated a quarter of the GDP spent on weaponry into putting back into the healthcare system for our entire population I am sure we would be leaps and bounds ahead of where we are. If we added a non-profit system on top of that (read: non-profit =/= government run) I am confident we would be on the road to success.

I perfect solution? Probably not. Though market-run anything is just stupid.


...I've had a few beers, so I'm sure I haven't properly represented all my thoughts.

Even with antitrust laws the market is distorted. Why? Because demand arises outside the realm of volition and understanding. People don't want treatment, they need it, and they are incapable of understanding their options without either a beneficent or profiteering middleman to provide the care in good faith, and in the latter case this middleman is likely to be captured by the industry.

Now, you could say that we have no right to health care because the treatment is invented and administered by other people. If you agree that we have no claim whatsoever, then you also admit that it is perfectly fine to let people die of treatable illnesses. If you think a civil society ought not leave its citizens in the gutter, then you have to figure out how to pay the providers.

 

[lobo.solo]

The NHS reported "overspending" (a lovely term) problems even in 2006 - the height of the economic boom.

Also, I'm not sure why providing excellent preventative care and providing insurance coverage for all people is exclusive to single payer systems.

(sent from my phone)

"For profit" any model is a terrible idea when it comes to providing adequate medical service for an entire population. This requires at least some regulation.

this libertarian ideology that the market will regulate itself is pretty ignorant, tbh. Wealth disparity will become rampant. Human nature dictates an extension of survival instincts (ie hoarding to survive) and in monetary terms is coined greed.

When your motives are profit driven, the masses can never win. It's just human nature.

This ideology banks on the thought that people wont vote with their dollar for the company that doesn't fulfill their needs. Except this thought is an over-simplification. What stops a corporate interest from grouping together with another and price-negotiating. It happened in the 1970's in the soy industry.

I'm not for socialism, nor am I for our current system. Though we have socialized medicine within the United States, and it works amazing. It's called the military. If we allocated a quarter of the GDP spent on weaponry into putting back into the healthcare system for our entire population I am sure we would be leaps and bounds ahead of where we are. If we added a non-profit system on top of that (read: non-profit =/= government run) I am confident we would be on the road to success.

I perfect solution? Probably not. Though market-run anything is just stupid.


...I've had a few beers, so I'm sure I haven't properly represented all my thoughts.

Some financial stress...violent riots in the streets, verge of bankruptcy along with the rest of Europe. All I am saying is I do not see countries with mainly capitalistic programs verging on bankruptcy, it is mainly the countries with huge socialistic programs that are in trouble.

Gentlemen, look at the following link http://www.businessinsider.com/best-healthcare-systems-in-the-world-2012-6?op=1

If you look through at all the health care systems around the world that beat the U.S in terms of how less they spend in health care and how much better they do, the commonality among many of them is that there is some sort of government involvement in regulating the health care services provided in their countries. Most of those would be considered a version of socialized medicine by many on here and of course by the mainstream media; however they're are doing a great job. The purpose of their system is not to profit out pain and disease, but is to assure that there is high quality services provided through their citizens, which is reflected in their life expectancy, child mortality, etc.

@ Nick, certainly it is not exclusive of a single payer, but it is common in a regulated health care system, where profit isn't the end goal.

@ PKAguy2202, throwing all those countries under the same category is misleading, although I know what you mean. Like I said, the global economy situation has put some financial stress on "health care systems" all over the world.

 

[theWhat]

Calling something "fair" is highly subjective. From an AnCap perspective it's not "fair" to steal from people thru taxation and inflation(FED money printing,QE 1,2, 3 etc...) and force debt onto future generations(borrowing money that future generations have to pay back).

Keep in mind that the government only gives lip service to helping the poor. But have you ever looked at where the money actually goes? To inflationary wars, crooked pocket-stuffing politicians, their connected corporate pals etc.... "Public" money is never accountable because it's garnered at the barrel of a gun(taxation).

__________________________________________________
It's not theft when you are agreeing to be a member of this society. The internet, the roads you drive on, the electricity, your education are all products of the government and regulation. As far as corruption amongst the ranks that's another story. Personally I'd like to see comprehensive campaign finance reform. But to throw away the gov't altogether will never happen, so it's best to move on to more reasonable approaches.

 

[calvnandhobbs68]

In case you haven't figured it out yet, random dudes on some subreddit is not a "source".

 

[lobo.solo]

In case you haven't figured it out yet, random dudes on some subreddit is not a "source".

thank you!

 

[Cornu Ammonis]

Calling something "fair" is highly subjective. From an AnCap perspective it's not "fair" to steal from people thru taxation and inflation(FED money printing,QE 1,2, 3 etc...) and force debt onto future generations(borrowing money that future generations have to pay back).

Keep in mind that the government only gives lip service to helping the poor. But have you ever looked at where the money actually goes? To inflationary wars, crooked pocket-stuffing politicians, their connected corporate pals etc.... "Public" money is never accountable because it's garnered at the barrel of a gun(taxation).
__________________________________________________
It's not theft when you are agreeing to be a member of this society. The internet, the roads you drive on, the electricity, your education are all products of the government and regulation. As far as corruption amongst the ranks that's another story. Personally I'd like to see comprehensive campaign finance reform. But to throw away the gov't altogether will never happen, so it's best to move on to more reasonable approaches.

You don't understand, man; when a dollar passes from your hand to your government through taxes it is wrong and evil and you have no control over it. You can't choose your political representatives in a republic, but you CAN choose to not buy exploding cars and tainted food in the glorious anarchist utopia. If your entire family dies from a Bhopal-style industrial action, then by the grace of the almighty Dollar you will win your day in court. Except judges are just as arbitrary and less knowledgeable than regulating bureaucrats, so maybe we shouldn't have them, either. Your dollars can fight in a free and equal cage match and whichever party's dollars are more righteous will win. Read Rousseau, man!