The Libertarian Atheist

jayh said:

keddaw said:
…You could opt out of that scheme if you so wished, either having private insurance or taking a chance. Your choice. This scheme would be relatively expensive, but the premium would be fixed so if you got a raise at work you would not pay more.

---

Actually all the existing proposals are specifically restricting people FROM opting out. They are counting on the the cash flow from heatlhy people who don't use the system much to cover part of the red ink. If people opted out, and got low cost insurance that reflected their health status (or got low cost insurance because of high deductables) the house of cards collapses.

Indeed. Which is why I, as a part-time economist, was proposing my own scheme which is in no way related to what the corporate politicians would ever (be allowed to) vote for.

Insurance makes a profit. It has to, otherwise you sack the acturies. A health scheme that covered most emergencies and simple, regular health issues for all citizens would be relatively cheap and there are very good arguments that funding this from the rich/high earners/high spenders would actually benefit them in terms of decreased crime rates.

OT:
Similarly, a very good argument could be put forward for an optional public education system funded by business as it is business that benefits most from an educated workforce. All children would have to be educated to a minimum standard, but parents would have the option of home school or private school. This would protect children against parents that were not interested in their well being or those who wished to indoctrinate them blindly.
/OT

Post edited 11:40 pm – February 21, 2010 by keddaw

The government, even a libertarian government, would still rake in a lot of tax from regulation, inspection, courts etc. so there is no real reason why they couldn't charge a little more and fund a really basic health system.

Basic has to be the key point here. We can't go on spending 20% of GDP on healthcare, at least not via the government (what individuals choose to spend their money on is their business.) We have to have some cutoff point, I don't want ANYONE dying in my country for want of a $100 treatment, but if it costs $400,000 then that's too bad, you should have had adequate insurance. There is a point in between these two values where it gets murky, but that's a decision/discussion for another day.

A government as small as is pragmatically possible is my aim. I can't go along with the pure libertarians, the socialist libertarians (especially) or the anarchist libertarians. We need a functioning government, but one that we can remove in an instant should they overstep the mark.

Not strictly healthcare, but I think that governments should remember that they govern us with our consent, for our benefit. Supposedly.