Public Health

Why the Health Insurance Mandate Is Immoral and Unnecessary

If the medical-insurance market would indeed fail without a mandate, it's only because of other mandates the government has already imposed.

|

The Obama administration argued to the U.S. Supreme Court this week that people must be compelled to buy medical insurance (designed by the government) or the national medical-insurance market will fail. Thus, Obamacare advocates say, the insurance mandate is consistent with the powers delegated under the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution.

The argument, however, contains a fatal flaw. If the medical-insurance market would indeed fail without a mandate, it's only because of other mandates the government has already imposed. Thus the government has created the rationale for an extension of its own power.

The administration foresees two problems in the absence of the mandate. First, uninsured people will avoid routine and preventive medical care and go to hospital emergency rooms when they can't delay care any longer, raising costs to others. Second, some people will apply for insurance only after they are seriously ill. As a result, the insurance market will be dominated by sick people, making it unviable.

Both problems are government creations: emergency rooms by law must treat everyone regardless of ability to pay, and new laws are increasingly restricting insurance companies' right to refuse to cover "preexisting conditions" or to charge already sick people more.

Thus it is the regulatory regime that makes the insurance market fragile.

Furthermore, the emergency-room issue is overstated. As Shikha Dalmia points out, such care is a bare 3 percent of total medical spending, less than the retail sector's loss from shoplifting. But even ignoring that point, a free and prosperous society would have charity hospitals and practitioners eager and able to help the relative few who could not afford care. A must-serve mandate is unjustified and unnecessary.

The principal issue is insurance regulation. Imagine if you could purchase home insurance—and demand payment—after your house burned down, or if you could buy an auto policy—and collect—after an accident. Such "coverage" after the fact would not be true insurance, which is a hedge against uncertainty. Under those rules, insurers would exit the market for more profitable activities.

Medical insurance is no different. For the industry to be viable, companies have to collect premiums while people are healthy in order to have the money to pay out when they get sick.

Doesn't that prove the mandate is needed? No. In a free society, people would have natural incentives to buy insurance when they are healthy. Government destroys those incentives. How so?

Young, healthy people of course will always be tempted to put off buying medical insurance. But this temptation would be reduced if we abolished all the government rules and privileges that make medical care—and hence insurance—artificially expensive. In myriad ways, government raises the cost of medicine: restrictive licensing, anti-competitive state insurance cartels, benefit mandates, and much more. All such interventions price people out of the medical market by making products and services more costly than they would be in a free and competitive marketplace.

Government also raises prices to the uninsured by maintaining policies that insulate people with insurance from the true costs of their decisions. The income tax, which doesn't count non-cash compensation as income, makes otherwise uneconomical "insurance" attractive, while creating an illusion of free or nearly free services. (The quotation marks are to indicate that insurance which covers volitional activities, such as the use of contraception, physical exams, and other preventive services, is not truly insurance.) When explicit prices are artificially lowered under an insurance illusion, people are less cost-conscious and thus consume more services than they would have.

Much medical care is elective and nonessential, but under our government-shaped system, rather than asking, "Do I need it and how much?" people ask, "Does my insurance cover it?" This raises real costs for all, but it especially raises prices to people who have no insurance or who would buy it in the individual market, discouraging them from doing so. As a result, fewer young and healthy people pay premiums, weakening the insurance industry.

This is purely a government-created problem.

Government mandates are backed by aggressive force, which is immoral. The end does not justify the means. And if we want a thriving medical insurance market, we need only free it from restrictions and, most importantly, privilege. Freedom and competition really work.

Sheldon Richman is senior fellow at The Future of Freedom Foundation in Fairfax, Va., where this article originally appeared. He is the author of Tethered Citizens: Time to Repeal the Welfare State, and editor of The Freeman magazine. Visit his blog Free Association at www.sheldonrichman.com. Send him email.

NEXT: Forget Pepsi Clear: How 'Bout a Refreshing Pepsi FETUS?

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. But, but, but it’s just not fair that people should have to pay for goods and services from the medical profession!

    It’s just not fair!

    Make someone else pay it!

    The moral thing to do is to force others to pay!

    And why not? There are plenty of rich people who aren’t paying their fair share. We know they aren’t paying their fair share by virtue of the fact that they are rich.

    Tax ’em!

    I want my free shit!

    1. ? Pollution is universal.
      ? Birth defects are universal.
      ? Asthma is universal.

      Why shouldn’t caring for the victims harmed by capitalism be universal?

      Oh, right, capitalists avoid personal responsibility for the death and suffering they cause, which is exactly why they form corporations.

      KOCH KILLS

      1. “? Asthma is universal.”

        Go wheeze elsewhere.

        1. …eschew PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY.

          The Link Between Air Pollution and Asthma
          http://www.everydayhealth.com/asthma/…..sthma.aspx

          1. Thinks the farmers gave her asthma.

            1. This is where [MARY]+[STACK] would insert [sexist] language about POLITICAL OFFICER SEVO. …and cats…HERC……POLITICAL OFFIZER KATZ….Cats…always about cats….and KOCHS and how [MARY]+[STACK] never gets nearly enough KOCH….unhinged her it has.

              1. So… EVERYONE has asthma?

                1. Thinks so.

                  1. I’m intellectually bankrupt.

                    I’m obsessed with women I hate.

                    1. Thinks everyone is obsessed with her.

                    2. “Genocide would be kinder…” -Jason Godesky

                    3. That false quote puts the FIB in Fibertard.

                    4. The collapse will be natural selection in its most amoral, merciless form. We cannot ? must not ? take away any individual’s choice. That choice is the last sacred thing we have left. We cannot choose death for them through violence…

                      ~Jason Godesky
                      Thesis #28: Humanity will almost certainly survive.
                      http://theanarchistlibrary.org…..html#toc53

                    5. It would make you more regular, and less of a tight-ass.

                    6. …I could eat coal and shit diamonds.

      2. Thinks the police gave her asthma.

          1. Likes to hide behind her couch and pretend she is someone else.

        1. I’m intellectually bankrupt.

          I’m obsessed with women I hate.

          1. Thinks everyone hates her.

      3. Wait, what? Every baby is born with a defect and every person has asthma? Why didn’t someone tell me I have asthma, I could be getting some free steroids.

        1. Yeah, with universal health care, everybody gets an open heart surgery too, dimwit.

          BBC News Pollution linked to birth defects
          http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/1731902.stm

          BBC NEWS birth defects ‘up sharply’
          http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7863290.stm

          Keep denying reality; all Fundamentalists have to to maintain their fantasy.

          1. Thinks she has a birth defect. The Cherokees who live in her attic told her so.

            1. I’m intellectually bankrupt.

              I’m obsessed with women I hate.

              1. Often repeats herself for hours. No one knows why.

                1. Dude, copy & paste is waay easier than thinking.

          2. The BBC News pollutes?

          3. “Genocide would be kinder…” Jason Godesky

            1. That false quote puts the FIB in Fibertard.

              1. Quote comes from “5 common objections to primitivism, and why they are wrong”, which cracker chief posted himself in another thread.

                Quote goes as follows: “….some kind of massive die-off is inevitable. It might be through genocide, but since primitvists are a fringe of a fringe (and will always be so) it’s unlikely to come from us. There are many other parties with a much greater interest in genocide for its own sake, who are far closer to power than we will ever be. Ultimately, genocide might be the kindest method, just as it is kind to deliver a coup de grace to a dying animal.”

                Anybody who uses “genocide” and “kindness” in the same sentence is intellectually and morally bankrupt. Deal with it.

                1. The collapse will be natural selection in its most amoral, merciless form. We cannot ? must not ? take away any individual’s choice. That choice is the last sacred thing we have left. We cannot choose death for them through violence…

                  ~Jason Godesky
                  Thesis #28: Humanity will almost certainly survive.
                  http://theanarchistlibrary.org…..html#toc53

                  1. I fail to see the point. He still thinks genocide would be the kindest way to get the great primitivist utopia. That doesn’t mean he thinks it’s the most realistic.

                    1. And, as an additional thought, Godesky’s comparison to humankind as a “dying animal” is pretty revealing of his misanthropy to me.

                    2. Your Fundamentalist denial that humans are animals is pretty revealing of your scientific illiteracy to me.

                    3. Oh yes, biologically we are animals, this is quite true. So what? Does that mean, then, that human beings, (white people in particular, were I to guess from your constant rhetoric), are no more fit to be slaughtered like said animals? That was the implication in the quote, after all.

                    4. Especially when you haven’t made any.

                    5. I’m not. I’m just waiting for you to refute that Godesky thinks that man would be better off after a period of mass genocide.

                    6. I’m waiting for you to quote him correctly, Fibertard. You can’t even get the string of words correct in your selective snippet.

                      For anybody interested in what Godesky really says, look under Objection 5. Primitivists are genocidal maniacs whose planned “utopia” requires them to orchestrate the mass murder of 99% of the human population!

                      5 Common Objections to Primitivism, and Why They’re Wrong
                      http://theanarchistlibrary.org……html#toc5

                    7. ?

                    8. I did quote him correctly. I used the very source you cited. Look it up, it’s in there. Still waiting.

                    9. you quote incorrectly, and continue to lie about it

                    10. It is undeniably true that the world’s population cannot be sustained without modern civilization. Of course, it is abundantly clear that modern civilization is not sustainable, either. Given those two facts, then some kind of massive die-off is inevitable. It might be through genocide, but since primitvists are a fringe of a fringe (and will always be so) it’s unlikely to come from us. There are many other parties with a much greater interest in genocide for its own sake, who are far closer to power than we will ever be. Ultimately, genocide might be the kindest method(!!!!!!!!!), just as it is kind to deliver a coup de grace to a dying animal. The alternative is to waste away by hunger or disease. But ultimately, genocide on such a scale would be nigh impossible, and though die-off is guaranteed, it is almost as guaranteed not to come by way of genocide.

                    11. Who’s the liar now? It’s right there when you click the link.

                    12. And anybody can clearly see that Godesky is NOT advocating genocide, as you are falsely purporting.

                    13. He’s not, strictly speaking, no, but he is saying that if it were practical, it would be a kindness. That alone reveals the moral bankruptcy of anarcho-primitivists of any stripe lecturing anyone about the evils of genocide.

                    14. “The Oklahoma bombers had the right idea. The pity was that they did not blast any more government offices. Even so, they did all they could and now there are at least 200 government automatons that are no longer capable of oppression. The Tokyo sarin cult had the right idea. The pity was that in testing the gas a year prior to the attack, they gave themselves away. They were not secretive enough. They had the technology to produce the gas but the method of delivery was ineffective. One day the groups will be totally secretive and their methods of fumigation will be completely effective.” -Green anarchist magazine, 1997

                    15. So, anarcho-primitivism…..new “flat earth” society?

                    16. It cannot be denied that Fascism and similar movements aimed at the establishment of dictatorships are full of the best intentions and that their intervention has for the moment saved European civilization. The merit that Fascism has thereby won for itself will live on eternally in history.

                      ~Ludwig von Mises, Liberalism (1927)

                      Ah, “libertarian” meritocracy at its finest!

                      Anyway, want to trade quotes for a while, since you fucking LOST on your libel regarding Godesky?

      4. “Why shouldn’t caring for the victims harmed by capitalism be universal?”

        Because it would be hard to do anything univeresal with all of those people out gamboling about the plains and forrests.

      5. Corps(and I am no huge fan of large multi-national corps)do things for logical reasons, reasons which can be predicted easily; from lobbying to political contributions. And some things corps do are detrimental to society, like your examples. What I don’t understand is why you just berate corps when the federal government is the real problem. Corporations are just a capital construct, but government is supposed to be beholden to us and serve us. They don’t do a very good job because they are too busy servicing(any way you want to take that)big business.

        Here is a question I like to ask any lefty I can. Why is the left so against federalism when 50 power bases would be so much harder for big business to satisfy than one government behemoth, namely Washington D.C.? I rarely get a good answer to that one.

        1. White Indian is neither left nor right. White Indian is pissed that we aren’t all as hardcore anarchist as it is.

          1. DesigNate is neither left nor right. DesigNate is pissed that we aren’t all as hardcore city-Statist as it is.

        2. I’m merely pointing out the abject hypocrisy of the libertarians. If the left see the same hypocrisy and point it out, so be it.

          On federalism: smaller sociopolitical groupings are better, but you’re not thinking small enough.

          The social problems caused by the mass society of agricultural city-Statism (civilization) stem from ignorance of human neurological limitations, i.e., Neocortex size as a constraint on group size in primates, known as Dunbar’s Number.

          A man’s got to know his limitations. ~Dirty Harry

          1. Check out the BIG+BRAIN ON mary stack! Mighty neo cortex she has! Tricky she is….careful I must be!

              1. Little Debbie, no woman in the world compares to you.

          2. Anyone who uses “genocide” and “kindness” in the same sentence is intellectually bankrupt. Go back to your hateful white existence, white devil.

            1. Maybe Pol Pot read Ayn Rand? She had the same murderous fantasy: blow the whole thing up and start over.

              Pol Pot wanted to:?

              (a) “restart civilization”? of the Khmer empire
              (b) by emptying and cleansing Phnom Penh of liberal influences?
              (c)and punishing and starving out philosophically undesirable people he regarded as subhumans?
              (d) at Year Zero.

              Ayn Rand wanted also to:?

              (a) restart Western civilization
              ?(b) by emptying and cleansing New York of liberal influences?
              (c)and punishing and starving out philosophically undesirable people she regarded as subhumans
              (d) with a wave of the dollar brand cigarette.

              Not much difference. But what else would you expect from a market fundamentalist philosophical movement inspired by a serial child killer?

              1. And all this changes Godesky’s attitude toward genocide…..how?

                1. The collapse will be natural selection in its most amoral, merciless form. We cannot ? must not ? take away any individual’s choice. That choice is the last sacred thing we have left. We cannot choose death for them through violence…

                  ~Jason Godesky
                  Thesis #28: Humanity will almost certainly survive.
                  http://theanarchistlibrary.org…..html#toc53

                  1. I think we need two comment sections: a WI Mary-Stack Tony section, and an everyone else section.

                    Please don’t stick me in the first one. 🙂

        3. @ Quin:

          There are a lot of issues that can’t be decided on a piecemeal, state by state basis. We abandoned the Articles of Confederation in favor of the Constitution for a reason. There are individual rights that we don’t let states control.

          The states individually were not equal to the challenges that faced the United States in 1787. They are not equal to the challenges we face today.

          To more directly answer your question, I think it would be much easier for large corporations to subvert politicians on a state level than it is on a national level. Despite the fact that there are fewer legislators to subvert, the exposure in Washington is much higher. I live in Illinois where we have plenty of experience with seeing how cheaply a state representative can be bought.

      6. Because capitalism is the only economic system that has ever harmed people. Got it.

        1. All political variations of agricultural city-STATISM (civilization) harms and enslaves mother earth’s animals, especially humans.

          1. Don’t blame cracker chief, he just hates that he was born white.

      7. is caused by exposure to lots of cockroach shit. Clean up your roach infested pig stys, you slobs – then maybe your little bastards won’t develop asthma so “universally.”

        1. Air pollution as an underappreciated CAUSE of asthma symptoms

          by George D. Thurston, ScD; David V. Bates, MD
          Journal of the American Medical Association
          http://jama.ama-assn.org/content/290/14/1915.short

      8. “Why shouldn’t caring for the victims harmed by capitalism be universal?”

        These aren’t “victims of capitalism”, they are victims of externalities. Many externalities can be handled by the courts, which are much better equipped to determine responsibility than Congress. In some common cases (e.g., pollution), Congress can (and does) regulate it. Accounting for externalities is not in contradiction to free markets or capitalism.

        None of that has anything to do with healthcare. Your need for a heart transplant isn’t due to someone else’s externality, it’s either your bad luck or your unhealthy lifestyle. People might still decide to pay for it out of compassion, but a priori, it’s nobody’s responsiblity.

  2. so sheldon prefers the hospital ER’s hide unreimbursed costs by upcharging all services thus increasing his premiums?

    1. Costs are costs. You are just arguing about who pays. The only way to lower costs, is to well lower costs. Changing who pays for the cost doesn’t lower the cost in the ultimate sense.

      Paul meet Peter. Now rob him.

      1. the individual mandate promoted personal financial responsibility per heritage & the gop cica 1993 – 2008.
        >so yes, who pays is part of the discussion.

        1. So the point of Obamacare is to make sure poor people pay more of their health care costs through buying insurance. Got it.

          1. (sigh)
            the individual mandate was the gop answer to hillarycare’s single payer.
            jeesch, history & not knowing it.

            1. The mandate was a part of Obamacare. That they stole it from Republicans is not relevant to the question of if it is Constitutional or a good idea.

              And the bottom line still remains, the mandate is nothing but a way to force the young and the healthy, who normally forgo insurance, to pay more.

              1. and yet the young n healthy who have employeer coverage pay now…or should they not as well?

            2. Yes, but we already know that republicans hate poor people. I am shocked, SHOCKED I say, that the democrats hate poor people too.

            3. the individual mandate was the gop answer

              So?
              Oh, I get it!
              You’re trying to imply that libertarians are really Republicans!
              Clever!
              I’ve never ever seen that done before!
              You’re so original!
              Amazing!
              Where did you come up with that?
              Wow!
              I’m in awe!

              1. Since the Republicans came up with the idea, the Democrats are excused from responsibility for passing it without a single Republican vote.

            4. the individual mandate was the gop answer to hillarycare’s single payer.

              Yup, and their plan sucks. Goddamn GOP shills on this board like you make me sick.

              1. See what I did there?

                1. Until it becomes inconvenient.

                  Then they deny it as fast as Peter denied Christ.

                  1. Why do you all deny me?

                  2. “Genocide would be kinder…” Jason Godesky

                    1. The collapse will be natural selection in its most amoral, merciless form. We cannot ? must not ? take away any individual’s choice. That choice is the last sacred thing we have left. We cannot choose death for them through violence…

                      ~Jason Godesky
                      Thesis #28: Humanity will almost certainly survive.
                      http://theanarchistlibrary.org…..html#toc53

        2. per heritage & the gop
          Conservatives are statists? Who knew???

          1. apparently not charlotte & the rest of the radio entertainment crowd

            1. So understanding economics and second order effects comes from radio entertainment? Who knew.

            2. apparently not charlotte
              I’m going to guess she already knew that.

              1. what? that the gop are statists per mgd?

      2. One good way to reduce costs is to reduce overhead. The government is notorious for high overheads; those it runs itself and those it imposes on others via regulation.

        1. Spend a million to save a thousand.

        2. Hey, we are that overhead, and we resent your remarks.

      3. What real competition doesn’t lower the cost of anything? You want examples?

    2. Free shit! Free shit! Free shit! Free shit! Free shit! Free shit! Free shit! Free shit! Free shit! Free shit! Free shit! Free shit! Free shit! Free shit! Free shit! Free shit! Free shit! Free shit! Free shit! Free shit! Free shit! Free shit! Free shit! Free shit! Free shit! Free shit! Free shit! Free shit! Free shit! Free shit! Free shit! Free shit! Free shit! Free shit! Free shit! Free shit! Free shit! Free shit! Free shit! Free shit! Free shit! Free shit! Free shit! Free shit! Free shit! Free shit! Free shit! Free shit! Free shit! Free shit! Free shit! Free shit! Free shit! Free shit! Free shit! Free shit! Free shit! Free shit! Free shit! Free shit! Free shit! Free shit! Free shit! Free shit! Free shit! Free shit! Free shit! Free shit! Free shit! Free shit! Free shit! Free shit! Free shit! Free shit! Free shit!

      1. no no no
        free money trees in all ER’s!!1!11!
        and shit dont grow on trees brah

        1. and shit dont grow on trees brah

          But it certainly does in Ohio.

          1. not on the ER trees
            unhygenic
            maybe on the shawshank tree tho

      2. So you want to pollute freely, without personal responsibility for the harm, suffering, and death you may cause?

        Typical capitalist.

        1. Thinks Exon has contaminated her toilet.

          1. EXON HAS contaminated [MARY]+[STACK](s) toilet. SEnator WHITE Indian Exon…Senator J. Jonah EXON has befouled [MARY]+[STACK](s) toilet!

            1. Sometimes can’t write coherent sentences.

              1. I’m intellectually bankrupt.

                I’m obsessed with women I hate.

                1. Gets mad and hits herself in the face some days.

                  1. I’ve seen someone do this before. I couldn’t stop laughing.

    3. so sheldon prefers the hospital ER’s hide unreimbursed costs by upcharging all services thus increasing his premiums?

      Congress simply could have passed a law dictating that hospitals display all charges for services upfront. This would have been more effective than a 2,700-page bill that won’t actually reduce costs.

      Govt spending on healthcare, 1980: $55 billion

      2011: $800 billion

      That’s a 9% compounded annual rate, meaning in eight years, spending will be approximately $1.6 trillion, and $3.2 trillion in 16 years.

      Good luck reducing those costs when you force everyone to purchase health insurance.

      Math > o3

  3. There were Obamacare hearings in the Supreme Court this week?

    1. What?!?!? You’d think some news outlet would have covered that.

  4. How much money do you make as a line-stander in a good year, Orrin?

      1. Sounds about right if you count the figures after the decimal.

        1. hey that’l work for the IRS! thx

      2. o3|3.29.12 @ 10:51AM|#
        “6 figures”

        Your sorry shit is worth P for an hour show and free spaghetti.

        1. hey that’l work for the IRS! thx

  5. the national medical-insurance market will fail. Thus, Obamacare advocates say, the insurance mandate is consistent with the powers delegated under the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution.

    If only they had thought of this in time to save the buggy whip makers.

    1. If we had the same government then that we have now, you can bet that the buggy whip industry would still be alive and well.

      1. Single payer transportation. Hopefully, you can go through the five year waiting period and $500K cost to fly to Europe on the national airliner.

        1. We have single payer roads ’round these parts. And schools. You?

          1. Then why not single payer everything?

            1. OMG Charlotte!
              You don’t want the government to run all the farms and the distribution of food?
              That’s terrible!
              How can you think that way?
              I mean… not wanting people to eat?
              That’s terrible!

          2. Are they as bad where you live as they are ’round these parts?

            1. Round these parts the only road that isn’t a crumbling mass of poorly filled potholes is the toll road.

              1. So you’re from PA?

          3. How well do students from the single payer schools compete against private- and home-schoolers?

          4. HOLY SHIT!That explains why the roads are terrible pock-marked death traps (especially in the most progressive urban areas) where unionized workers take weeks to sit on their asses while the schools churn out endless seas of smug self-inflated crybabies who couldn’t locate Iran on a map as they major in Womyn’s Studies as well as illiterates who will just end up working for the TSA so they can molest your children, wife, and parents. WHAT A FUCKING PARADISE.

            1. but then they don’t have a bunch of retarded Market Fundamentalists and a Kentucky Creationist Museum

              1. State pensions, schools, healthcare, public transport, and post offices have been fully or partly privatized over the last decade, making Sweden one of the most free market orientated economies in the world, analysts say.

                “Sweden has always been on the side of the market economy. This is not socialism,” says Olle W?stberg, director of the Swedish Institute in Stockholm, and a former Consul General to New York. “In many fields, we have more private ownership compared to other European countries, and to America. About 80 percent of all new schools are privately run, as are the railroads and the subway system.”

                http://www.csmonitor.com/World…..-nightmare

                1. Here’s how you right wing nuts see things…

                  Sweden a Perfect Example of Socialism Run Amok
                  http://www.newsmax.com/HerbertLondon/…../id/362401

                  Sweden is held up as a socialist’s paradise,
                  http://www.adamsmith.org/blog/…..t-paradise

          5. Yep, and the single payer school system is working out great! Public schools spend two or three times as much per student as private schools while delivering a lower quality education. We should definitely use this as a model for our health care system.

    1. “There’s no reason to put off the campaign for a mandatory private system until we’ve worked out all the details. To keep the great American health innovation machine running, it is vital to keep medicine private and consumer-driven, and that means going on the offensive now.

      Maintaining our private medical system is vital because American health care and medical science are the most advanced and innovative in the world. If a national single-payer health care system is adopted, most medical progress will be stopped in its tracks. The proposal for mandatory health insurance offers a way to maintain our private system, expand consumer choice, lower costs, and allow medical progress to continue.”

      1. I say we regulate healthcare and health insurance the way we regulate computers. That industry seems capable of advance, and just about everyone has access to one.

        1. Lets regulate the legal field the way we regulate health care. We need single payer law. Legal representation is a constitutional right isn’t it? Lots of people go bankrupt because of legal fees don’t they?

          1. The same arguments apply, absolutely.

            There’s really no end to this if the government can enact socialized medicine. Frankly, even putting a stop here isn’t enough, as we crossed the line of limited, enumerated powers some time ago.

            1. some time ago

          2. You joke about this, but I remember reading an article a few months back (I think it was in Slate) whereby allowing the rich to purchase high-priced legal representation violated the rights of the poor. He didn’t overtly write that the entire legal industry should be nationalized, but if you read between the lines that’s where he was pointing.

            Now, while some lawyers tend to be a socialist bunch, I’m sure that 100K+ student loan balance hurts enough for even the most socialists of the socialists to oppose the idea.

            1. If we socialize healthcare, given the unique litigiousness of the U.S., I fully expect that some level of government-subsidized “insurance” for legal services for civil claims would be next.

              1. I would also expect calls for single-payer legal services altogether. Something akin to,

                “It’s not fair that OJ gets all the money to hire Johnnie Cochran and random indigent person A can’t afford him. If that person had a Cochran-type attorney he could have a better chance to be found not guilty, so unless we are fine with the rich buying themselves better rights, and maybe improper acquittals, then we should nationalize NOW!!!”

            2. You are mistaken. The loans just prove the need for the government to pay for law school. Furthermore, I have recently been told that 80% of the country’s legal needs go unmet, (no idea where the figure comes from)so if there were just proper funding, we could have 4 or 5 times as many lawyers.

            3. One reason I have against nationalized health care is the fact the doctor’s economic liberty rights are deemed less important than a patient’s supposed right to health care. None of the rights in the Bill of Rights works that way. But I doubt lawyers would succumb to the same line of thinking; they will fight tooth and nail.

          3. Loved this idea!

          4. Well there is that pesky 6th Am. right to counsel in criminal cases (does not apply to civil cases). The only positive right in the Constitution.

            1. We just need the Court to read in a penumbra of legal services in that right. After all “criminal” and “civil” share the same beginning and ending letters.

            2. What about a right to trial by jury? Is that a positive right? Somebody has to serve on that jury.

              1. Much like the right to representation, both rights are contingent on the state attempting to take punitive action against the individual; rather, they are requirements for (thus, restrictions on) that attempt, and as such can still be considered negative rights.

        2. No way!
          We need a Department of Technology, because every new design should get governmental approval before it can be manufactured!
          Think of how much better our computers would be if every bit of engineering was government approved!
          Government approved!

          1. The government is usually a decade behind on technology when it comes to regulation and on picking winners.

            1. oh, that’s regulation you love

              1. Likes to hunt and gather on her computer.

                1. I’m intellectually bankrupt.

                  I’m obsessed with women I hate.

                2. I liked the Oregon Trail game when I was a ute.

                  1. Lives the Oregon Trail. It runs through her kitchen.

                    1. NO TOILET(s)….Dr. EGON TRAIL……Spengler, Dr. EGON [SPENGLER]….twenty foot TWINKIE…BIG TWINKIE!

                      Twenty foot….that’s a big Twinkie!

                  2. You can’t be posting. You died of dysentery.

              2. Wouldn’t there have to be a Gambol Lockdown first, before we could deregulate it? In 2012 alone I’ve gambolled in SC, NJ, NY, PA, AZ, GA & NC. If I didn’t have to work or sleep, I could Gambol alldatime like twentyfo-seven. Where’s this Lockdown I keep hearing about?

            2. The government is usually a decade behind on technology

              You give them far too much credit.

              1. Did you mean…The capitalist government is usually a decade behind on technology?

                hehe

                1. How come you never call anymore?

                  [MARY][STACK]

              2. At a minimum.

                  1. but last. Who got to the moon first?

      2. Bear in mind that article was written by the same Ron Bailey who thinks we need a supra-national authority to impose and enforce carbon caps to prevent climate change. I don’t think he necessarily speaks for the entire Reason staff on this issue.

      3. Our medical system ceased being private long ago. Medicare, Medicaid, and employer-based insurance have made a mockery of private insurance, making private insurance responsible only for the profitable part of the market, while sticking the tax payer with most of the risk.

        A free market insurance system would get rid of Medicare and Medicaid and eliminate employer tax breaks. Then, it would put some simple ground rules in place so that insurers can’t screw buyers too much and help low income individuals through tax breaks and vouchers.

    2. Hahahahahahaha. That is pretty damn funny.

      (For those that don’t feel like clicking, Reason pulled a Romney on the mandate.)

      1. And that is exactly why I linked to it. I knew they were for it before they were against it.

  6. If we had the same government then that we have now, the automobile would have been banned as unsafe and a crime against nature.

    1. We had to save the street car industry.

    2. And there are plenty of people running around loose who think that would be a Good Thing.

  7. President Zero speaks:

    Those evil pig-fuckers at Exxon Mobil POCKET billions of dollars that rightfully belong to the government!

    “Profitz are baaaad, mmmkay?”

    1. We are not broke. We are just not stealing enough.

  8. Punish success!

    Reward failure!

    It’s the American Way.

    1. Ain’t Crony Capitalism grand?

      1. The capitalism you see — is what it is.

        That’s the way we judged communism’s failure.

        And that’s the way we judge capitalism’s failure.

        1. Thinks she is a judge.

          1. I’m intellectually bankrupt.

            I’m obsessed with women I hate.

            1. Still NO TOILET(s)….AMY……Spengler, judging AY [SPENGLER]….twenty foot TWINKIE…Bad TV! Series cancelled!

              I’m an excellent driver! [MARY]+[STACK] I’m an EXCELLENT DRIVER!

                1. I’m an EXCELLENT DRIVER! I’m an EXCELLENT DRIVER!I’m an EXCELLENT DRIVER!I’m an EXCELLENT DRIVER!I’m an EXCELLENT DRIVER!I’m an EXCELLENT DRIVER!I’m an EXCELLENT DRIVER!I’m an EXCELLENT DRIVER!

                  MARY stack

        2. And that failure is in the lap of government.

          1. LOL

    2. The life of an Indian is a continual holiday ~Thomas Paine

      Punishing success certainly is the American way.

      1. Thinks every Indian is a drunk.

        1. I’m intellectually bankrupt.

          I’m obsessed with women I hate.

          1. Gets really angry at the wall sometimes.

          2. NO DRINKIE POO….No TOILET(s)….Dr. Johnson manufacturs self plEASURE [SPENGLER] devices….twenty foot ….Big ENOUGH for [MARY]+[STACK]

            Twenty foot….that’s a big sex toy!

              1. Twenty foot toy…ALONE….no room…no room….I”M AN EXCELLENT DRIVER….toy alone….excellent!

  9. I say we regulate healthcare and health insurance the way we regulate computers.

    Do you kiss your precious little children with that mouth?

    1. Free market! Free market! Limited government! I’m out of order? You’re out of order!

      1. Pro Lib channels Pauly Shore. *applause*

        1. I though that was an Al Pacino reference.

            1. Al Pacino was my source and inspiration.

                1. I don’t think I’ve ever actually watched Pauly Shore in anything.

                  1. I thought it was Gerard Butler in Law Abiding Citizen.

                    I probably just think that because it was an awesome movie.

              1. THIS IS ONE FOR OUR SIDE!

  10. This could have been easily fixed by a few simple adjustments. First of all just because people can’t afford to pay is no reason to make services free. Let them pay what they can. Secondly exempt emergency rooms people and procedures from malpractice claims.That would cut the cost for those services which will make it easier for hospitals to afford them.Third is to require doctors to serve on day per month pro bono at the ER or a clinic.Just as other professionals have a requirement to keep up with continuing education credits doctors could do the same.

    1. Yes, public emergency rooms that are exempt from malpractice. You could pay more and go to one where you didn’t waive your right to sue or pay less and go to one where you did.

      But doing that would require people to understand that the perfect solution is not always possible. Good luck with that.

      1. What you want is called “free clinics”. They exist, they work, and they are a good way of providing health care. People without insurance can get cost-effective care, while those with will prefer to go to private facilities.

    2. Adjustable penalties, special exemptions, and professional requirements. It has everything a well written law needs. Excellent work.

    3. “Let them pay what they can.”

      Any bets on the number of people who “can pay” $1.50?

      1. As many we need to

        1. Higher Insurance Premiums |3.29.12 @ 11:44AM|#
          “As many can get away with it”

          FIFY, griefer.

    4. “require doctors to serve one day per month bro bono.”

      Uh, no. Involuntary servitude has no place in a free country. Saying that a professional has to keep abreast of developments in their field is one thing; codifying that others have a free claim on their labor is quite another.

      1. Nevertheless, it’s already required of attorneys.

    5. Um, we docs have to do many hours of continuing medical education every year to maintain licenses and certifications already, sir.

  11. That’s it, you monster!

    *Furiously dials Florida Child Services*

  12. Let them pay what they can.

    Are you nuts? That’s not on the HHS e-form’s fee schedule. Are you trying to throw the system into complete disarray? What next, Barter? What’s the taxable income on a pig taken in trade for obstetric services?

    1. You know what is next. Poor women trading their bodies for birth control and abortions. You people are just monsters.

      1. Dumb blond: “I’m a hooker so I can afford my birth control.”

  13. Third is to require doctors to serve on day per month pro bono at the ER or a clinic.

    Can I require you to let me sodomize you with a splintery broom handle at my discretion regardless of your wishes?

    I already perform the necessary requirements to maintain the CME’s and procedure proficiencies peculiar to my specialty and at our surgicenter, I already perform charity work with 10% of my patient base receiving greatly discounted care or care at no cost to them.

    Most importantly, there is this little thing called residency, where intern and residents are little more than slave labor nowadays with starting nurses making more per annum (nit including incentive bonuses) than said interns and residents, easily a four to five year (and sometimes longer) residency.

    1. Doctors are already used to living like slaves during their internships and residencies. What I’m suggesting–National Medical Professional Lifetime Servitude for Our Blessed American Children–is just an incremental step in the right direction. With slave doctors, every American will not only receive free and immediate healthcare, but will also have better opportunities to get preventive tips from onsite doctors.

      After we enslave doctors, we’ll enslave engineers. Then lawyers. Accountants are already enslaved.

      1. Accountants are already enslaved.

        Accountants are too devoid of consciousness and personality to be aware of their enslaved status, with the noted exception of a certain Canuckistanian accountant near and dear to The Groovy Heart.

        1. “with the noted exception of a certain Canuckistanian accountant near and dear to The Groovy Heart.”

          God, I hope this is not another H&R love story. The Sloopy/Banjos humpfest has soured me on the whole notion of online sex.

          1. God, I hope this is not another H&R love story. The Sloopy/Banjos humpfest has soured me on the whole notion of online sex.

            Don’t be a hater, bro! Don’t be hatin’, dawg. Just expressing appreciation for my accountant friend’s professional advice, no love story here. Don’t worry, you won’t develop diabeetus or anything. Though, I am qualified to to perform gastric bypass if you have a HX/H&P of diabetic risk factors.

      2. Fibertards are all for such slavery.

        1. Excellent driver driver driver driver driver driver driver driver driver driver driver driver driver driver driver driver driver driver driver driver driver driver driver driver driver driver driver driver driver driver driver driver MARY STACK driver driver driver driver driver driver driver driver driver driver driver driver driver driver driver driver……………JASON KING OF ALL HO HO(s)!

      3. I draw the line at Engineers, you monster!

        1. Don’t get your PE. Then you don’t have to worry about it.

        2. Just tell your engineer buddies not to wear the little hat and they’ll be able to hide in plain sight.

      4. As a future Architect, I am not sure if I should be relieved that you think we won’t be enslaved or hurt that you think we aren’t important enough to enslave.

    2. Thing is, you’re doing those things of your own free will.
      So it doesn’t count.
      It only counts if it is done because of an edict from the government, forcing everyone to do the same thing.

  14. “One is innocent until proven guilty”

    Really, where was OJ Simpson living six months prior to being found not guilty.

    My Lawyers friends refer to the DUI laws as the ‘DUI exception to the Constitution’.

    We already have a mess in Healthcare that we can’t get out of.

    We can’t go 100% free market and not regulate the insurance industry. The regulations came to be due to abuse.

    I say that the reason for extremely high healthcare cost is that the consumer doesn’t pay for it. Third party payers abstract the cost from the consumer. As a result, doctors/hospitals/drug companies abuse it.

    We still live in a society where we lock our doors. If the greedy little fat kids don’t want Mommy to come into the room and take away the balls, the greedy little fat kids should behave…and that’s not going to happen anytime soon.

    1. My Lawyers friends refer to the DUI laws as the ‘DUI exception to the Constitution’.

      I often wonder about this. Only in DUI cases are you basically not allowed to be tried by a jury unless someone winds up dead.

      Of course, if you pick a lawyer that’s good friends with the judge, it hardly matters anyways.

      1. Of course, if you pick a lawyer that’s good friends with the judge, it hardly matters anyways.

        A friend of mine got into a accident and blew a .15 which is Aggravated OUI round these parts.
        He found an attorney who is friends with the D.A., and for three grand got the charges dismissed.

        1. Money lubricates lots of gears when your moral system is based on “Social Justice.”

      2. In DUI cases you do not have the right to a jury trial if the maximum penalty is 6 months incarceration (according to SCOTUS) AND state law does not provide for a jury trial.

        Yes there is a DUI exception to the Constitution. There is the jury trial issue (SCOTUS has said that the “all criminal cases” re the 6th Am. right to counsel really doesnt meal all criminal cases), the DUI roadblock issue (states can detain and investigate for DUI without reasonable articulable suspicion), the presumption of guilt (if the machine says .08 or more the burden is on you to prove your innocence), etc. I could go on and on.

        Check out duiblog.com

        1. Has nobody tried a 4th amendment suit for this shit? How has it persisted?

          Oh wait, nevermind. FOR TEH CHILDRUNZ!

          1. You forget that all the Amendments have an “Except under arbitrary circumstances to be determined later, rendering this Amendment meaningless” clause.

            1. No I didn’t. FTC = instant rights nullification.

  15. You’re like a stick in the spokes of Social Justice, Groovus.

    You wrecker.

  16. The only way this argument works is if one first accepts the notion that taxation is equivalent to robbery and is therefore immoral: but once you realize that, then all possible defense of government as a legitimate social institution crumbles precisely because the distinction between government and everyone else is that government can compel you to give them money—whether in exchange for something or not being irrelevant—without any recourse. I don’t see how this argument convinces anyone except those who are already anarcho-capitalist.

    1. Fibertarianism is merely:

      GOVERNMENT FOR ME, BUT NOT FOR THEE.

      rationalized a dozen different ways

    2. The only way this argument works is if…

      Classic lead into a straw man argument, and you did not fail.

      1. Fibertard no like argument.

        Fibertard choose between:
        ? strawman!
        ? non sequitur!

        Fibertard claim argument done.

        1. Anarchist attacks anarchist for supporting anarchist ideas. Now this is what anarchy is all about, well done.

          1. aren’t anything but fucking retards

        2. Miss me boys?

      2. Classic non-argument on your part. Where’s the “roll eyes” emoticon?

        Besides, I’m not saying I disagree with the author: I’m simply saying his argument is mostly preaching to the choir. He’s not going to convince anyone who isn’t already inclined to think along his lines. I therefore fail to see the point of wasting time publishing things like this: the focus for ACs and other libertarians should be to develop arguments that convince *non*-ACs/libertarians of the correctness of our views because that’s the only way we’ll gain traction in the wider debate on these issues.

    3. The only way this argument works is if one first accepts the notion that taxation is equivalent to robbery and is therefore immoral

      No it isn’t.

      Taxation isn’t the equivalent of theft until the government starts using taxation to re-distribute wealth. This includes schemes like SS, Medicare, welfare, etc.

      1. Taxation isn’t the equivalent of theft until the government starts using taxation to re-distribute wealth. This includes schemes like SS, Medicare, welfare, etc.

        Bullshit. If government takes my money without my permission at the point of a hypothetical gun, it’s robbery, no matter what it does with the money. If a robber takes my money and uses it to buy me a brand new truck that he personally delivers to my house, that doesn’t make the original act any less robbery.

        1. That has nothing to do with the argument.

          The argument is that the mandate is legislation designed to fix a problem that was caused by previous legislation.

          That whole thing about unintended consequences.

          Attempting to fix unintended consequences of shitty legislation with more shitty legislation will result in more unintended consequences.

          That’s the point.

          It has nothing to do with “taxation is theft”.

          1. Then don’t fucking end it with “Government mandates are backed by aggressive force, which is immoral”, if that sentiment is so orthogonal to the rest of the piece.

            1. Ignore the entire argument and instead pick one sentence.

              Nice.

              1. Yeah, reading over the whole piece in more than 5 seconds, mea culpa. If I hadn’t seen that at the end I probably wouldn’t have assumed it was a pointless argument. The author should probably remove that bit because it has nothing to do with the rest of the article.

          2. It has nothing to do with “taxation is theft”.

            Also, yes. I’m arguing against the “taxation is theft” premise; however, the premise does not apply to Obamacare which, like you said, makes it a strawman argument.

        2. Bullshit. If government takes my money without my permission at the point of a hypothetical gun, it’s robbery, no matter what it does with the money.

          You assume that you haven’t given consent. This is an incorrect assumption.

          1. Convince me I’ve given consent. I don’t care about your rationalizations. Convince ME.

            1. 1: You willingly pay your taxes.
              2: You haven’t moved out of the country you inhabit.
              3: You aren’t willing to find a piece of land and do the required work to sustain yourself.

              1. “1: You willingly pay your taxes.” FALSE: I pay them because I don’t want to get thrown in jail for not doing so. This is the essence of coercion: doing something because I fear the consequences of not doing so.
                “2: You haven’t moved out of the country you inhabit.” Why is it my responsibility to move in order to stop someone else from taking my money without my consent?
                “3: You aren’t willing to find a piece of land and do the required work to sustain yourself.” Huh? What, you mean find a piece of unincorporated land somewhere on Earth and start my own country? What the fuck are you talking about?

                Consent is something I must explicitly give of my own free will, not something that is assumed because I take or fail to take some arbitrary actions you define.

                These rationalizations may work for you, but you are failing to convince *me*.

                1. Consent is something I must explicitly give of my own free will, not something that is assumed because I take or fail to take some arbitrary actions you define.

                  This is wrong. You imply consent by taking part in our society. Unless you’re simply trying to take part in our society and not pay the cost of participating in our society; in which case YOU are actually stealing from US.

                  1. Also, you may revoke your implied consent at ANY time; at which point you will also give up all of the benefits participating in our society provides you.

                  2. This is wrong. You imply consent by taking part in our society.

                    There’s no such thing as implied consent. Consent is always explicit. If I leave my house and am not there to prevent an intrusion, that doesn’t mean I imply consent to someone breaking and entering. Simply by virtue of existing here I’m not implying consent to whatever actions the government decides to take because it claims legitimacy on the shaky basis of majoritarian rule.

                    What you call “implied consent” is actually “compulsory compliance”: do this, or we throw you in prison. Consent is not possible under threat of force (i.e., coercion). “Implied consent” is nothing more than doublespeak.

                    1. There’s no such thing as implied consent. Consent is always explicit. If I leave my house and am not there to prevent an intrusion, that doesn’t mean I imply consent to someone breaking and entering.

                      Now you’re just being stupid, and setting up even more strawmen to boot.

                      Owning a house does not imply consent to an intruder. It implies exactly the opposite.

                      Simply by virtue of existing here I’m not implying…

                      No, you aren’t. You imply consent when you participate in the society.

                      You can avoid the taxes by not participating.

                    2. No, you aren’t. You imply consent when you participate in the society.

                      No I don’t.

                      (Since you’re not actually arguing, I won’t try either. Frankly, I don’t see why you think this line of discussion would convince anyone, least of all me.)

                    3. Government is not society.

                      Government is the people within society who are tasked with responding to those who initiate force, but they quickly abuse this power and become themselves the initiators.
                      So the only difference between government and organized crime is that the government has more guns.
                      That’s it.

                  3. Unless you’re simply trying to take part in our society and not pay the cost of participating in our society; in which case YOU are actually stealing from US.

                    Please tell me what exactly I *want* that I am getting from “society” that cannot result from one-on-one voluntary transactions. When you get that list compiled, we can then reduce government’s powers and tax rates to cover exactly what is necessary to deliver those.

                    1. Please tell me what exactly I *want* that I am getting from “society” that cannot result from one-on-one voluntary transactions.

                      Binding contracts, police protection, roads, etc.

                    2. Binding contracts

                      All contracts are binding, by definition.
                      The role of government is to step in when someone does not keep their end of the bargain.

                      police protection

                      Police don’t protect anyone but themselves. They do not prevent crime. They respond to it, then do a piss poor job of investigating it.

                      roads

                      The only road around here that doesn’t completely suck is the toll road. I wish we had more toll roads. I wish they were all toll roads.

                      etc.

                      You are confusing society and government.

                      Most of what we enjoy from society has nothing to do with government.

                    3. Most of what we enjoy from society has nothing to do with government.

                      Yeah, like I said below, the 3 subjects of Taxation, Government and Society are all separate. Taxation is a means toward an end; whether the end justifies the tax is at the society’s discretion. The implementation of the tax (whether it be through government or another means) is also at the society’s discretion.

                    4. The implementation of the tax (whether it be through government or another means) is also at the society’s discretion.

                      What other means is there?

                      A tax is money taken through threat of force.
                      You can give it voluntarily, or involuntarily.
                      That doesn’t take away from the fact that force will be used against you if you do not pay it.

                      What other means is there for collecting it other than the organization within society with the monopoly on force which happens to be called government?

                    5. What other means is there?

                      A good question, but I think you can see this for the fallacy that it is. Just because the government doesn’t do it doesn’t mean that it won’t get done.

                      To address your question though: I don’t know what other means are possible. If I did, I’d be out there promoting the idea; however, I’m sure that there isn’t only ONE SINGLE SOLITARY way to raise funds for a society to provide itself the products and services it desires.

                      Also, I’m pretty sure Lysander Spooner wrote a bit about voluntary taxation.

                    6. ROADZZZZ!!!!

              2. 1: You willingly pay your taxes.
                2: You haven’t moved out of the country you inhabit.
                3: You aren’t willing to find a piece of land and do the required work to sustain yourself.

                Bull-plop.

                Inaction is not action.

                You don’t enter into a contract by not doing something.

                So take this “social contract” and stick it up your ass.

                1. Explain to me how Anarchists want binding contracts and protection from coercion & fraud yet expect to pay nothing for them?

                  Note to sarcasmic: I’m not saying that I consent to everything *our* government does right now, I’m merely stating that when you participate in society it’s a reasonable expectation to pay taxes for the services that society does pay you, which renders such taxation voluntary rather than theft.

                  1. Also, much like government != society, taxation != government.

                  2. I’m merely stating that when you participate in society it’s a reasonable expectation to pay taxes for the services that society does pay you

                    You are confusing government and society.

                    Time to do some remedial reading.

                    http://bastiat.org/en/the_law.html

                    http://bastiat.org/en/government.html

                    1. I don’t believe I am. I’d prefer a society that enjoyed a far more limited role of government services than our current one, but the rewards still outweigh the costs. For now.

                    2. You are confusing government and society.

                      Don’t forget, I’m only addressing the “taxation is theft” premise that is apparently quite common.

                      It’s a cost, not a theft. I don’t agree with the current cost, but the rewards are still greater if I pay them rather than choosing an alternative.

                    3. Taxation is theft.
                      The only thing that distinguishes it is who is doing the thieving.

                      When someone who is not part of government takes something from you, you call someone from government to help you.

                      When someone who is part of government takes something from you, no one will help you because the one stealing from you is the person who is supposed to come to your aid when someone is stealing from you.

                      You are powerless.

                      But it’s still theft.

                    4. When someone who is part of government takes something from you, no one will help you because the one stealing from you is the person who is supposed to come to your aid when someone is stealing from you.

                      (Insert separate branches of government here.)

                      Or at least, the way our constitution was framed would provide such protection.

                    5. Libertarians seem big on gloating about people who lose to agricultural city-Statism’s aggression, so can I gloat now too, loser?

                      LOL

                      Anyway, why don’t you think the agricultural city-State has the RIGHT TO TAKE?

                      Your girlfriend with the hairy nipples thinks it does. Well, if you’re white enough.

                      “[The Native Americans] didn’t have any rights to the land … Any white person who brought the element of civilization had the right to take over this continent.” ~Ayn Rand, US Military Academy at West Point, March 6, 1974

                    6. Taxation is not theft. We elect representatives who enact the laws that create taxes. If you don’t think you should pay taxes to the U.S., leave.

                      If you think the government can operate on a ‘voluntary’ tax system, you’re a bigger Utopian than Karl Marx!

                2. LOL

                  Only if you’re white enough.

                  “[The Native Americans] didn’t have any rights to the land … Any white person who brought the element of civilization had THE RIGHT TO TAKE over this continent.”

                  ~Ayn Rand, US Military Academy at West Point, March 6, 1974

  17. Hey look, everyone’s favorite primitivist is back to lecture us about being a primitivist from their computer.

    1. Hey look, everyone’s favorite city-STATIST is back to lecture us about how bad Statism is using grammar he learned in a public school while texting on a public road he drives everyday.

      1. I love it when people claim libertarian hypocrisy when libertarians use goods and services that they were forced to pay for against their will.

        I can’t afford to send my kids to private school, and I pay taxes that support the public school, despite the fact that I don’t want to send my kids there. If I didn’t pay those taxes, I could send my kids to a private school. So, I settle for sending my kids to the public school, and then I become a hypocrite for consuming “free” education.

        1. I love it when city-Statists claim primitivist hypocrisy when primitivists use goods and services that they were forced to pay for against their will.

          Now do you see?

          1. You weren’t forced to buy a computer or the internet. Those are the things that make you a primitivist hypocrite.

            Also, most of us aren’t anarchist so we aren’t calling for the total disbandment of government while “hypocritically” using government tax payer funded roads and schools.

            1. Officer, am I free to gambol about plain and forest, foraging a free meal, as humans did for millions of years?

              MARX: NO!
              MISES: NO!

              So yeah, everybody is indeed FORCED to conform and live in a city-Statist sociopolitical typology.

              Weird how such hypersensitive you are to force, yet turn a blind eye to it when it is embedded in the culture in ways you approve.

              1. I haven’t said you’re a hypocrite for not gamboling, although I’d be willing to bet you might be able to find someplace in the mountains or out in West Texas where you could gambol to your hearts content and never see another human.

                The fact remains that you are not forced to have a computer or the internet.

                1. The fact remains nobody forces you to buy gasoline and pay gasoline taxes for roads, hypocrite.

                  1. Because paying a tax that is imposed at the point of purchase for a service you don’t want is the same as claiming you oppose the accouterments of modern society while using them as your primary means of distributing your nonsense is exactly the same. Genius.

              2. Am I free to gambol in your tipi? Am I free to gambol with your wife? You wouldn’t mind if I gambol on your kill, right? Can’t be arsed to kill my own food, and since there’s no such thing as property I can’t barter with you for it.

                PRIMITARD: FUCK OFF! I CAN’T USE THE CITY-STATIST INTERNET AND THIS CITY-STATIST COMPUTER TO DEFEAT AGRICULTURAL CITY-STATISM AND ARGUE WITH YOU ABOUT GAMBOLING RIGHTS AT THE SAME TIME!

      2. First, I learned grammar from my parents. Second, I don’t text and drive cause that’s a quick way to get yourself killed. Third, I pay taxes so they are my roads too

    2. Don’t you just love how the champion of taking quotes out of context gets peeved when someone takes his hero’s quote out of context?

      “Genocide would be kinder…” Jason Godesky

      Mmmm…. smell the irony.

      1. You’re just proving yourself to be a collective of liars, willing to libel and slander.

      2. For anybody interested in what Godesky actually says, look under Objection 5. Primitivists are genocidal maniacs whose planned “utopia” requires them to orchestrate the mass murder of 99% of the human population!

        5 Common Objections to Primitivism, and Why They’re Wrong
        http://theanarchistlibrary.org……html#toc5

        1. For anybody interested in what Godesky actually says

          The point you’re obviously missing is that nobody here is.

          1. The point you’re obviously missing is that several Fibertards here are.

            Why else would they mendaciously misquote him?

      3. No, its more than out of context.

        Those words are simply not in Godesky’s essay. Nowhere. Period.

        You misquote, Fibertard.

        1. Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain!

  18. Behindertsein ist sch?n

  19. It is my understanding that originally hospitals that had emergency rooms were required to accept patients regardless of ability to pay, so that E.R.s would not turn away patients with life threatening problems. My sister has been an E.R. nurse for thirty years. She says many people come into the E.R. with illnesses (many of these people are repeat patients) that could be handled by General Practitioners. Requiring hospitals treat everyone who comes to the E.R. for free creates incentives for people to go to the E.R. so as to avoid payment. The simple solution is to require the E.R.s to initially treat everyone without regard to cost, but after treatment have a board review the patients file to determine if the treatment was in fact a life of death situation, or if the problem is a minor illness or injury that could be handled at a G.P. or Urgent care send a bill to the patient.

    1. I think all ERs are still required to treat anyone with a life threatening issue. Private ERs seem to have a higher bar for what constitutes as life threatening. Most of the people using ERs as their primary care don’t have the money to pay a GP or private urgent care facility. They know which ERs they can go to and expect treatment. It’s a broken system. We can either start letting people die because they have no insurance or we can figure out a way to encompass everyone in a basic level of health care.

  20. The argument that the government is somehow responsible for the current state of health care is mostly nonsense. Making employer provided insurance an untaxed compensation adds slightly to peoples’ willingness to pay more, but we have reached the point where the price is pushing demand down. The expense of becoming an M.D. along with expensive new treatments is the driver.

    What would be ideal is a program where all contribute to the costs of care that all will sooner or later require. Wait, that describes the ACA!

  21. The idea that ERs should be able to turn away someone without insurance is one of the most horrific things I’ve seen in a while. We do need to have a mechanism to push people to seek treatment before their condition is life threatening. I don’t see how we can accomplish that without a single payer system or something like the ACA with the mandate to require all to be insured.

  22. The idea that ERs grocery stores should be able to turn away someone without insurance money is one of the most horrific things I’ve seen in a while. We do need to have a mechanism to push people to seek treatment eat more fruit before their condition is life threatening. I don’t see how we can accomplish that without a single payer system or something like the ACA with the mandate to require all to be insured get free food.

  23. I’d should analyze with you here. Which isn’t something I usually do! I get satisfaction from examining a submit that can get individuals to think. Also, thanks for allowing me to comment!

  24. The fact everyone needs healthcare is not a government created problem. The ‘cartels’/laws are the product of the insurance industry, healthcare and corporate lobbies themselves who sponsor and manipulate them for profit. Also a bizarre state tax base so the fed can go on funding wars and the military.

    The problem is certainly not a lack of young healthy people who are interested in affordable insurance. That is a myth. You don’t even get an insurance break for being exceptionally healthy because they are only looking for ways to charge more, not less.

    Insuring the old or sick is simply bad business and therefor business should be kept out of healthcare, which is in fact a public service, not a business market. You basically advocate letting the poor or old die when they get sick or hurt, then portray some weak laws or national plan preventing that as immoral? Wow.

  25. While government hasn’t helped, insurance inherently has cost problems due to adverse selection.

    http://www.economist.com/econo…..e-21529329

    “…people who know they have a higher risk of claiming than the average of the group will buy the insurance, whereas those who have a below-average risk may decide it is too expensive to be worth buying…”

    Mandating that employers provide health insurance is clunky because small companies don’t necessarily have a large enough sample size to ensure a pool that is diverse in terms of health costs. Taxing everybody for public health insurance or implementing some kind of single-payer system clearly creates much more bureaucracy, which faces poor incentives to perform well or cut costs.

    So I would think the individual mandate to buy private health insurance a far better way to address adverse selection problem than the alternatives.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.