Martha said:
You guys that don't support a national healthcare system or more regulation of the insurance market, what do you propose?
I don't have all the answers, but living under a healthcare system that's about as broken as one can be, I think pretty much anything else is at least
less bad.
Do you think things are fine the way they are?
No, but I think it's misplacing the blame to believe the U.S. system needs
more government involvement.
Are you concerned about healthcare for the poor? If so, how would you provide the care?
Yes.
That seems to me what one of the useful purposes of government is. I don't think most free marketeers object to government providing services and products to the poor, for which everyone else pays individually. I support providing food and shelter and others to the poor free of charge, but that doesn't mean I think it's a good idea to make
all farming, supermarkets, construction, and so on, produced and consumed solely through a socialized monopoly. That's kind of insane, and I think it's just as insane to do that with medicine, which surely is as important as food and shelter.
What about those who are uninsurable? How would you address that problem?
Well, somebody who can't get the money or the financing for a residence still needs shelter, and qualifies for government assistance. Wouldn't being uninsurable be one usable benchmark for whether someone qualifies for government healthcare?
You asked a bunch of questions, now can I ask one? Why is it so shocking and unthinkable that some people should advocate a free market in health care? I'd imagine most people have no similar problem with free markets that exist in so many other areas of life, for things that are more important than health care, less important, equally important, similar in a thousand ways, different in a thousand ways, etc. Many, like food, are also matters of life and death. So why is healthcare alone sacrosanct? Just curious...