Government has no business in health care.

[hislegacy]

As a Conservative Libertarian the size and scope of the Federal Government is a key part of our platform.

I don't believe we should give up our freedoms and liberties to Federal Regulators who determine what type of health care we get, or don't get.

Case in point:

A couple have asked a court to let them take their seven-month-old son to the USA for potentially life-saving treatment as they began a battle against Great Ormond Street Hospital.

WHAT?! The individual parents do not have the right to bring their son to the US in an attempt to save his life? They have to beg doctors and bureaucrats for permission to try and save their babies life?

The trip is privately funded and will cost the parents and the government of the UK nothing, but if the parents try to save their child without government permission they will be arrested and possible jailed.

Don't want the government in my bedroom
Don't want the government in my doctors office
Don't want the government having my private medical records on a centralized data base.

Not even if it is free.

 

[cow451]

As a Conservative Libertarian the size and scope of the Federal Government is a key part of our platform.

I don't believe we should give up our freedoms and liberties to Federal Regulators who determine what type of health care we get, or don't get.

Case in point:

A couple have asked a court to let them take their seven-month-old son to the USA for potentially life-saving treatment as they began a battle against Great Ormond Street Hospital.

WHAT?! The individual parents do not have the right to bring their son to the US in an attempt to save his life? They have to beg doctors and bureaucrats for permission to try and save their babies life?

The trip is privately funded and will cost the parents and the government of the UK nothing, but if the parents try to save their child without government permission they will be arrested and possible jailed.

Don't want the government in my bedroom
Don't want the government in my doctors office
Don't want the government having my private medical records on a centralized data base.

Not even if it is free.

Then do not go to a healthcare facility that keeps records or accepts payments in any form other than cash or barter.

 

[SnowyMacie]

Then do not go to a healthcare facility that keeps records or accepts payments in any form other than cash or barter.

Or a healthcare facility that has certified doctors and nurses, or accepts Medicare and Medicaid or even patients without insurance at all.

 

[mina]

They are already in your healthcare and have been for some time now.

 

[super animator]

As a Conservative Libertarian the size and scope of the Federal Government is a key part of our platform.

I don't believe we should give up our freedoms and liberties to Federal Regulators who determine what type of health care we get, or don't get.

Case in point:

A couple have asked a court to let them take their seven-month-old son to the USA for potentially life-saving treatment as they began a battle against Great Ormond Street Hospital.

WHAT?! The individual parents do not have the right to bring their son to the US in an attempt to save his life? They have to beg doctors and bureaucrats for permission to try and save their babies life?

The trip is privately funded and will cost the parents and the government of the UK nothing, but if the parents try to save their child without government permission they will be arrested and possible jailed.

Don't want the government in my bedroom
Don't want the government in my doctors office
Don't want the government having my private medical records on a centralized data base.

Not even if it is free.

You know there is more to that story, don't dishonestly take it out of context.

 

[SnowyMacie]

They are already in your healthcare and have been for some time now.

The idea of being entirely self-reliant and sufficient without government involvement has never and will never exist.

 

[Seejer]

The other side of the coin is letting people kill their own children by relying on faith healing instead of surgery like in this case

Letting them die: parents refuse medical help for children in the name of Christ

Is that kind of thing really freedom we should be proud of ?

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

I don't believe we should give up our freedoms and liberties to Federal Regulators who determine what type of health care we get, or don't get.

Already was done/ given up/ lock stock and barrel for most all those in the usa,
back around 1950 or so....
There were and are some exceptions, for now.

 

[Desk trauma]

Already was done/ given up/ lock stock and barrel for most all those in the usa,
back around 1950 or so....
There were and are some exceptions, for now.

Are you ever going to substantiate this nonsense you keep posting over and over?

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

The idea of being entirely self-reliant and sufficient without government involvement has never and will never exist.

It used to , for several peoples, illustrated recently in documentary type shows on OETA PBS ,
how the white man destroyed the lives of different peoples without any right nor just cause, taking away their ability to continue living "on their own", and bringing (on purpose) death, disease and destruction to the peoples and to their way of living and to the land....

 

[Halbhh]

As a Conservative Libertarian the size and scope of the Federal Government is a key part of our platform.

I don't believe we should give up our freedoms and liberties to Federal Regulators who determine what type of health care we get, or don't get.

Case in point:

A couple have asked a court to let them take their seven-month-old son to the USA for potentially life-saving treatment as they began a battle against Great Ormond Street Hospital.

WHAT?! The individual parents do not have the right to bring their son to the US in an attempt to save his life? They have to beg doctors and bureaucrats for permission to try and save their babies life?

The trip is privately funded and will cost the parents and the government of the UK nothing, but if the parents try to save their child without government permission they will be arrested and possible jailed.

Don't want the government in my bedroom
Don't want the government in my doctors office
Don't want the government having my private medical records on a centralized data base.

Not even if it is free.

While 'Obamacare' is simply subsidies for lower income people to get health care by taxing higher income people, there is a market limiting force in the U.S. -- doctors, via state laws they got passed that restrict who can practice medicine.

What about the state laws in each state that give doctors a monopoly on providing health care?

 

[sfs]

Then do not go to a healthcare facility that keeps records or accepts payments in any form other than cash

Not cash either -- that's created and managed by the government, too.

 

[sfs]

As a Conservative Libertarian

Could you please point to the nation that has successfully adopted conservative libertarian principles?

 

[hislegacy]

The idea of being entirely self-reliant and sufficient without government involvement has never and will never exist.

I am for limited government involvement.

Could you please point to the nation that has successfully adopted conservative libertarian principles?

No, I cannot.

 

[Evan Jellicoe]

As a Conservative Libertarian the size and scope of the Federal Government is a key part of our platform.

I don't believe we should give up our freedoms and liberties to Federal Regulators who determine what type of health care we get, or don't get.

Case in point:

A couple have asked a court to let them take their seven-month-old son to the USA for potentially life-saving treatment as they began a battle against Great Ormond Street Hospital.

WHAT?! The individual parents do not have the right to bring their son to the US in an attempt to save his life? They have to beg doctors and bureaucrats for permission to try and save their babies life?

The trip is privately funded and will cost the parents and the government of the UK nothing, but if the parents try to save their child without government permission they will be arrested and possible jailed.

Don't want the government in my bedroom
Don't want the government in my doctors office
Don't want the government having my private medical records on a centralized data base.

Not even if it is free.

Perfectly good-sounding argument. The weaknesses are, in my view, that is that it is an argument utilizing anecdotal evidence rather than statistical evidence, and it is a view that by definition cannot be refuted.

In any large society, no matter how good or how bad, you can find bad examples and good examples. Ergo, I can probably find equally outrageous examples of parental foolishness that would serve as evidence for government intervention. I believe that in the real world, general policies have to be worked out in terms of their likely effect upon large numbers of people. Finding one person who survived a car accident because of not wearing a seat belt cannot be used as fair evidence if ten survivors who would have died if they hadn’t been wearing seat belts are not also mentioned.

But now the second weakness: your paradigm is built on the conviction that individual autonomy (and parental oversight) is an ultimate good, no matter the outcome, so it is necessarily impervious to argument. So some mother chooses to leave her young children locked in a hot car to “teach them a lesson” (as actually was reported in the news recently) and the children die, the consistent Libertarian position is that it still isn’t the business of the government to override a parent’s decision. Life and safety isn’t the ultimate good; individual autonomy is the unchangeable core value. (Once you start making exceptions to safeguard the lives of minor children, you cannot avoid making exceptions to prevent adult suicide, either).

Of course you are perfectly entitled to that opinion. The reasons that I and many others disagree with it include:

1) It is essentially Darwinian “survival of the fittest,” and most Christians do not accept Darwin. Your position gives complete control to individuals (and parents of minors) and then leaves it to those individuals to survive or fail. In such a society, those at the “top of the heap” will generally do well. Those nearer the bottom will both fail, and will be easy prey for those higher up. My Bible tells me that God desires that the weak be protected, and at the very least not taken advantage of. Your elimination of government “interference” would have the inevitable effect of leaving the weak to their own devices.

2) It is essentially selfish. The root motivation is “I can take care of myself, so I don’t need help from government." That implies that anybody who does need help from government is a loser who does not deserve such help, and who does deserve to fail.

3) It is a false corollary of Christianity. Christians who hold to this position maintain that charity is a function only of individuals, voluntary organizations, and churches. But neither the Bible nor the U.S. Constitution forbid communal (government) agencies for this purpose. In fact, the “General Welfare” phrase in the Constitution positively encourages such agencies.

Note that I am not saying that you are required to agree with me. I am merely pointing out why the system I live by is different from yours.



EJ

 

[bhsmte]

As a Conservative Libertarian the size and scope of the Federal Government is a key part of our platform.

I don't believe we should give up our freedoms and liberties to Federal Regulators who determine what type of health care we get, or don't get.

Case in point:

A couple have asked a court to let them take their seven-month-old son to the USA for potentially life-saving treatment as they began a battle against Great Ormond Street Hospital.

WHAT?! The individual parents do not have the right to bring their son to the US in an attempt to save his life? They have to beg doctors and bureaucrats for permission to try and save their babies life?

The trip is privately funded and will cost the parents and the government of the UK nothing, but if the parents try to save their child without government permission they will be arrested and possible jailed.

Don't want the government in my bedroom
Don't want the government in my doctors office
Don't want the government having my private medical records on a centralized data base.

Not even if it is free.

Does the government have any business in providing; roads, bridges, police, fire, schools or any of the other community services? Health, is likely the major determinent in quality of life. I believe, to be a truly great nation, all people should have adequate access to healthcare, for the greater good of society.

 

[super animator]

I am for limited government involvement.

In terms of what?

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

Could you please point to the nation that has successfully adopted conservative libertarian principles?

It's mostly just fantasy. Ayn Rand wrote books on how social safety nets were immoral. Then she collected social security and medicare after she retired.

 

[SnowyMacie]

I believe, to be a truly great nation, all people should have adequate access to healthcare, for the greater good of society.

I came across an interesting point regarding Americans and healthcare a little while back. It was essentially that so many Americans think providing healthcare to all Americans isn't feasible because they think their medicine and healthcare actually costs as much as their charged for it. They think it actually costs tens of thousands of dollars to fix a broken arm, hundreds of thousands for a complicated birth, and millions for cancer treatment because they've never known anything different. The idea that it actually only costs a couple hundred bucks for a broken arm, a few thousand for a complicated birth, and only tens of thousands for cancer treatment is completely foreign to them.

 

[hislegacy]

Does the government have any business in providing; roads, bridges, police, fire, schools or any of the other community services? Health, is likely the major determinent in quality of life. I believe, to be a truly great nation, all people should have adequate access to healthcare, for the greater good of society.

I believe the Federal government should be in voices with National issues only. Check as defense,interstate infrastructure, humanitarian issues, legislation and of course the judicial system. commerce, trade and diplomacy.

State and local governments should oversee police, fire and infrastructure in their states and municipalities