Before managed care, health care was 5% of GDP. The govt got involved and now it's 17-18%.

And people can lie now. What's the point? Oh noes, the status quo might happen!

Not really. No one remembers stock prices, they remember recessions. That might be Obama's legacy more than Obamacare. The war stuff was going to end anyway and Obama did nothing special there. Bin Laden stuff was something he had little to do with and just happened under his watch, giving him credit there is silly (he did what any leader would have done). If the economy boomed under him, he would be remembered for it (like Clinton, along with blowjobs). But it hasn't, although that could change in the next 5 years and his legacy might be something different. But the one thing that was uniquely his is Obamacare and will define his first term. As for his potential second, that remains to be decided.

But why did people go to her? Don't they know about economics? Maybe they should watch some Peter Schiff Youtube videos.

Clearly they'd prefer to go to a competent cosmetic surgeon. Remember?

I'm not saying no one would, just the same morons who are doing it today. Morons gonna moron.

Why do you hate capitalism? How else are they going to keep costs down and profits up?

And it is not the role of government to try and protect people from charlatans and snake oil salesmen? Why is fraud a crime at all?


I'd like to ask all the libertarians, what do you think the government should do if there was a Contagion/Outbreak scenario where a virus was threatening to wipe out the country's (or the world's) entire population? Nothing? Or should the CDC and USAAMRID get together to develop a vaccine and save everyone? I mean, what is the ultimate point of having a government if it can't prevent its citizens from dying?

And as a follow-up, if it IS the role of government to develop the vaccine, then why not go one step further and develop a cure for diabetes, or heart disease, or cancer? At what point is it NOT the role of government to be involved in the nation's public health?

Vaccine for super bug is fine, I'm even okay with the gov mandating vaccines in that particular instance. Beyond imminent danger to large portions of the population, government should stay out of it*.

*Actually I'm okay with gov funding some level of medical research, but I am probably in the minority as far as libertarians go.

And what about acute cases like car accidents or heart attacks? Should ambulances be dispatched to the houses or accident scenes involving the non-insured? If so, what should happen when they get to the hospital? They just sit in the waiting room while their family scrambles around to get some payment, where they most likely die, or should they receive treatment? If not, then why bother dispatching the paramedics in the first place?

This is the fundamental problem with the whole libertarian approach to health care. Everyone agrees that there is a certain amount of government responsibility towards public health, as in say the virus example, the only differing point is where that responsibility ends and should be taken up by the individual himself. It would seem that libertarians and republicans believe that happens at some arbitrary point X, and I suppose I could agree with that, so long as they could convince me that X+1 doesn't make just as much sense.

Sure, shades of grey and all of that. We disagree about what level of grey (government interference) is ideal.

If her name is Daisy Dukes, sure.

Or perhaps they can get a fake ID or a legal name change?

Then Jessica Simpson would have her feet in stirrups, while Dr. Sigmoan Fraud (aka BillyBob) used a car-jack to position her for inspection and smog testing.

You can also use wait times to control supply and demand.

I don't know what amazes me more: that there are people who genuinely feel others shouldn't have access to free medical care or that those same people are willing to openly admit their lack of empathy and complete heartlessness.

Can I have 100 dollars? I need some medicine and am broke. PM me for sending details.

Your medicine costs three hundred billion dollars?

Well, ObamaCare doesn't make medical care free, so this seems to be a single payer hijack attempt.

In any case, an article defending this view: Do the poor deserve life support?" The argument is not that the poor shouldn't be supported, but that giving free medical care to the uninsured is like giving them insurance that they probably wouldn't have bought ex ante had you given them the cash value instead. If we are to appeal to the veil of ignorance that liberals love, then we're making them worse off relative to an alternative policy of giving them cash. Unless of course, we think the poor are too stupid to know what's best for them, which is probably secretly the case for many.

It's much simpler than that. Proper medical care is a fundamental human right, in my opinion, that any civilized society provides for its citizens.

So if someone wanted to waive that right in favour of upfront cash, would you object to that?

OMG leftist socialism!

I have a outstanding wager with a extremely reputable 2plus2 member on Mitt Romney to win the Presidential Election in 2012.. He must be elected president for me to win. I have 1k on him at 9:1 to win 9k and am open to selling my position at a better price then its current "expected value." You will need to be reputable or have people vouch for you.. Romney is currently a little better thn 2:1 on intrade FWIW.. If anyone is interested in making an offer or exploring further PM me. Thanks

Yes, to me that is like saying I waive my right to breathe for x amount of money.

No, you're essentially saying someone has to work for you (doctors, nurses) for no money.

So doctors in UHC countries all work for nothing?

I feel that people should have access to free medical care.

Unfortunately we don't live in a world where that is possible because there is scarcity. Now the question is what are we going to do in the real world?

Amendment 13; The Constitution of the United States

Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation

We don't live in a land of free medical care. I am sorry. We also do not enslave our health care providers so "the poor" can have free health care. If health care is a right so is shelter, food and transportation. Free cars and houses for everyone!