Warren Buffett Says America Is "So Rich" It Can Afford Single Payer

[NeoTrader]

Let me just say that "Constitution of Liberty" is not one of Hayek early works. It was written nearly 20 years after "The Road to Serfdom". Some of the points made are also reiterated in "Law, Legislation and Liberty", which was written even later.

Other than that, it doesn't appear that we're likely to agree on this, so I'll let a better man like Hayek speak on my behalf. Best of luck to you!

You're changing the subject to the author and not the idea. If that were something worth doing, I could simply state that Milton Friedman disagrees with Hayek and states the opposite and that that would be proof of my point. But that wouldn't make sense too. What one person says, even if that person is someone like Hayek or Friedman is no proof of something.
These men were logical men and logic dictates that we must look at facts. The fact is that government intervention or nationalization of services that can be regulated by free markets results in high prices and poor quality, compared to a free market system.

We indeed are probably not going to agree on the subject, but the issue is even more fundamental: The thing is that I have no objection with you living your life the way you stated. You want to live your life in a system which has government dealing with healh services? Fine by me. I wish you the best. The problem starts when you believe that you can force me to be a part of that.
And that is the fundamental problem with this. While I have no objection to your views and choices, provided you don't attempt to force me to be a part of it, the only way to apply what you are stating is by forcing me to be a part of it.
Best luck to you too!

 

[Martinghoul]

You're changing the subject to the author and not the idea. If that were something worth doing, I could simply state that Milton Friedman disagrees with Hayek and states the opposite and that that would be proof of my point. But that wouldn't make sense too. What one person says, even if that person is someone like Hayek or Friedman is no proof of something.
These men were logical men and logic dictates that we must look at facts. The fact is that government intervention or nationalization of services that can be regulated by free markets results in high prices and poor quality, compared to a free market system.

I agree with the sentiment you express that we should all be able to speak for ourselves. I have certainly attempted to do this, as I'm sure you'd agree.

Separately, I would also note that Friedman, in his 2001 essay "How to Cure Health Care", advocates some government involvement in public health (he calls it "universal catastrophic insurance"). So neither Hayek nor Friedman suggest that a completely government-free, market-based solution would be viable. I think that's rather telling.

We indeed are probably not going to agree on the subject, but the issue is even more fundamental: The thing is that I have no objection with you living your life the way you stated. You want to live your life in a system which has government dealing with healh services? Fine by me. I wish you the best. The problem starts when you believe that you can force me to be a part of that.
And that is the fundamental problem with this. While I have no objection to your views and choices, provided you don't attempt to force me to be a part of it, the only way to apply what you are stating is by forcing me to be a part of it.
Best luck to you too!

Well, when you're a part of a particular society, you effectively agree to a contract with your fellow citizens. This inevitably forces you to obey seemingly arbitrary rules, some of which you may disagree with and may find limiting to your personal liberty (I can offer you lots of examples). So, like it or not, the majority already forces you to be part of all sorts of things, some of which may not be to your liking. I don't know why the subject of our discussion is any different.

 

[NeoTrader]

I agree with the sentiment you express that we should all be able to speak for ourselves. I have certainly attempted to do this, as I'm sure you'd agree.

Separately, I would also note that Friedman, in his 2001 essay "How to Cure Health Care", advocates some government involvement in public health (he calls it "universal catastrophic insurance"). So neither Hayek nor Friedman suggest that a completely government-free, market-based solution would be viable. I think that's rather telling.

Well, when you're a part of a particular society, you effectively agree to a contract with your fellow citizens. This inevitably forces you to obey seemingly arbitrary rules, some of which you may disagree with and may find limiting to your personal liberty (I can offer you lots of examples). So, like it or not, the majority already forces you to be part of all sorts of things, some of which may not be to your liking. I don't know why the subject of our discussion is any different.

The fundamental point of the subject is if it is supposed to be handled by government or not. Government is brute force, there is nothing more to it. The only areas in which it must be part of, are areas that have no way of dealing with the subject but to force something. That means that government is and always will be an expedient, not a solution. That being said, the less you use it, the better.
That is even more valid when considering results of government intervention(high prices and poor quality). High prices and poor quality in something such as healthcare will result in unnecessary deaths, suffering and/or permanent damage to people's lives.

 

[murray t turtle]

There is an incredible amount of price gouging and outright fraud in American healthcare. Before we address anything else, there should be a special commission appointed to expose and completely root it out for all Americans to see. Then we can take the next steps.

%%
Exactly;
they need a lot of ads. Rememeber when all the lawyers said ''OH we cant do ads, too professional'', what a change a bunch of ads make.LOL-true

 

[newwurldmn]

That is even more valid when considering results of government intervention(high prices and poor quality). High prices and poor quality in something such as healthcare will result in unnecessary deaths, suffering and/or permanent damage to people's lives.

For profit colleges.

 

[Banjo]

The Flint Water Disaster Shows Why We Need Markets
https://mises.org/blog/flint-water-disaster-shows-why-we-need-markets

 

[ET180]

With a secondary private insurance market, you continue to have the capitalist model and freedom of choice.

That's the core of the issue: how do you ration a fundamentally limited resource. I disagree with your belief that our health care market is based on how much someone has contributed. Your hypothetical example simplifies the issue to an absurdity. In your example: the 31 year old drug addict could be the son of a successful personal injury lawyer so he's got his cure. The 81 year old scientist could have been dumped by the insurance company because he's old and thus a burden on their profit margins.

I never claimed that our healthcare market is based on how much someone has contributed. It obviously is not. I also never claimed that the 31 year old drug addict should die (although perhaps society would be better off if he did assuming that he and his family are unable to fix him). The debate is who should pay for it. If his family simply paid for his expenses, that would be great...no burden placed on the rest of society, no consumption of finite resources that could be allocated to better causes. As far as the 81 year old scientist, anyone should be able to get insurance for some price. Just as it would be unreasonable to expect ATM Tesla puts to have the same premium as ATM JCP puts with same expiration, it's also unreasonable to expect a healthy 23 year old to have the same risk as a healthy 81 year old. The good news is that this won't come as a surprise. It's not like any of us think that we are immune to aging so we can prepare for increased health costs later in life. We all have decades to plan and prepare for it.

 

[piezoe]

You could have the state pay for the unemployed and companies pay for their employees.

Unfortunately there is no "dislike" button.

 

[piezoe]

The only areas in which it must be part of, are areas that have no way of dealing with the subject but to force something.

Congratulations you have just identified Healthcare as an area that requires government to take charge!!! Nicely done.

 

[just21]

Unfortunately there is no "dislike" button.

Should every body have healthcare or should only certain groups have it?