I’m not a libertarian, but from what I’ve seen of their positions on this, they don’t think that it’s possible in an effective way. There’s two possible versions: the government pays for everything, or there’s public and private health care. A lot of countries have both, which is probably the best option since driving out competition is going to make everything go to crap.
The problem is that there are some arrangements that simply can’t work or the existing system would implode in the transition.
There are also a lot of people who don’t want to pay because someone who refused to get insurance for years finally decided to sign up for public health care because they suddenly got a serious health problem. In some possible arrangements, it would be necessary to force people to have health insurance, which is its own rabbit hole.
“The problem is that there are some arrangements that simply can’t work or the existing system would implode in the transition.”
can you even cite a real world example of this or is this another runaway hypothetical?
Do they not realize that universal health care has been done successfully and at a lower cost than privatized healthcare, in many other countries? Seems like a weak argument when there’s so much proof against it
I want there to be a viable public option that exists. The alternative would be to require that everyone get coverage.
deleted by creator
If there’s no competition, then providers can just make up any price that they want and the government has to pay it.
When there’s an entirely planned economy, there’s no possibility for alternatives to be created.
deleted by creator
There’s two possible versions: the government pays for everything, or there’s public and private health care. A lot of countries have both, which is probably the best option since driving out competition is going to make everything go to crap.
There’s a potential third option through cooperatively run hospitals.
