Do you think that I added the qualifier "minimal sort" for no reason? I must have added it for some reason, don't you think? If I did add it for a reason then why would you assume that the outcome "fund this patient's healthcare" would remain the same between my vision and yours? A minimal sort might suggest that immediate care from the relief of pain and suffering be provided. A minimal care would not include, sorry Winston, a heart transplant for an indigent person living on the streets.
Regardless, a "government health care" of ANY sort is and will always be a use of government force (a better substitution for "violence") "to get you to comply with my request that you fund this patient's healthcare." Someone's taxes will inevitably be extracted to fund this care, and inevitably one or more individuals will be affected by mandates, enFORCED regulations, licensing procedures, laws, etc.
I really don't like the principle of everyone demanding Cadillac care in the health market. This completely guts all the value that price discipline brings to many other markets.
You added the Cadillac part. I was comparing the medical insurance mandate to the auto insurance mandate for a very good reason. The auto insurance mandate, at least in the state of California, demands that all drivers enroll in at least the absolute minimum, bare-bones policy that amounts to something like $5,000 in liability payments. The purpose of such a mandate was, as I stated, to reduce the judicial congestion brought on by countless lawsuits arising from no-insurance accidents. My conflicted idea regarding the insurance mandate for healthcare would be similar in nature and purpose. It is not my personal preference to infringe on the individual's right to liberty. HOWEVER, rational libertarians also realize that
some minor infringements on personal liberty are necessary for the welfare of society (or rather for the protection of individual, non-participatory third parties). For instance, rational libertarians would agree with a law that prohibits you from dumping your toxic waste water down a public stream, for that public stream is utilized by a third party. In this case, I am conflicted because I personally refuse to agree to repealing EMTLA but I also demand that it should not go unfunded. Instead, like minimalist auto insurance policies which are mandated to reduce the burden on non-involved taxpayers, this insurance mandate would go a long way in reducing the healthcare costs on innocent third parties who are inevitably stuck with the overhead created by the uninsured.
I would like to pose a straight-forward question:
Would you be willing to tolerate a society in which individuals are forced to die in the streets because every hospital in the nearest vicinity has refused them care for their inability to pay? I realize that charitable organizations and charitable people do exist and we can depend on them for a lot of things. I am still a libertarian. However, sometimes these organizations are not large enough.If a person lives in a rural area, their access to medical care is far more limited to someone in the urban area. As well, it would be unreal to expect at least one free hospital for every 20 or 30 square miles.
I can respect your position and as I've noted elsewhere on the forum I completely favor liberals starting their own universal health care system where they decide to invite all of the people that they say they care so much about into the system and they will pay the premiums needed to make the system so kind and generous and embracing. If you don't believe in denying healthcare based on income, that's terrific, do something about it with your own wallet. I won't work to stop you.
You're trying to lump me in with another group of like-minded people. And if you want to rely on charity completely to solve the problem of the indigent, then you must consider that not all people will be able to reach the charitable hospital which can save their life.
