Hacker News Reader

I consider myself a Libertarian also.

The problem with government funded health care is what you can't see. True market based competition leads to lower prices and greater innovation in all observable areas over time. That would mean more access for more people in the case of health care, but instead with deep government intrusion for decades, we have seen ever increasing prices and sluggish innovation.

Libertarian philosophy has a lot to do with a belief in sound market principles. Why should all that go out the window for health care?

The problems facing health care today, in my view, are largely a result of the free market being trampled on. People who don't really understand market principles will tell you the exact opposite, that health care has been nothing but a free for all, totally unregulated. Do you believe that?

It sounds like you might generally agree with libertarian ideas and some research on scholars like F.A. Hayek and Ludwig von Mises might help focus your libertarian perspective.

View on HN

There is no reason why, in a society which has reached the general level of wealth ours has, the first kind of security should not be guaranteed to all without endangering general freedom; that is: some minimum of food, shelter and clothing, sufficient to preserve health. Nor is there any reason why the state should not help to organize a comprehensive system of social insurance in providing for those common hazards of life against which few can make adequate provision.

Where, as in the case of sickness and accident, neither the desire to avoid such calamities nor the efforts to overcome their consequences are as a rule weakened by the provision of assistance – where, in short, we deal with genuinely insurable risks – the case for the state’s helping to organize a comprehensive system of social insurance is very strong. There are many points of detail where those wishing to preserve the competitive system and those wishing to super-cede it by something different will disagree on the details of such schemes; and it is possible under the name of social insurance to introduce measures which tend to make competition more or less ineffective. But there is no incompatability in principle between the state’s providing greater security in this way and the preservation of individual freedom. To the same category belongs also the increase of security through the state’s rendering assistance to the victims of such ‘acts of God’ as earthquakes and floods. Wherever communal action can mitigate disasters against which the individual can neither attempt to guard himself nor make provision for the consequences, such communal action should undoubtedly be taken.