Thanks!

Thanks!

We in the USA already have long wait times, and your provider is dictated by whom your health insurer allows you to see - what is the difference? I had a great doctor I liked, then my health insurance changed their approved provider list, and I had to go with one who took my insurance - this is patently insane! I have had to change working medications since my health insurers kickbacks they get from big pharma weren't big enough and had to go with another on the "approved formulary" with crap side effects. American people continue to suffer under a robber baron system that we are so gaslight into believing in the "illusion of choice" , and creates an environment in that you are only one single major illness away from going bankrupt - this is nuts!

it's classist. In the not-to-long-run, one "stream" will become the dominant one. Then: 1) if the govt-run one is miraculously better, then soon _there will be no other stream._ 2) if the govt-run one is inferior, then it will become the rut that poor people can't get out of. There has to be one "stream". That _"one"_ stream _can_ be the equal freedom to choose among a hundred options. Or it can be some kind of hybrid mixture of your "different" streams, just _mixed at the streams' source_ (to use your analogy), e.g. an annual $6k "gift card" given to _every citizen_ to use the govt-run healthcare, and whatever else you do is up to you.

The USA spends more public money on health care than most other rich countries but has the worst health care systems in the wealthy world. It makes absolutely no sense. A lot of countries have varyingly successful universal health care systems.

Thank you for your comment! You’ve raised an important point about universal healthcare and how it’s implemented in many Western European countries. Let me (as a western-European myself) offer a libertarian perspective on this model and explain how it differs from the approach discussed in the video. 1. The Western European Model Yes, many Western European countries have universal healthcare systems funded through taxes or mandatory contributions. These systems aim to ensure that everyone has access to treatment regardless of income, and they’ve achieved some impressive outcomes. However, there are key trade-offs: High Taxes: These systems often require significant tax burdens on the population, which can disproportionately affect middle-class and lower-income earners. Long Wait Times: Universal systems frequently deal with inefficiencies like long wait times for non-emergency care, rationing of treatments, and limited access to cutting-edge therapies. Lack of Choice: Patients may have fewer choices in providers, as the system centralizes decision-making. While the Western European model works in many contexts, it’s not without its challenges. 2. The Libertarian Critique Libertarians argue that while universal systems aim to provide healthcare for all, they can stifle innovation, reduce efficiency, and create bureaucratic inefficiencies. The alternative libertarian approach seeks to achieve many of the same goals (access to care and affordability) but through decentralized, voluntary, and competitive means. 3. How a Libertarian System Helps Everyone, Including the Lower Class You mentioned that this approach may not work for the lower class. Let’s address that: Lower Costs for Everyone: By reducing government interference, encouraging competition, and fostering price transparency, a libertarian system would significantly lower the cost of healthcare. This makes care more affordable for everyone, including lower-income individuals. Voluntary Assistance: Private charity hospitals, mutual aid societies, and community-funded clinics can step in to provide care for those who cannot afford it. Historically, such models have worked effectively before the rise of government welfare programs. Innovative Insurance Models: Libertarian systems encourage flexible insurance options like health savings accounts (HSAs), subscription-based care (e.g., direct primary care), and tailored coverage plans. These options allow individuals to pay for what they need rather than a one-size-fits-all approach. Economic Growth: By reducing taxes and regulations, libertarian systems can drive economic growth, resulting in higher incomes and better access to care for everyone, including the lower class. 4. The Problem with Mandatory Contributions Requiring everyone to pay a share of their income to fund healthcare may sound fair, but libertarians argue that: It removes personal choice and autonomy by forcing individuals to fund a system they may not agree with. It creates inefficiencies, as funds are routed through bureaucracies rather than directly to providers or patients. It can discourage innovation, as the centralized nature of universal healthcare often prioritizes cost-cutting over breakthroughs in care. In contrast, a libertarian system empowers individuals to decide how their money is spent, ensuring greater efficiency and alignment with personal needs. 5. Universal Access Without Universal Control Libertarians don’t oppose universal access to healthcare but believe it can be achieved through voluntary means and market-driven solutions. By decentralizing healthcare and empowering individuals, we can address the inefficiencies of both the current U.S. system and tax-funded universal models.

@Freedomnomics this is the most ChatGPT ass reply I’ve ever seen in my entire life

@Freedomnomics - every item you mention under " The Problem with Mandatory Contributions" is what we in the USA already experience. Our median tax rate is only 1.5 percent less than in Norway who has universal healthcare. We get taxed every time we leave the overpriced dwelling we are paying for when we purchase anything. Our Health Insurers dictate who you can see, and what treatment you are going to get. We routinely wait months to see a specialist for a critical item and are overprescribed medications as a salve that only function to treat the problem rather than cure it.

​@@airgauge should have been expected from this slop content. dude literally used ai for the thumbnail, wouldn't be surprised if this guy uses ai for multiple other parts of the creation process.

Thank you for your comment! Let me address the differences and explain why libertarians often view large charity hospital systems as a preferable alternative to government-run healthcare: 1. Flexibility and Adaptability Charity organizations operate independently of government bureaucracy, allowing them to adapt more quickly to the needs of the communities they serve. They can focus on specific local challenges, experiment with innovative care models, and avoid the inefficiencies that often come with one-size-fits-all government programs. In contrast, state-sponsored systems tend to be rigid, slower to adapt, and prone to inefficiency due to centralized planning. 2. Accountability and Efficiency Charity hospitals rely on donations, which means they must maintain a strong reputation and demonstrate that they use resources effectively. If they waste funds or fail to deliver quality care, donors will pull their support. This creates a natural incentive for accountability and efficient use of resources. Government-run programs, on the other hand, are funded through taxes regardless of performance. This lack of direct accountability can lead to mismanagement, waste, and lower-quality care. 3. Voluntary Funding vs. Taxation Charity systems are funded voluntarily through donations, while state-sponsored systems require taxation. For libertarians, voluntary funding respects individual choice and avoids forcing people to pay for services they may not agree with or use. By contrast, taxation for government programs can lead to resentment, inefficiency, and the misallocation of resources, particularly if funds are diverted to administrative costs or unrelated projects. 4. Competition and Innovation Large charity organizations compete with other charities to attract donors and patients, fostering innovation and efficiency. This competition can drive better outcomes, more affordable care, and creative solutions to healthcare challenges. In state-run systems, competition is often absent, leading to stagnation, lack of innovation, and fewer incentives for improvement. 5. Localized Solutions Charity systems can be tailored to the specific needs of low-income areas, addressing issues like cultural differences, specific health challenges, and local economic conditions. State systems often apply broad policies that may not work well in every region, particularly in diverse countries. 6. Helping Without Coercion Charity systems embody the principle of helping others voluntarily, which aligns with libertarian values. People who want to support healthcare in low-income areas can choose to donate to charities they trust, ensuring their money directly benefits those in need. State-sponsored systems, by contrast, use coercion (taxation) to fund healthcare, which some libertarians argue undermines individual freedom and the voluntary spirit of helping others. Charity hospitals are better in contexts where efficiency, flexibility, and innovation are crucial. They allow for localized solutions, reduce bureaucratic inefficiencies, and empower individuals to voluntarily contribute to causes they care about. While state-sponsored systems aim for universal coverage, they often come with trade-offs like higher taxes, less choice, and inefficiencies.

​@FreedomnomicsThis answer feels so chat gpt

@stickjak true. And it repeats its Main Point over and over again. L Take on His part

Thanks

Thanks

Yeah, definitely

Yes.

Thank you for your comment! I understand your concerns, and they raise important questions about how private courts would function in practice. Let me address each of your points from a libertarian perspective: 1. "If you haven't entered an agreement with anyone...what would you do?" Private courts would rely on pre-established norms and contracts within a community or marketplace. Many libertarians envision systems where individuals or communities voluntarily subscribe to legal and arbitration frameworks that are well-known and trusted. This would function similarly to how we rely on insurance companies or other third parties today for protection and enforcement. For those who haven't explicitly chosen a court, established social norms or competitive legal providers could step in to mediate disputes. Just as nobody opts into the state's legal system directly yet is still subject to it, private legal systems would also have widespread frameworks to ensure everyone is covered in some way. 2. "Having both parties agree on a private court is impossible." In practice, agreeing on a private court is not as difficult as it seems. Businesses and individuals today routinely agree on arbitration clauses in contracts without even thinking about it. For cases where no prior agreement exists, multiple systems can coexist where neutral arbitration services mediate disputes. For example, if two parties are in conflict, their respective legal providers have an incentive to resolve disputes through a neutral third-party arbitrator because their reputation and trustworthiness depend on fairness and efficiency. Failure to do so would push clients to competing legal providers. 3. "If a criminal kills somebody...there is no incentive for any court to get involved." Libertarian systems often emphasize restitution and accountability over punishment. If a crime like murder occurs, private enforcement agencies and courts would have a vested interest in resolving the case for several reasons: Reputation: Courts and enforcement agencies would compete for trust and efficiency. Successfully resolving serious crimes enhances their reputation and attracts more clients. Insurance Models: Victims could be insured against harm, and their insurance providers would have an incentive to ensure justice is served, as it affects their own profitability and customer satisfaction. Social Pressure: Communities have a strong interest in maintaining order. Even if a victim has no immediate advocates, a community-backed legal provider or insurer could pursue the case to uphold trust in the system. 4. "This system only benefits capital, not people." Libertarians argue that free markets are better at serving people because they incentivize innovation, competition, and efficiency. Under a state-run system, courts are monopolized, often slow, and lack accountability for their inefficiencies. Private courts, on the other hand, would need to serve people effectively to remain competitive. Monopolistic state-run courts often disproportionately harm the most vulnerable through inefficiency and high costs. 5. "What happens if someone is left without representation?" Even in a state-run system, not everyone receives proper representation. In a libertarian framework, mutual aid societies, community-funded legal providers, or even charity organizations could step in to ensure access to justice for those without resources. History shows that before the welfare state, mutual aid societies were highly effective in providing safety nets and services for individuals in need.

@Freedomnomics I appreciate the reply !

I appreciate your support!

Thank you!

Thanks for your support

Thanks!