A Libertarian Fixes American Healthcare

[@oliverburns8479]

I would be interested to hear your thoughts on the 2-stream system in Australia. There is a fully public option, funded by the government that is free at the point of service, but with all the drawbacks that come with such a system (limited choice of provider, longer wait times etc.) Alternatively, you can go through the private system, where a provider can claim a fixed government subsidy, but otherwise everything is negotiated between patient and provider. For example, if I go to a GP, the doctor can claim $80 from the government. Some are happy with this fee, but if they think that their time is worth, for example, $150 for that service, then I will have to pay the $70 difference. Or I can find a different doctor. (There are also fairly strict rules about price transparency so that patients can make informed decisions). The benefit of a public system is that it allows access for those who cannot otherwise afford it (or in the case of emergency care, do not have time to consider their options). The private side of the arrangement means that I can shop around for a provider who meets my specific needs, as circumstances change.

[@jazenka99]

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!

[@davidh4374]

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.

[@patternsgrusel2455]

So...His proposal is to have an Organisation in Low income areas where people get healthcare, for fairly Cheap. A charity Organisation...which is large...so...a social programm? Where is this Kind of charity Hospital system better than Just state sponsored stuff?

[@Freedomnomics]

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.

[@stickjak]

​@FreedomnomicsThis answer feels so chat gpt

[@patternsgrusel2455]

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

[@upstanding_citizen]

Is there a country where it was successfully implemented? In America people don't want to go bankrupt because of hospital bills and they don't want to make choices when they are hospitalized. There are different kinds of care and we have various success in different areas in success and some are failing more than others. Currently there is so much fragmentaion and decentralization because the system is primarily managed by private corporations, so it really easy to confuse and screw people over. We need a simple system that can provide different levels of care.

[@Yasmine-n3h]

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.

[@DieWeisseFeder15]

Well done👏

[@Freedomnomics]

Thanks

[@thaicookingwithjoy8555]

🤣🤣🤣🤣 yeah sure

[@Nconstruct]

If you want to make Healthcare better for all but the lower class it is a good approach, and it is way better than what the US has right know. But if you really want a universal health care system it has to be like in western europa. Everybody pays a share of their income, (they never get it but the state gets it) and with this funds the sick get treatment no matter what.

[@Freedomnomics]

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.

[@airgauge]

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

[@jazenka99]

@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.

[@thatonedadjoke42tm]

​@@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.

[@ribery7593]

Healthcare insurance industry propaganda detected !

[@coolenergy5294]

Definitely something to think about.

[@Freedomnomics]

Yes.

[@Chmurekh]

Guys this is a ai channel. check for youreself if you dont belive me