Comment: Neither of those are my premises

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: Several faulty premises here (see in situ)

Robin Koerner's picture

Neither of those are my premises

1) Of course govt does NOT give us our rights or our lives. The point was that, if you ask most people, directly saving someone's life when they are bleeding to death is prima facie consistent with "securing the right to life", as specified as the role of govt in the Declaration of Independence.

2) Under the system, as I said explicitly, you lose no healthcare choice. "...if you don't like the government's catastrophic coverage, you can still keep your own private policy."... You could also go to any doctor at any time. You could specify that in the case of an emergency you would not be helped by the govt. Also, since all non-emergency care would be free-market - unlike now - you can see any witch doctor whenever you want, and you'll have an incentive to shop for value and you'll pay a price that is set by the market. Indeed, one of the points of the proposal would be to give that choice affordably in a free market to people who don't have it now.