Thanks for your thoughts.
"Mr. Koerner apparently thinks that trauma medicine would be best served by a socialized approach, I strongly disagree."
No. I didn't say that. I doubt that anything is really best served by socializing it. I am observing that such a system would be massively less socialized that it is now, and having lived in a socialized system, I know what people like about it, and why de-socializing the system, which is what this is a proposal to do, relative to our current situation, is so difficult.
This is not an article about the best kind of healthcare system (obviously). It is about what is the most that could be practically gained for liberty as a matter of political strategy. If there is a way to make more liberty a political reality by moving 90% (or 50% etc.) in the right direction, surely it makes sense to think about where the concession would have to be made to make that happen.
I never said that this was a panacea. I said it was an option that could get average Americans thinking in our terms about liberty principles and the free market in an important area where we (liberty movement) have made absolutely no influence on policy so far.
We can keep repeating our ideals. And we should have them. But I am more interested in making a material difference to liberty in this country. No point being right in theory if unable to make an impact in practice.
Maybe I don't have the best idea... But how about we have a discussion with the goal of policy that a) gets govt out of our lives in a big way and b) could win majority support?
I also agree that the biggest problem would be the creeping definition of "emergent". But our one defense against that would be to have the country see how effective the freemarket is in delivering non-emergent healthcare, so that people say "It's working well as it is"... just as they are happy not to have govt involved in food distribution, despite the existence of foodstamps...
Want DP delivered to your inbox daily? Subscribe here: