- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
Liberal: Anything which the elected majority* deems as being for the betterment of the whole should be done and any legal coercion applied by the Liberal welfare state is justifiable to that end.
Elected Majority* = The votes that elect a particular party: due to FPTP, a plurality only and 99.9% of the time less than a majority of the population.
Libertarian: Nothing which infringes on individual freedom of choice or market autonomy should ever be legislated by government. All civil legislation must be in accordance with the harm principal.
My question. Is there a way of compromising?
Take Health Care for example.
Libertarianism refutes the need for public health care. They want the right to provide for and pay it free of the interference of the state in an open and free market.
Liberalism calls health care a right and demands not only that EVERYONE pay for it but that ANYONE who circumvents the system or operates outside of the system is in contravention of the legislation and liable to be prosecuted either legally or in the court of public opinion.
There is an ideological blindness at work here. The Liberal can not see where the welfare state begins to intrude on the private lives of citizens and the Libertarians can not see where the state should intrude for the good of citizens.
I can see both.
Is there no room for a system under which as a citizen you could be able to choose whether you want to have your personal health care and those of your legal dependents provided for either through a publicly funded health insurance program or a private one?
Under the ‘public’ system all participants would pay a percentage of their wages toward the service. Ex. In the public system Bob earns $1000/month and 10% ($100) goes toward healthcare. Jim earns $10,000/month and 10% ($1000) goes toward healthcare. If either Jim or Bob get sick they both get exactly the same care. Bob and Jim would use publicly funded facilities and services, if they wanted better service they would have to pay for it or if the services they needed weren’t covered they would have to pay more for it.
Under the private system a participant could pay a market price for what he thinks he needs or comes up with another plan. Ex. Randy earns $1000/month but can, if he decides, pay 25% toward a health insurance plan of his own, put a portion of his pay in the bank to save in case of a health emergency or do nothing and hope he doesn’t get sick. Randy would go to private facilities and his health care would cover whatever he paid for. If he decided not to save Randy would still be treated under the principals of the Hippocratic Oath but would be on the hook for the actual cost of treatment once he recovered or his estate would be garnished in the case of his death
What is wrong with this idea? If the only point that can be argued is that the public system would not be able to support providing health care then:
a. It’s administration is ineffective and should be changed to become effective
b. It tries to provide too much service for to little money and the participants must pay more or expect less
c. The citizenry is not willing to support the ‘public’ system and it should be dismantled
For anyone to argue that EVERYONE must pay into a system, in spite of the obvious failure of that system, just to notionally satisfy the ideological imperative of equality of opportunity is a few fries short of a happy meal.
So this offers the citizen the choice, it also offers governments the opportunity to provide services and develop a ‘just society’.
In the ‘public’ provision of healthcare, the citizen becomes a willing participant in the system. This would be a rational choice made of their own free will. For a middle class or upper class citizen it would speak to their moral citizenship as it would directly benefit the poorer in a society. Of course for the poor it would be (or could be) a no brainer.
I believe that this sort of compromise could be applied to any of these ideological differences, the trick would be to ensure that the government could not/would not renege on the voluntary nature of both the public and private solutions.
As I said before, moderation in all things.
Elected Majority* = The votes that elect a particular party: due to FPTP, a plurality only and 99.9% of the time less than a majority of the population.
Libertarian: Nothing which infringes on individual freedom of choice or market autonomy should ever be legislated by government. All civil legislation must be in accordance with the harm principal.
My question. Is there a way of compromising?
Take Health Care for example.
Libertarianism refutes the need for public health care. They want the right to provide for and pay it free of the interference of the state in an open and free market.
Liberalism calls health care a right and demands not only that EVERYONE pay for it but that ANYONE who circumvents the system or operates outside of the system is in contravention of the legislation and liable to be prosecuted either legally or in the court of public opinion.
There is an ideological blindness at work here. The Liberal can not see where the welfare state begins to intrude on the private lives of citizens and the Libertarians can not see where the state should intrude for the good of citizens.
I can see both.
Is there no room for a system under which as a citizen you could be able to choose whether you want to have your personal health care and those of your legal dependents provided for either through a publicly funded health insurance program or a private one?
Under the ‘public’ system all participants would pay a percentage of their wages toward the service. Ex. In the public system Bob earns $1000/month and 10% ($100) goes toward healthcare. Jim earns $10,000/month and 10% ($1000) goes toward healthcare. If either Jim or Bob get sick they both get exactly the same care. Bob and Jim would use publicly funded facilities and services, if they wanted better service they would have to pay for it or if the services they needed weren’t covered they would have to pay more for it.
Under the private system a participant could pay a market price for what he thinks he needs or comes up with another plan. Ex. Randy earns $1000/month but can, if he decides, pay 25% toward a health insurance plan of his own, put a portion of his pay in the bank to save in case of a health emergency or do nothing and hope he doesn’t get sick. Randy would go to private facilities and his health care would cover whatever he paid for. If he decided not to save Randy would still be treated under the principals of the Hippocratic Oath but would be on the hook for the actual cost of treatment once he recovered or his estate would be garnished in the case of his death
What is wrong with this idea? If the only point that can be argued is that the public system would not be able to support providing health care then:
a. It’s administration is ineffective and should be changed to become effective
b. It tries to provide too much service for to little money and the participants must pay more or expect less
c. The citizenry is not willing to support the ‘public’ system and it should be dismantled
For anyone to argue that EVERYONE must pay into a system, in spite of the obvious failure of that system, just to notionally satisfy the ideological imperative of equality of opportunity is a few fries short of a happy meal.
So this offers the citizen the choice, it also offers governments the opportunity to provide services and develop a ‘just society’.
In the ‘public’ provision of healthcare, the citizen becomes a willing participant in the system. This would be a rational choice made of their own free will. For a middle class or upper class citizen it would speak to their moral citizenship as it would directly benefit the poorer in a society. Of course for the poor it would be (or could be) a no brainer.
I believe that this sort of compromise could be applied to any of these ideological differences, the trick would be to ensure that the government could not/would not renege on the voluntary nature of both the public and private solutions.
As I said before, moderation in all things.