Skip to main content

A Question for Single Payer Advocates:

Are you against monopolies? I suspect the answer is yes. You're clearly a fiscal liberal. Monopolies are bad. Prices are too high, quality of output and innovation suffers, etc. Then why do you support monopoly in the health care industry? How is it any different from monopoly in telcom, in oil, in air travel?

Awaiting your responses.

Comments

Mat
Think about it this way: we just discovered that the bureaucrats who run Homeland Security didn't actually keep real case files on the Gitmo detainees. We have a country that accepted the idea that the way to fight a flexible tactical organization like Al Qaeda was to build the largest bureaucracy ever housed under the American government, staff--by the way--with lots of outcasts from other departments.

This is exactly the recipe that liberals believe will bring the country effective health care.
Anonymous said…
Don't you know monopolies are an inevitable outcome of libertarian capitalism? We should be asking you this question.
Anonymous said…
Bob:

I'm not against monopolies. Not natural monopolies, at least. I am, however, against government mandated monopoly. I'm against the government prohibiting business that it doesn't control. I'm against creating monopolies where they wouldn't have come into existence on their own. Because they wouldn't have.
Brian Miller said…
monopolies are an inevitable outcome of libertarian capitalism

Not really. In libertarian capitalism, government creations such as corporations, patents, trademarks, restrictive regulations, etc. wouldn't exist.

It's those government-created tools that allow monopolies to form and thrive. In fact, no monopoly in history has ever emerged without being closely allied with, and protected by, government.

PS -- one of the funniest things I hear from the left in defense of regulations is "without government, who would protect us from corporate predation?!?!" Without government, there would be NO CORPORATIONS, which are themselves a creation of the state that endow certain people with special rights -- such as the right not to be sued personally for activities undertaken as a corporation -- in exchange for payments made to the state!
Delaware Watch said…
Your question rests on a faulty premise. No one for single-payer universal health care says that private health insurance should be outlawed and should not exist. They say that government should provide health insurance to everyone as a right.

Just because Social security exists doesn't mean that IRA's and annuities are illegal and don't exist.
Anonymous said…
Dana:

Then I'm apparently missing the meaning of single payer. I was always under the impression that the government was THE single payer in question.

Popular posts from this blog

A Libertarian Martin Luther King Jr. Day post

In which we travel into interesting waters . . . (for a fairly long trip, so be prepared) Dr. King's 1968 book, Where do we go from here:  chaos or community? , is profound in that it criticizes anti-poverty programs for their piecemeal approach, as John Schlosberg of the Center for a Stateless Society  [C4SS] observes: King noted that the antipoverty programs of the time “proceeded from a premise that poverty is a consequence of multiple evils,” with separate programs each dedicated to individual issues such as education and housing. Though in his view “none of these remedies in itself is unsound,” they “all have a fatal disadvantage” of being “piecemeal,” with their implementation having “fluctuated at the whims of legislative bodies” or been “entangled in bureaucratic stalling.”   The result is that “fragmentary and spasmodic reforms have failed to reach down to the profoundest needs of the poor.” Such single-issue approaches also have “another common failing — ...

Libertarian National Committee Deathwatch Part 1

As the LNC continues to lurch towards collapse, with the latest news of mass layoffs at HQ, I've decided to begin tracking those things leading the national party to irrelevance, even as state and local parties gain power. As news, rumors and rhetoric break out, I shall chronicle them in this ongoing series at Delaware Libertarian. Organizations approaching failure have a number of characteristics. One of the most striking is renunciation of their purpose and effort to reinvent themselves as a "me-too" provider of services in the marketplace. In this, the LNC has been on a collision course with destiny for a while now. Recently, for example, it hired Republican Party web site developer TerraEclipse to redesign the LNC web site . Terra created a web site very similar to those of the clients it brags most about -- far-right Republican conservatives like Tom McClintock and BJ Lawson. A quick look at the web site they built for the LNC is instructive. The tagline on the ...

The disturbing decline of the Delaware blogosphere: a very unfortunate Around the Horn (even if it's not Friday)

I've noticed a change in my own blog-checking habits over the past several weeks, and I don't know if it's just me or the reality of the last month of a divisive political campaign. I automatically used to check out Delawareliberal first and several times a day, because it was where I could find edgy, thought-provoking, and (dare I say it) funny banter going on. These days visit several other spots first, and my visits to DL are both shorter and less engaged. Why? Because the combination of invading neo-con commenters with the stridency of some of the major contributors has led to such pleasant exchanges as a post dedicated to labeling another blogger racist by donviti, whose own sense of provocative humor is generally so far out there that he makes John Belushi doing Samurai bartender on the SNL look positively pro-Asian. Or I can find Delawaredem and jason periodically spewing the idea that anybody who is not a liberal or progressive Democrat is somehow a non-American,...