- 15 Oct 2009 06:42
#13199079
...is that they base their arguments on a prejudice that they have about something that hasn't existed in the United States for the past 60 years: a truly laissez-faire health-care market. And as long as they support Federal meddling in the matter, and as long as they support imposing their ideology on everyone else regardless of whether or not everyone else wants it, we'll never know for sure what a modern laissez-faire health-care market would actually look like. We'll never know how accurate those prejudices are; they just assume that their position is the correct one with no evidence to back up this assertion.
The advantage of a libertarian/Constitutional approach - the advantage of state sovereignty - is that the states who want a more active government role in the medical sector would be allowed to have it. Instead of imposing a laissez-faire ideology on everyone, we'd actually be trying out a bunch of different stuff at the same time and finding out the truth about what works best.
But hey, who cares about the truth when you can just call your opponents a bunch of greedy bastards and misrepresent their position by claiming that they support the status quo?
The advantage of a libertarian/Constitutional approach - the advantage of state sovereignty - is that the states who want a more active government role in the medical sector would be allowed to have it. Instead of imposing a laissez-faire ideology on everyone, we'd actually be trying out a bunch of different stuff at the same time and finding out the truth about what works best.
But hey, who cares about the truth when you can just call your opponents a bunch of greedy bastards and misrepresent their position by claiming that they support the status quo?