That is false. Ayn Rand Libertarians, to name one kind, quite often reject all such governmental claims to power over free capitalists and entrepreneurs. I don't think you've made a factually accurate statement on this thread. You have instead recapitulated several of the ignorant and misinformed and wrongheaded claims characteristic of Tea Party supporters. My working assessment is, therefore, that you are getting your "information" from standard Tea Party media support sources. These sources compare poorly with physical observation, in reliability.
Like I was saying, watch this video : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tIo4vQ1RKGc Obama himself in the video talks about his gradual plan to Socialize medicine and eliminate private insurance. Your arguement is destroyed. And you were saying ?
Ask any true Liberitarian. I don't get my information from Tea Party media support sources. I really don't now any.
You seem confused. "Employer coverage" and "private insurance" are not synonymous. I daresay most health economists--right and left--would like to see employer-based health insurance come to an end. That doesn't mean private insurance ends, that means you choose your plan yourself and bear the costs yourself. You buy it in a marketplace resembling the new heath insurance exchanges (created by the new law) from private companies. That notion has nothing to do with "socialized medicine."
Or read what they write, for better accountability. I have. There are several different kinds of "True Libertarian", though - you get different answers, depending. There aren't many other sources for that "information". Life's too short. Get a transcript, make an argument.
Somehow this response doesn't surprise me. Maybe this will persuade you to watch the video : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tIo4vQ1RKGc It's only 3 min. long, and it only has "right-wing" democrats in it !, except for a little of Jonny Depp and a couple other actors for a couple of seconds.
Spin? Here's conservative economist Milton Friedman discussing the subject: The tax exemption of employer-provided medical care has two different effects, both of which raise health costs. First, it leads employees to rely on their employer, rather than themselves, to make arrangements for medical care. Yet employees are likely to do a better job of monitoring medical care providers—because it is in their own interest—than is the employer or the insurance company or companies designated by the employer. Second, it leads employees to take a larger fraction of their total remuneration in the form of medical care than they would if spending on medical care had the same tax status as other expenditures. If the tax exemption were removed, employees could bargain with their employers for higher take-home pay in lieu of medical care and provide for their own medical care either by dealing directly with medical care providers or by purchasing medical insurance. Removal of the tax exemption would enable governments to reduce the tax rate on income while raising the same total revenue. This hidden subsidy for medical care, currently more than $100 billion a year, is not included in reported figures on government health spending. Extending the tax exemption to all medical care—as in the current limited provision for medical savings accounts and the proposals to make such accounts more widely available—would reduce reliance on third-party payment. But, by extending the hidden subsidy to all medical care expenditures, it would increase the tendency of employees to take a larger portion of their remuneration in the form of medical care. Oh my god, Milton Friedman wanted to eliminate private insurance and replace it with socialized medicine! Because that's clearly the alternative to the employer-based system. I take it you're not familiar with Wyden-Bennett?
Get a transcript, make an argument, be accountable - I'm not screwing around with youtube videos, Rorschach blots, or your kid sister's bad vibes about Obama.
Why is this response so predictable ? It wouldn't surprise me if you did watch the video, and seeing that it proves my point, you say something like this rather than admit you're wrong.
