A Libertarian Argument for Public Healthcare
I enjoy thinking of things in alternative points of views. This is why I try to meet people of alternative view points and political bents to expand both my mind and my knowledge of other things. A part of this want of learning and expansion of my knowledge would be arguing for the things that one side wants through the eyes of “another” side.
Thus the bane of Libertarians and far right market-worshipers everywhere–public healthcare–can be argued for in their own ideology.
First of, definitions:
- Libertarianism is an ideology focused on the priority that an individual, mostly free of the state or other organizations, will strive for the most gain at his or her own ability/skills, with the compounding benefits of many individuals creating a better, more economically sound world. The minimization or removal of the state is sometimes thought up as a part of Libertarianism but this is only the case in certain strains of Libertarianism.
- Public Healthcare is a form of delivery for health care provided by the state, and is paid for by the greater society (businesses, individuals, corporations, and otherwise). It is a system in place to deliver health care to as many people as possible, regardless of the serviced person’s wealth, social status, or location.
Then my argument:
I would argue that “mostly free of the state or other organizations” should also have the caveat that persons should be free of fate, chance, or non-economic factors on their ability to sustain themselves and be productive. In other words, when someone is struck by lightning and put into the hospital that hospital should do everything in its power to save that person, forgetting about either profit or any other consideration (such as economic output or social status).
- This creates an increased level of opportunity for individuals since they are free from the constraints of devastating, unforeseen catastrophe and can therefor operate more effectively and efficiently. With the understanding that if a person comes down with cancer, loses a limb, or is inextricably harmed, that person can avoid bankruptcy if public health care can be provided, lending financial solvency to individuals when the unforeseen occurs. This is an impetus for innovation, risk taking, and a protection against service-/product-unrelated catastrophes.
- Concurrently with this equalization of individuals good products and services–and future good products and services–can be protected if the holders of those goods/services can be sustained through periods of upheavals where those individuals are pulled from providing those goods/services. This provides a long term stability that is fundamental to engendering a stronger economy and work capital.
Essentially what these two points lightly touch around is the idea that we can remove a variable–of chance–from the equation of individuals succeeding and contributing to the greater economy by providing public health care. Removal of this barrier to innovation and productivity can thereby be a good thing for other markets, as costs associated with people, businesses, and organizations can be reduced so that they may focus on the business of, well, business.
Public healthcare provides stability and efficiency for markets and for people. It removes a variable–of chance–from the equation of the success of people/products/services, allowing for greater competition and success for the general economy. And there we go–a Libertarian argument for public healthcare.