
A Libertarian Convert to Socialized Medicine - gnosis
http://andrewhammel.typepad.com/german_joys/2009/12/french-health-care.html
======
jessriedel
"Need a prescription for muscle relaxers, an anti-fungal cream, or a steroid
inhaler for temporary lung trouble? In the U.S. you have to fight to get on
the appointment schedule of a doctor within your health insurance network ...
then have him or her scrawl something unintelligible on a slip of paper, which
you take to a drugstore to exchange for your medicine. ...In France, by
contrast, you walk to the corner pharmacist, get either a prescription or
over-the-counter medication right away, shell out a dozen or so euros, and
you’re done."

Unless I'm confused, this is conflating two issues. Requiring patients to have
a full doctor's visit in order to get a prescription for simple but non-OTC
medicines is logically distinct from single-payer/non-single-payer. If you
require more visits, you will of course spend more money.

------
philwelch
From the guidelines:

"Please submit the original source. If a blog post reports on something they
found on another site, submit the latter."

~~~
lurkinggrue
[http://reason.com/archives/2009/12/07/why-prefer-french-
heal...](http://reason.com/archives/2009/12/07/why-prefer-french-health-care)

~~~
philwelch
Now submitted at <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1184642>

I was going to do so myself but thought it would be better HN etiquette to let
the submitter (or someone) edit the URL here.

------
maxharris
This is a great example of why libertarians are not to be confused with
Objectivists.

Objectivism provides the essential philosophical basis for individualism and
long-term rational selfishness required to properly support political
conclusions in favor of freedom. Libertarians, on the other hand, don't know
or understand the philosophy from which many of their political conclusions
were copied, and are thus susceptible to reverting to political conclusions
that appear momentarily practical, or consistent with altruism (which many
libertarians implicitly embrace).

On top of that, "libertarian" has come to means so many things that it means
nothing - there are libertarians in favor of and against abortion, in favor of
and against anarchy, in favor of and against anti-trust regulation, to name a
few random examples.

Objectivism isn't pervasive enough yet for political change based on it to
occur, and libertarianism is a political dead end (because it's not consistent
with the terrible mixed bag of present-day American values, or with itself.)
So if you consider yourself a libertarian, and you don't like where Welch and
his ilk are heading, I invite you to read Ayn Rand and new scholarly works
that examine her philosophy deeply (Tara Smith's "Ayn Rand's Normative Ethics:
The Virtuous Egoist".)

~~~
ubernostrum
Objectivism is -- literally -- orthodox Marxism with different words filled
into key blanks.

Don't believe me? Try it for yourself:

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=965622>

~~~
lmkg
I'm no fan of Objectivism by a long stretch, but I think that's being unfair
because there's more to the (academic) philosophy than just whining about
parasites. What is fair to say, is that the emotional appeal of Objectivism is
similar to the emotional appeal of Marxism. "You're important because you're
the only one getting any work done around here, and you should kick out those
leeches who suckle on the sweat of your brow" summarizes both the Communist
Manifesto and the Fountainhead. However, the ideal society that Ayn Rand would
erect after the revolution is noticeably different than the one that Marx
would erect. Nonetheless, the similarity of the surface appeal does bear
discussion.

tl;dr I broadly agree with the main point, but I don't want to cheapen it by
letting stand the fact that it is an exaggeration.

~~~
ubernostrum
I'm happy to admit that it's a rhetorical device designed to encourage further
reflection and analysis; back during my philosophy days that was a big part of
what I learned to do (and this is by no means the most outrageous position
I've explained -- that crown probably goes to the day I argued for post-natal
"70th-trimester" abortions as a critique of expansive parental/governmental
rights over teenagers).

But the similarity is beguiling, and points not only to issues in the
statement of Objectivism itself but also to the emotional influence Rand's
youth had on her allegedly purely-rational theories. Both of these are common
enough critiques in actual philosophic circles, but depressingly absent from
"internet Objectivism" (a close cousin of internet libertarianism, another
troubled philosophy).

