For clarity, I actually consider myself part of the 'libertarian left' as a general rule. I am generally in favour of both civil liberties for everyone and state programs for those that need assistance. The state will always exist regardless of what my anarcho-capitalist friends believe, and I think that is essential when considering at least somewhat 'realistic' politics.
I haven't been able to closely follow the national health issue, but I really think it ought to be implemented. I watched my own mother struggle (and, eventually get denied again and again) for the hysterectomy operation that saved her life. Unfortunately we had to play the credit card/bankruptcy game for her to have the operation, but she is happier in monetary debt and alive than either still suffering or dead.
I realize the greedy monopoly that exists within the confines of many private health insurance companies, and it enrages me, being a person who holds some fairly 'radical' perspectives on the way medicine and society would ideally co-exist. I don't necessarily think that a state-run option would be much different in the rate of its denial of claims, but I do believe it would at least have the individual's monetary status in mind when the decision is made. There is no real financial gain in denying a state-based claim, since its funding ideally comes from the people themselves.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2009-08-15 10:07 pm (UTC)I haven't been able to closely follow the national health issue, but I really think it ought to be implemented. I watched my own mother struggle (and, eventually get denied again and again) for the hysterectomy operation that saved her life. Unfortunately we had to play the credit card/bankruptcy game for her to have the operation, but she is happier in monetary debt and alive than either still suffering or dead.
I realize the greedy monopoly that exists within the confines of many private health insurance companies, and it enrages me, being a person who holds some fairly 'radical' perspectives on the way medicine and society would ideally co-exist. I don't necessarily think that a state-run option would be much different in the rate of its denial of claims, but I do believe it would at least have the individual's monetary status in mind when the decision is made. There is no real financial gain in denying a state-based claim, since its funding ideally comes from the people themselves.