Doctor CamNC4Me wrote:So. I can see why Honor is taking aim at EA's proclamations of being a Libertarian when he repeatedly advocates for socialist policies.
To be fair, I didn't doubt EA is ideologically libertarian. We've had plenty of discussions over the last decade or so that I have a general sense of the outlines of his views. Supporting Sanders plan was so far outside of those outlines it was unlikely that was the case he did support his plan. So I asked. That's what I find funny about chaps here. He is almost certainly operating from a bedrock belief in the value and defense for nationalized healthcare. So instead of just asking, he went about writing a convoluted argument on EAs behalf, then congratulated himself on having been wrong about EAs view of Sanders plan because EA apparently places the current system so far off the spectrum of preferred solutions he would accept any other solution put forward. I doubt that's accurate, either, but whatever.
I'd also like to see the government mandate pricing for healthcare where the consumer actually sees what they or their insurance is going to be charged. I think a truth-in-advertising requirement would actually usher in some sort of market-based competition and self-policing with regard to the price gouging we're experiencing. Medical costs are outrageous, and I don't believe for a second they need to be as high as they are. Perhaps if we cap malpractice lawsuits we can bring care back down to manageable levels. I dunno.
Absolutely agree.
ETA: universal basic income is espoused by certain libertarians on the grounds noted earlier. That being, individual freedom is best realized when the most basic needs are not a consuming concern. So that's not necessarily outside of his being ideologically libertarian. It would require knowing the underlying thought regarding the mechanisms for realizing it to be able to make that determination.