Given the recent announcement of a new, long term plan for the NHS it seems like an opportune moment to revisit the topic of universal healthcare. The essay below is a new version of a previously published piece, with some sections revised and elaborated, while figures and references have been updated.
Universal Healthcare – an Economic Disaster
By Duncan Whitmore
“Universal healthcare” (that is, an alleged “right” to “healthcare” provided in some form by the state) is a mainstay of social democratic thought – so much so, in fact, that the UK’s NHS is taken as a given, with any kind of proposed healthcare reform couched in terms of improving “our” state-funded health service rather than ever considering whether it should exist in the first place.
However the consequences of universal healthcare are grave indeed, including spiralling costs and ever increasing numbers of sick – pretty much the effects of the welfare state in general. This is without even considering the ethics of forcibly confiscating the money of one person to benefit another, although this essay will focus on the economic aspects of what is, in effect, the socialisation of medicine. Read more
In a recent conversation with a conservative (with a small ‘c’), I do not think I made myself sufficiently clear. While discussing drug re-legalisation (for, the War on Drugs is in no way part of the British constitution), it became clear that we disagreed; my friend is opposed to the re-legalisation of drugs and I am in favour of it. However, as I was rather tired, I didn’t bother to make a proper case for drug re-legalisation then and there. I feel I ought to do that now, otherwise I’m no libertarian.
Here and here.
We all know what we think about these matters. The “war on drugs”, like the “war on terror”, is a statist excuse for extension of surveillance, control, occupying-army-style-policing, and the general “choice-editing” of ordinary humans’ paths of action, by the Political Enemy-Class.
Perhaps the invention of actors and theatre is the problem? And politicians are really actors with too much power?
I wonder if there’s a corelation between the keeping of “power dogs” and Labour Rotten/Pocket Boroughs?
A Pit-Bull a day keeps the MP at bay.
Somebody, somewhere, may begin to take such suggestions seriously one day.
Most libertarians have for a long time stated that the sale, use and possession of all drugs ought to be decriminalised. You can go either on the absolute objectivist argument that a human being’s body is his/her own, not to be interfered with by Statists. Or you can merely refer to the increased order and social utility gained by not having all the associated secomdary crime that surrounds the illicit dealing and supply of drugs at very high prices.
It is most unlikely that the UK’s political parties will be advocating anything like this any time soon. The generalised Puritan-Enemy-Class view of “drugs”, and indeed any other way of gaining simple individual or group enjoyment such as beer or wine or sex, still lies too far to the fascist Left for quick change.
I will really, really try to find the time to biophysically-deconstruct this fully-published nonsense, at some time.
But I will have to have pre-drafted the Libertarian Alliance Christmas message first, which is needed for the party on 22nd December at the National Liberal Club, London.
And I’ve really only just begun, and in a war, you have to focus on strategic objectives. Or else, you die.
The government appears to be in the middle of having a hissy-fit with some of its “drugs” “advisers”. I wonder if it wants people to get high on some drugs but not others, for the financial gain of particular covens of dealers who deal in one sort but not the other. Wouldn’t put it past this lot to have a handle in one.