> In an environment with a level playing field, perhaps charities that provide health care to the very poor and the very sick would be better funded and more effective than the existing government programs.
How is an employer supposed to be cheered by this statement of "libertarian basic" thought on health care? I compete against manufacturers in different countries, and a larger percentage of my gross goes to keeping my employees healthy and their families healthy. If my employees have to take a second mortgage and time off to provide health care for a relative, that clearly will affect productivity, because I cannot fully staff with heartless sociopaths, and wouldn't wish to, besides. I don't see too many charities springing up to help me with my utilities expenses, or office supply expenses. So if the libertarian answer is for me to wait for nonesuch health care charities to materialize from thin air, so that I can adequately compete and bring in US tax revenue and wages to US citizens, then, I am underwhelmed.
Doesn't this statement simply cede substantive discussion about health care to all parties _except_ libertarians? I hope that this is a grossly oversimplified statement of a more realistic libertarian stance on health care.
I would feel more confident in a purely market solution where there was no government enforced medical provider monopoly, and no government enforced pharmaceutical and medical device patent monopoly. I expect to see ubiquitous effective medical charities, legal unlicensed medical providers, and free licensing on all medical patents, and I expect them to descend to earth on the same fiery heavenly chariot.