Matthew, isn't the purpose of the LP Blog to help convince liberals and others to support the LP? Perhaps, it would be best not to insult the people you're trying to woo.

Instead, what about educating liberal readers a bit on the history of how health insurance and employment became tied together in this country. Maybe talk about alternatives, like better tax breaks for people who purchase their own health insurance?

The original democratic party platform is probably more in line with libertarianism than the republicans. Unfortunately, nowadays it's easier to find a republican who wants liberal social freedom than it is to find a democrat who wants to be fiscally conservative with our tax dollars.

Instead, what about educating liberal readers a bit on the history of how health insurance and employment became tied together in this country.

Mike could you expand on that, or at least provide a link so I may read up on it myself. I do not know the history about that subject.

The Maryland law was clearly wrong and the judges ruling was correct, however most knowledable Libertarians have no love for WalMart. WalMart habitually intimidates land owners who happen to own property that WalMart wants by demonstrating that they can and will influence local governments to use the power of eminient domain on their behalf.

Libertarians are against the abuse of corporate power backed by government force. Ending that practice as well as corporate welfare and corporate abuse of the legislative process is my top issue in my race for Texas State Senate, District 14.

Robert "Rock" Howard
http://rockhoward.org

hunkpapa:

Briefly, it was like this.

During World War II, with much of the work force in Military, there was a massive labor shortage in the United States. As with all things in shortage, the price of labor, i.e. wages, began to rise. In response, the Federal Government enacted wage controls. With wages capped, and companies unable to attract labor with higher wages, they had to circumvent the wage caps by offering increased benefits. At this time, employers started offering health insurance as a way around the wage caps. Unfortunately, once the genie was out of the bottle, it proved impossible to get rid of the health insurance after the wage controls were removed, so here we are today in the present sad situation. So as you can see, 60 years later we are still paying the price for the stupid policy of wage controls.

hunkpapa, what Mark B. said. :-)

When you think about it, it's very strange to have your health care coverage depend on your employment. You've got someone who views you as a cost on his accounting ledger deciding what your coverage options will be.

Imagine, as one example of a different way of doing things, that we let any one who purchases his own health insurance to take a full credit off of his income taxes. Libertarians have been proposing this idea for years, but I've seen non-libertarians like Barbara Boxer picking up on the idea.

I might be misinterpreting this, but are you guys -opposed- to companies providing health insurance for their employees? That seems absurd. If the company wants to provide that, why shouldn't it be allowed to do so?

Furthermore, I think private business providing health insurance options is the best way to achieve that ideal of "universal health care" without relying upon the federal government. In the marketplace, companies want to make their product as inexpensive to themselves as humanly possible, but they also recognize that they need good employees. Offering health plans is a way to make work for them more attractive, as opposed to a similar job that might pay a little more but offers no insurance.

I also don't think it's strange at all to have your employer determine your coverage. At least you have daily interaction with that company. With the government you are lost in a sea of misunderstanding and inefficiency. If your employer is granting health benefits (via an outside insurance company), you are able to speak with someone who knows something (or at least should) about coverage plans that isn't trying to sell it to you, which is what happens if you go straight to the insurance provider. People should ultimately have their own choice, but I think private business allows you to have that choice while providing a good situation should you choose not to get your own insurance.

I think Matthew's post was completely fair in the scheme of politics, even with trying to acquire people from the Left and Right. How many posts on the blog have attacked Republicans or Democrats? Conservatives have been the target of a great deal of attacks (some legitimate, others not so much.) As someone coming to the LP from the Right, these kinds of statements may have irritated me, but they also encouraged me to rethink my positions. And more often than that, I came to realize that the LP position is more in line with what I believe in. In that sense, attacking the liberal view is a way of showing its flaw. Besides, it's not like he made some ad hominem attack on all people of the Left. THAT, to me, would have been unproductive.

I'm not opposed to companies providing health care for their employees. Offering a good medical package is a great way for a company to attract employees. It makes more sense at the career-oriented, long-term employment end of the job spectrum than for temporary, casual, or temporary jobs.

What I am opposed to is the government skewing our "system" towards tying the quality of the health care one gets to how good a job one has by offering better tax incentives to corporations than to individuals.

I also think we could be more creative in finding ways to provide everyone with good health care if we start thinking outside the "it's an employer's responsibility to provide health care" box. (Of course, nationalized single-payer insurance is thinking outside that particular box, too; but that's a whole 'nuther discussion.)

Marcus Brutus:
I might be misinterpreting this, but are you guys -opposed- to companies providing health insurance for their employees? That seems absurd. If the company wants to provide that, why shouldn't it be
allowed to do so?
_________________________________________________
Marcus, what we're opposed to is government forcing companies to provide health insurance. The companies are free to provide any benefits they choose or not provide any they choose. What you negotiate as your pay (whether it be a salary or benefits) is between you and your employer, the government should have no interest in that, including the nonsense of minimum wage.

Marcus Brutus:
Furthermore, I think private business providing health insurance options is the best way to achieve that ideal of "universal health care" without relying upon the federal government.

_________________________________________________How about everyone providing for their own health? You don't expect your employer to pay for your auto insurance do you? How about your homeowners insurance if you own a house? And why should any of these be mandatory? If you choose not to have insurance, that is your choice, and you will reap the benefits of not spending your money on it, or suffer the consequences if you choose not to buy any and end up needing it.