Libertarians have it right on health care-not Barack, Hillary or Johnny.

First of all, I'm sorry. I didn't mean to call you close-minded. I'm just really tired of everyone posting debates about how their ideology is so much better than everyone else's. And it really came off as arrogant when I saw all of these debates posted by you about how much libertarians are better than everyone else. Anyway. -Poor's health care I like the school analogy. It's very good at explaining your position. however, it works for my side better. Why? Because we have both public schools and private schools. You're proposing that we only have private health care, and you're assuming that I'm proposing that we only have public health care. Not the case. I'm arguing froma pure mixed economy standpoint. If we have the government provide free health care ut allow private industry to continue (like the school system), then we get the best of both worlds. The public health care system will allow those who can't afford health care to attain it, and the private health care system will keep standards up. -Regulations Once again, you haven't given me an example of these regulations. You simply say that they're doing all of this bad stuff without actually saying what they are. I can't refute this argument until you give solid examples of regulations. Furthermore, how is the state not accountable to the people? In case you didn't realize, we're the ones who determine who stays in office. You say there's no incentive, but re-election is oe oif the biggest incentive there is. So, if they do something tat the majority of th popualtion doesn't like, it won't last long. politics are governed by synonymous rules as economics. Combining the two keeps each in check, and gives us the best of both worlds. -FDA But you're still resting on the assumption that this free market alternative will actually do it's job. Historically, when a company is unregulated, it serves it's own interests, not the interests of the consumer. The main point here is that I'm not willing to let free market forces determine hat is safe and waht isn't. I don't trust it. Having a mixed economy with government regulation works much better. however, if you're arguing that we should have both, I might be sayed on that one point. However, that's still leaving up the safety of certain products to the free market. -The free market historically doesn't work. You've never seen this? Industrial revolution, anyone? The worker and consumer became so abused by corporations during this perio because everyon was so dead set on laissez-faire economics. It wasn't a matter of monopolies,e ven. It was a matter of a de-regulated economy. Once again, have you ever read "The Jungle"? And we're not necessarily talking about the Swedish system>. I simply put it in there because you're claiming that it's tougher there to stay alive, yet they have a longer life expectancy (a point you haven't refuted). What I'm disagreeing with you is that your free market system is leaving too much up to chance. A mixed eonomy is always the best option: it allwos economic and politics to check each other. And I'd like to make clear that I'm not supporting a monopoly of the government. Sorry, but if you're trying to argue against that, you should've made your topic more specific. And I'd like to refute one of your points. You talk about people dying waiting in line. But who's to say that these lines won't exist under your system? We still have a scarcity of resources. We still have a scarcity of funds. We still have a scarcity of time. UNDER BOTH SYSTEMS. The problem of not being able to serve everyone on time exists under both sides. You cannot count it for either the PRO or the CON. And now you're simply saying that deducing taxes solves everything. What? That does nothing to provide anyone with health care.