You're changing the subject to the author and not the idea. If that were something worth doing, I could simply state that Milton Friedman disagrees with Hayek and states the opposite and that that would be proof of my point. But that wouldn't make sense too. What one person says, even if that person is someone like Hayek or Friedman is no proof of something. These men were logical men and logic dictates that we must look at facts. The fact is that government intervention or nationalization of services that can be regulated by free markets results in high prices and poor quality, compared to a free market system. We indeed are probably not going to agree on the subject, but the issue is even more fundamental: The thing is that I have no objection with you living your life the way you stated. You want to live your life in a system which has government dealing with healh services? Fine by me. I wish you the best. The problem starts when you believe that you can force me to be a part of that. And that is the fundamental problem with this. While I have no objection to your views and choices, provided you don't attempt to force me to be a part of it, the only way to apply what you are stating is by forcing me to be a part of it. Best luck to you too!
I agree with the sentiment you express that we should all be able to speak for ourselves. I have certainly attempted to do this, as I'm sure you'd agree. Separately, I would also note that Friedman, in his 2001 essay "How to Cure Health Care", advocates some government involvement in public health (he calls it "universal catastrophic insurance"). So neither Hayek nor Friedman suggest that a completely government-free, market-based solution would be viable. I think that's rather telling. Well, when you're a part of a particular society, you effectively agree to a contract with your fellow citizens. This inevitably forces you to obey seemingly arbitrary rules, some of which you may disagree with and may find limiting to your personal liberty (I can offer you lots of examples). So, like it or not, the majority already forces you to be part of all sorts of things, some of which may not be to your liking. I don't know why the subject of our discussion is any different.
The fundamental point of the subject is if it is supposed to be handled by government or not. Government is brute force, there is nothing more to it. The only areas in which it must be part of, are areas that have no way of dealing with the subject but to force something. That means that government is and always will be an expedient, not a solution. That being said, the less you use it, the better. That is even more valid when considering results of government intervention(high prices and poor quality). High prices and poor quality in something such as healthcare will result in unnecessary deaths, suffering and/or permanent damage to people's lives.
%% Exactly; they need a lot of ads. Rememeber when all the lawyers said ''OH we cant do ads, too professional'', what a change a bunch of ads make.LOL-true
The Flint Water Disaster Shows Why We Need Markets https://mises.org/blog/flint-water-disaster-shows-why-we-need-markets
I never claimed that our healthcare market is based on how much someone has contributed. It obviously is not. I also never claimed that the 31 year old drug addict should die (although perhaps society would be better off if he did assuming that he and his family are unable to fix him). The debate is who should pay for it. If his family simply paid for his expenses, that would be great...no burden placed on the rest of society, no consumption of finite resources that could be allocated to better causes. As far as the 81 year old scientist, anyone should be able to get insurance for some price. Just as it would be unreasonable to expect ATM Tesla puts to have the same premium as ATM JCP puts with same expiration, it's also unreasonable to expect a healthy 23 year old to have the same risk as a healthy 81 year old. The good news is that this won't come as a surprise. It's not like any of us think that we are immune to aging so we can prepare for increased health costs later in life. We all have decades to plan and prepare for it.
Congratulations you have just identified Healthcare as an area that requires government to take charge!!! Nicely done.