The biggest problem there is that the current system, which many people believe to be free market health care…

See http://praxeology.net/aotp.htm#1. Partial quote sans links found in original:

The contrast between, say, the Canadian and American approaches is frequently described – by both sides – as a contrast between a “governmental” or “socialised” system on the one hand, and a “market-based” or “free enterprise” system on the other. But the American health care system bears little resemblance to a free market; instead it represents massive government intervention on behalf of private special interests, from insurance companies to the medical establishment. The choice between the American and Canadian models is simply a choice between different two different flavours of statism – each with somewhat different vices, it’s true (e.g., do you prefer higher prices or longer waits?), but ultimately coming down to a matter of the percentage to which control of your healthcare is exercised by people sitting in government offices as opposed to being exercised by people sitting in governmentally-privileged “private” offices – but in either case by ambitious, avaricious apparatchiks who aren’t you.

So what would a libertarian approach to health care policy look like? At a minimum it would have to include:

1. Repealing laws that have the effect of cartelising the medical industry (e.g., the licensure monopoly granted to the A.M.A.), thus artificially boosting the cost of medical care.

2. Repealing laws that have the effect of rendering the labour market oligopsonistic, thus artificially lowering people?s ability to pay for (and collectively negotiate for) medical care.

3. Repealing laws that shift healthcare funds from the 25%-devoured-by-overhead voluntary sector to the 75%-devoured-by-overhead coercive sector, thus decreasing the amount of healthcare that gets to needy recipients.

4. Repealing laws that transfer the power to make medical decisions for individuals from those individuals to centralised bodies, thus increasing the impact and scope of fatally bad decisions and suppressing the competitive signals that allow the identification of better and worse policies.

5. Repealing laws that wiped out the old mutual-insurance systems (basically HMOs run by the patients instead of by corporations) and empowered insurance companies at the expense of patients.

6. Repealing laws that suppress innovation and distribution in the pharmaceutical industry in the name of “intellectual property.”

Until the unlikely day when the Republican Party embraces this program, let’s hear no more of their favouring a free-market approach to health care.

Fascist RomneyCare seems like the most likely practical synthesis in the short term, and thus we should begin any discussion of health care by making common cause with the single payer advocates against it – even though they are being used as the antithesis to our thesis (or vice versa) to arrive at RomneyCare in practice.

Another good one is “Healthcare – brought to you by the same people who brought you the occupation of Iraq!”

Yeah, it was a new one for me. Thanks for helping on that.

I agree with what you’re saying.

For a real CA marriage fix, see this: http://muddythoughts.blogspot.com/2009/06/real-equality-of-marriage-act.html

Of course, the problem with it is that a straight guy wrote it, and the PTB in the movement won’t even acknowledge a real solution because they need it to come from themselves and not some outside source (which is why they went bananas against DPI!).

I guess the reason I had to chime in on this topic, is that the LGBT community is a ripe source of possible “recruits”. There are many LBGT people who are conservative in every aspect of their life EXCEPT that they are discriminated against by their government and society.

The average person self-identified as LGBT are better educated, and have a higher income than those of the average “straight” American.

They don’t care about the “government entitlements” given straight marriage, they just want equality….

They don’t want “hate crime legislation”…they just want the laws we have enforced, no matter what the orientation of the victim is.

They don’t want churches to be forced to recognize “gay marriage”…they just want the churches that will marry them to be recognized by the state. (Until the state stops being a marriage broker and performs it’s only duty…filing legal partnership contracts whether they be straight or gay….

We distributed many WSPQs and many of those stopping by — a surprising number — expressed general support for libertarianism in general .

Where many of my LGBT friends and visitors turn off is in discussion of health care. I find Huge majorities in my LGBT contacts in favor of socialized medicine, regardless of their positions on other issues. In many cases it becomes a deal breaker to stand in opposition to it.

KPBS:
Why Libertarians Are Courting Gays and Lesbians

By Maureen Cavanaugh, Natalie Walsh

The limited area that he did manage worked pretty well, considering.

Russ Verney was the campaign manager, and Shane Cory his second in command. They made the decisions on how the campaign was run.

Lake, as usual, makes no sense whatsoever.

How interesting that you can attempt to slam some one and try to look so innocent. You are the guy with cookie crumbs all over your face while muttering, ‘Me?’

http://www.independentpoliticalreport.com/2009/07/party-secretary-sarah-wires-libertarian-party-of-alabama-convention-report/comment-page-1/#comment-76450

FAIL.

So instead you call me names, and you call me belligerent? Don’t think so.

Detailed documentation? Where? Some blogger on DailyKos lamented that there was no other political parties at LA Pride, but I know for a fact a half-dozen party members manned the Outright Booth there, including me, several officers and staff too. IOW, people can miss booths.

You think I’m belligerent? You haven’t seen belligerent from me, but you sure dish it out in spades.

I am hardly insecure. Ask anybody who actually knows me, of which you thankfully are not and never will be. I am quite secure in who I am and what I believe. And I believe you have no clue in the slightest about me at all.

I think you look in the mirror and see yourself and project it onto me. Hence your own insecurity, bluster, and belligerence and accusing me of it.

You need to reconsider your statements, Don, as they make you look very foolish.

Me, I simply need a cold ice water. All this laughing at you has made my throat dry.

It is you [and a small rogue's gallery of reprobates] whom are not only belligerent, but UNNECESSARILY belligerent!

[For example, I did not ask you if you were concerned about the reform move ment (RIP). I did not ask you to care 'bout any thing but LP inefficiency in the market place of ideas. AND unlike the warped personalities involved THIS IS THEIR STRONG POINT, THEIR FORTE!]

You are the insecure, defensive, beligerant one, as you behavior keeps on spot lighting! Your snide comment [general, indefensible] on GLBT profiles being people’s exhibit one!

And Minnesota? As early as 2003 I contacted them personally on cooperation , endorsements, [THEIR] news items, and was nicely told to ‘play in traffic’ [my phrase] —- “we are a one state party, and we do not even work with other Independence Party…….”