How do Libertarians Feel About Welfare?

Let's look at a specific example: Medicaid. It is basically a "welfare" program that allows doctors to vaccinate children, and be reimbursed by the state for their services.


These children are covered by the Medicaid program. Medicaid is funded through tax dollars.


Do Libertarians think that this program should be abolished?

Let's forget about the guy using foodstamps to buy Lobster meals for a second, and focus on other "welfare" programs

Libertarians would all have a variety of opinions on such topics. They're not a hive mind. Phone Post 3.0

Medicaid is more than just vaccinations for children, it's a massive liability for many states. Are you trying to solely focus on spending that overwhelmingly benefits the public? While I don't find that controversial, a Libertarian could argue that charity could supply the vaccinations, and that people would give more to charity if they were taxed less.

419 - Medicaid is more than just vaccinations for children, it's a massive liability for many states. Are you trying to solely focus on spending that overwhelmingly benefits the public? While I don't find that controversial, a Libertarian could argue that charity could supply the vaccinations, and that people would give more to charity if they were taxed less.
I'm focusing on a specific case because its easier to discuss that a broad narrative on the ideology.


You really believe that charity will cover the billions that are budgeted for Medicaid? Phone Post 3.0

Could be handled more efficiently with private charity. I don't see how it's authorized in the constitution either. Phone Post 3.0

Libertarians think people should fend for themselves. They are against social safety nets.

The problem I have with welfare is the fraud, the cost associated with policing fraud, and the lack of foresight and penalties that deal with welfare fraud.

Other than that, I don't mind helping people that actually need it. Though it could be argued that the program as a whole falls short on any real assistance and basically puts band aids on problems that are better solved in other ways. At least from a long term perspective. Phone Post 3.0

MOAOZINHO - 
419 - Medicaid is more than just vaccinations for children, it's a massive liability for many states. Are you trying to solely focus on spending that overwhelmingly benefits the public? While I don't find that controversial, a Libertarian could argue that charity could supply the vaccinations, and that people would give more to charity if they were taxed less.
I'm focusing on a specific case because its easier to discuss that a broad narrative on the ideology.<br />
<br />
<br />
You really believe that charity will cover the billions that are budgeted for Medicaid? <img alt="Phone Post 3.0" border="0" src="/images/phone/apple.png" style="vertical-align:middle;" /></blockquote>

 

YOu are implying that every one of those "billions" are being spent appropriately, necessarily and efficiently.

 

They are not.

I believe in a safety net.   We have gone far beyond a safety net.

Lots of issues all wrapped up in one. Ideally, go ahead and get the vaccinations. Can't afford it, no worries, It's preventative. Over-billing doctors/Over-paying ins companies/Over-Pricing pharma companies all contribute to how out of hand these programs (and pretty much the same for any government program) get. Human decency has been taken over by greed.

There really is no "correct" answer, as you can find flaws in any scenario. An effort to clean up the program by eliminating waste would be a great start.

attjack - Libertarians think people should fend for themselves. They are against social safety nets.


There are different leanings.



Maybe Anarcho-libertarians think that.



If a perfect Libertarian utopia sprung up overnight, half the population would be in big trouble.   Not terribly practical.



And not all are isolationist.  

Agreed.

"You really believe that charity will cover the billions that are budgeted for Medicaid?"

Sigh... I don't know why I bother posting here. Please read more carefully.

attjack - Libertarians think people should fend for themselves. They are against social safety nets.


If some do believe that, I would bet that an equal amount believe the opposite.



Telling the handicapped, youth or elderly to fend for themselves would be horribly irresponsible. Even in the broad spectrum of "social safety nets", I would personally not mind them provided that they're properly managed and not so easily and willfully exploited. There is no reason for able bodied people to be life long participants on social programs.

draculr - Libertarians would all have a variety of opinions on such topics. They're not a hive mind. Phone Post 3.0
Correct Phone Post 3.0

They think if the government did't hold you at gunpoint and demand 50% of your pay check and with being able to keep your whole paycheck you would be inclined to donate to more efficient private charities rather than inefficient government run welfare programs.

Within reason. Drug testing before any welfare is handed out.

I am not against helping those who truly need help. If you have 8 kids and "can't work" that is not my problem nor should it be. I see no reason to support someone who wants support simply so they don't have to work or because they don't have it as good as the richest person in the country. What makes them think I don't want a handout?

Work for your shit. If you can't work for a legitimate reason (fuck your minor back pain, mine hurts like hell to fucker) then yes, I see nothing wrong with extending some help. When people take advantage of the system to the point where the majority are not working or are taking aid because they can and not because they need to, I have a huge problem with it.

e. kaye - 
MOAOZINHO - 
419 - Medicaid is more than just vaccinations for children, it's a massive liability for many states. Are you trying to solely focus on spending that overwhelmingly benefits the public? While I don't find that controversial, a Libertarian could argue that charity could supply the vaccinations, and that people would give more to charity if they were taxed less.
I'm focusing on a specific case because its easier to discuss that a broad narrative on the ideology.<br />
<br />
<br />
You really believe that charity will cover the billions that are budgeted for Medicaid? <img alt="Phone Post 3.0" border="0" src="/images/phone/apple.png" style="vertical-align:middle;" /></blockquote>

 

YOu are implying that every one of those "billions" are being spent appropriately, necessarily and efficiently.

 

They are not.


I believe in a safety net.   We have gone far beyond a safety net.


I am not implying that at all! In fact, I'm certain that millions are lost through fraud and inefficiency.


But I'm asking for your thoughts on Medicaid in this specific situation. I am not asking about Bill who is on food stamps and buying cases of beer and lobster for meals. Those are easy cases to make decisions on. Should children who cannot afford vaccinations be vaccinated, and covered through the Medicaid program?

419 - "You really believe that charity will cover the billions that are budgeted for Medicaid?"

Sigh... I don't know why I bother posting here. Please read more carefully.

I read EXACTLY what you wrote. You are implying that if Medicaid did not exist, people would donate to charities, which would in-turn cover the vaccinations necessary for children. The people donating to charities would do so because they were taxed less (because of elimination of Medicaid).


Is this not what you stated?


Sigh

Dont know why people respond with nonsense

I am not talking about BROAD welfare handout. Stick to the topic of Medicaid and vaccinations for children. Forget food stamps, welfare fraud, tax evasions, and all other topics.


The topic is the Medicaid program, and how it is used to reimburse providers for services such as vaccinating children.


What are your thoughts (for libertarians)?