Again, this logic is so flawed. This is like me chaining a 40lb kettlebell to your leg and then saying "See! You lost the race! You must suck at running!" Getting the ACA through at all was a foot in the door. It was a starting point. It sure as hell was better than giving up and going back to having nothing. Even calling it a "failure" isn't fair. 16.4 million people have health insurance that didn't have it before. Now, I guess to you those are people who are just "entitled to other people's services and products".
But until Libertarians (and Republicans) actually come out and suggest that these people lay in the corner and die, they're going to go somewhere. These are the people who were going to emergency rooms because they had a cold. Then when they couldn't pay, they went to the hospital financial advisors, showed their lack of income, and got it written off. That is the reality of what was happening and what would still be happening without ACA.
As for free market healthcare, I actually talked about that in my response in the Gary Johnson thread before I even read this one. So, see my thoughts there.
My biggest concerns are Johnson's belief in a free market system in areas where "goofs" are not acceptable. He's talked about healthcare and how we need competition and a legitimate marketplace.
The problem is, that generally leads to people cutting corners to reduce their costs as much as possible so their profit can be as large as possible. So, as much as he can declare "government healthcare is insanity", having a system that equates to direct from China goods on eBay is much, much worse.
And it's one thing to say "make the prices competitive". But eventually, you hit a wall where the question is "what about people in poverty who get sick?" and the answer is "Well...you're fucked!" To me, Libertarianism feels like Darwinism politics. It's survival of the fittest. And if you can't cut it, your evolutionary line just dies off because that's for the betterment of the species anyway.
Oh, but wait...he thinks the states should handle it themselves. Cool. So, you get states who feel sympathetic of people in unfortunate situations, that offer healthcare options...everybody in need moves to those states...the states get overloaded...the system fails...and Libertarians get to gloat "See! See! We told you government fails at everything." How is that any less rigged?
Perhaps we should make it clear that healthcare is not a right. It is an entitlement or a positive right. A negative right would be something like freedom of speech or freedom to defend oneself. A right does not infringe upon your freedom. A positive right or an entitlement does, as it must be taken from person or a group and given to the other. Therefore while I agree that the intent of universal healthcare is a kind one it actually hurts the very people it is supposed to help.
Now for companies cutting corners. This is acceptable as the hospitals provide a service for which it must receive something in return. It is like an exchange of goods at a local supermarket or taxi ride. Both are not rights and therefore no one is obligated to do anything unless its agreed by both parties.
Libertarian philosophy can be interpreted as Darwinism but that would be wrong, instead it is about maximum freedom and responsibility for oneself. The people who cannot take care of themselves are again not entitled to services of others. Yet, prior to government intrusion many were taken care of free of charge or for a small cost. You can do the research yourself and see that prior to 1960s many were cared for in private and non profit institutions. Today we see the same ranging from organizations such as Saint Jude and large drug companies who hold experimental trials. There are many other examples where people provided kindness but are now barred due to regulations. I think therefore people need to think hard before asking for continued government intervention.
Now in regards ACA. ACA is a failure as it was marketed as a solution to rising prices and instead it did nothing to combat that. Prices instead rose and people are losing insurance, I myself chose to no longer get coverage due to a 40% price hike. So old and sick people in, young and healthy out. Using a similar example we can say that Activision chose to release COD Ghosts which turned out to be shit because the developers rushed the product instead of polishing it for another year. Perhaps a valiant effort for their efficiency but still a shit game.
States can go ahead and provide a healthcare service (which I am against) but you say they can get overloaded. Well in that case they can probably need to come up with better laws where healthcare is provided to the residents only or after a certain income threshold is met. Countless ways where they can make it work. If they choose to just give it away then why would anyone be surprised to the failures of such a service? Its like if Uber decides to provide only free rides and then be surprised they are not making any profit. Its not rigged, its basic economics.