The reality is that the Republican's and the Liberal Party of Australia exemplify libertarian theories because they are just that, theories. They provide useful insights into directions that societies might like to take and they have done so in many instances over the last two hundred years. However, they ignore basic realities about our nature as social animals and therefore haven't, can't and won't predominate. 

You couldn't be more wrong. Neither parties can trace their philosophical underpinnings to libertarian political economists. Austrian economists abhor the policies of the Republican party and are deeply critical of heroes of both major parties whether it be Lincoln or F.D.R. Sure Thatcher carried around a book or two written by Hayek, but look at the UK both then and now. I disagree with your assessment of Austrian theories being of theoretical value only. In contrast to Keynesians or Monetarists whose ideas dominate political policy making, Austrians do not rely on overly complicated mathematical models that themselves rely on fabricated, simplified assumptions every time they are unable to explain something. When Keynesians refer to "animal instincts" or "liquidity traps" it can be read as "our models don't really resemble the real world but why they don't is in the too hard basket." But our political leaders continue to listen to them because of their appeal to the democratically elected.

Austrian theory is a-priori and fundamentally sound passing real world tests. Whether you had listened to the government appointed gurus like Greenspan or Bernanke or Krugman who only months before the current financial crisis were reassuring us that all was well, they all got it wrong. Their policy prescriptions for government intervention were all a disaster.  The Austrians consistently get it right because they understand how the world works - perhaps because they are entierly divorced from politics. It isn't socialists who understand human nature, it is Austrians and I believe they have successfully proven this time and again.

The reality is that most people couldn't afford the pay the cost of a major healthcare event out of their own pocket nowdays, so you can't really consider them not buying insurance to be a rational choice. It really is just gambling and you might argue that that is their right, but while they would still expect to be treated if they were uninsured when it happenned then I argue that in fact they have an obligation to be insured. I do however think there should be exemptions for people who earn over a certain income level or have enough assets for self insurance to be a credible option. 

No, most can't which is why they should probably buy insurance. You can label not buying insurance gambling but then buying insurance is gambling that the probability of an event occurring multiplied by it's expected cost is higher than the cost of that insurance.  So buying or not buying insurance could be rational or not depending on the individual making the decision. My argument is that the decision should be left to the individual.

Yup, I am arguing that elected governments have the right to make decisions that involve a loss of liberty for everybody in order to achieve a greater social good. Those sorts of decisions are in fact why governments exist and if people don't like that then it that is basically tough. However, I lean towards keeping this intrusion to an absolute minimum and therefore my answer to your second question is that there should be the maximum flexibility for people to choose what type of care they are insured for within the bounds of being insured to an adequate value.

An

I think accusations of me not listening are unfair though I concede that I may not understand you. You pointed out the issue of the unconscious arriving at a hospital not being able to judge the clinic's quality. I pointed out that neither could an unconscious person do that under any circumstances. Your response was that at least with government oversight he would be provided an assurance of a minimum standard. I countered that a free market would also provide regulation possibly superior. Your response was that a free market could not (and never has) provide(d) regulation of medical care. I cited the AMA which is a private foundation whose very purpose was to establish standards and which the US government to this day relies upon to regulate medical care in the US so in essence in a free market in the US the actual regulatory authority may not even change. You also stated that the poor would be vulnerable, and potentially have to put up with dodgy hospitals. My counter was that regulation and public information readily available in free markets would render it extremely difficult if not impossible for such hospitals to operate. I doubt that the existence of dangerous hospitals would be any more prevalent in free markets than the existence of dangerous ocean liners or airlines. 

I am listening it's only that I am not being convinced.

That's the point, under those circumstances they need somebody to make the decision of which hospital to go to for them. If they don't happen to have a significant other to do that then it has to fall to the Government to assure quality, otherwise they are just rolling the dice as to the facility in which they end up.

I can see I am not making myself clear.  You say it has to fall to the government, I say it could be provided by market derived regulatory constraints with possibly better outcomes.  Reducing government control would also remove regulatory burdens that currently prevent nurses setting a broken wrist etc.  Greater access, lower costs and lower waiting times in the absence of government with continued stringent market sourced regulation provided citizen guidance. 

Actually the State government regulate medical care in the United States through their medical boards. The fact that they outsource some of their functions such as medical accreditation to private organisations doesn't mean that the system is a free market one. The ultimate power as to who practices and who doesn't still rests with the government.

Let me be perfectly clear.  My opinion is that the source of the faults in current US healthcare are a result of it not being a free market. 

That statement just defies the facts. There are thousands of examples of how free markets result in poor quality products being delivered to those who can't pay for any better. The old adage that "you get what you pay for" is as true as eve