[devilshaircut]

This isn't the metric you are looking for, but I believe the basis of this argument hinges on the proposition that financial need for medical expenses varies from demographic to demographic. I believe this is trivially demonstrated (statistically and from a common-sense standpoint) by looking at different age segments. Older people (baby boomers come to mind now) certainly do need more healthcare than younger people as a product of aging. Citation from 2008: http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/12/05/why-does-us-hea...

Does that mean they would deserve a greater financial allowance? That is for the person designing the policy to decide; the article suggests no. I offer no opinion on this.

My main question is ... having read the article, I don't actually see the libertarian argument here at all. It seems to say it is simply "more libertarian" than what we currently have (with supporting arguments like "smaller government", "cheaper overhead", etc.) - but ultimately, the spirit of this proposal doesn't seem to be in line with these values at all.

[lutorm]

It seems to say it is simply "more libertarian" than what we currently have ...

How is making something more libertarian not in line with libertarian values? Basically half the article seemed dedicated to explaining why this is a change in the direction libertarians would want.

[devilshaircut]

It really isn't with respect to libertarian values in particular; all I am saying is that in a given scenario regardless of Ideology A, a watered down form of Ideology B that is closer to Ideology A does not necessarily represent the values of Ideology A - it is just closer on the spectrum.