I am clearing out links, so here are two quotes on a libertarian persuasion.
From Jane Galt (about media coverage of the Hillary/Obama foreign policy debate:
It's not really my business, since I don't think anyone will ever describe me as progressive or (outside of Britain), liberal, but I don't find this surprising, or even necessarily bad. Progressives/Liberals are possibly on the cusp of a political resurgence. It seems perfectly natural that they should spend more time worrying about how to cement their political coalition, then what to do when they have power. This has massive drawbacks, of course, since it leads to a lot of flailing when you finally get your hands on the reins. And it's maddening if you're the kind of journalist who cares more about policy than the political horse-race. But if you don't get the power, you'll be left with a shiny set of policy prescriptions gathering dust on your mantle.
In other words, you could end up as a libertarian. (Emphasis mine.)
LOL. Sad, but true.
From Cafe Hayek (about going through passport control at JFK):
In light of my recent experience -- which isn't unusual -- at JFK, can anyone give me a plausible reason why I should be optimistic that government would adequately staff (and maintain - remember Walter Reed!) its hospitals and medical clinics? With the same general set of incentives facing bureaucrats who now supply "passport control" facing bureaucrats who would supply medical care, it's a childish fantasy to imagine that people needing medical care would not encounter unnecessarily long queues when seeking government-supplied medical care.
Since I know that at least 20 people are going to jump on me and scream "NHS! NHS! They do just fine in England," here is what I have to say to that: Bollocks.
And private health insurance is so unbureaucratic and swift. It is at least efficient (at denying medical treatment).
I am not an advocate of government-supplied healthcare (as opposed to universal health coverage), but two points
(a) you should never reference the Daily Mail if you want to be taken seriously, and
(b) the story you link to is nothing to do with rationing healthcare or employing too few doctors (it's about the fall-out from a monumentally badly-implemented attempt to change the way junior doctors are recruited to something faintly resembling the US "'match').
There may be evidence you could cite to support the contention you quote (although IMHO the contention is far too simplistic, particularly that delightfully question-begging word "unnecessarily") but that DM crap ain't it.