: But surely in this case, under the present system as it operates in the good old U.S of A ('Capitalism' makes me cringe)
(is that because the word has been so poisoned and misrepresented?)
: the doctor's freedom of action is again infringed. The doctor may want to operate (let's just say 'out of the goodness of his heart') but is restrained by the system thusly; if he operates for free he is using time he may otherwise have used for a paying rhinoplasty patient. She needs to feed her children, philanthropy (under the present system) won't pay for this.
Or any other - the cost of feeding her must be borne by someone whichever system you care for and however much the 'goodness' of her heart motivates her to do it for "free".
: Society suffers in two ways; those in greatest need of aid are less likely to get it and those most willing and able to give it are restrained from doing so.
Under any system, see above.
: Libertarians are so concerned with being forced in to philanthropy that they restrain the capacity for individuals to give.
See above. I find it astonishing that people point out the, in this case, doctors need to provide for her own existence forcing her to charge patients. Regardless of who charges whom , if the doctor is to exist someone must foot the bill. Then whom?