3 ms·

"The first criteria means the incentive is to get as many students enrolled as they can, " "but the second one means that no one will enroll if the school's qu

"The first criteria means the incentive is to get as many students enrolled as they can, " "but the second one means that no one will enroll if the school's quality falls off." that statement needs to be qualified, I think. something like "no one will enrol if the school's quality falls markedly below that of its (also private) competitors" It doesn't need to be the best, just good enough that parents who live in its catchment area have no incentive to travel further to a different school. "Hospitals work for care when you have enough time to decide and can look up average costs and results. Certainly not appropriate for car accidents or gunshot victims, but it works if you're getting a early-stage tumor removed and can afford to wait a week." heh. thats a pretty specific use case. On an almost entirely unrelated note, it would be interesting to see "hospitals" focused on single purpose delivery....literally birth, or early stage tumors etc.... I bet there would be savings available if certain kinds of treatments were treated along a production line.

Armisael16 11y ago
Both of these examples do rely on the non-existence of a local monopoly, which I would expect the government to enforce. I'm not advocating a government-free environment here; there would also presumably be rules about the minimum quality of education. It's worth noting that charter schools have done very well in DC. I think you're underestimating the amount of work done in hospitals that can be scheduled ahead of time - there really is a ton of it, especially for older folks. Not all hospital visits are to the ER. Also, single purpose hospitals would be a bad idea - what if you're delivering a baby and the mother starts bleeding profusely? They'd all need to have their own ER (and the attendant facilities). You'd really just have specialized hospitals, which already exist.
- bandushrew 11y ago
  " single purpose hospitals would be a bad idea - what if you're delivering a baby and the mother starts bleeding profusely?" you would clearly need to provide immediate care, but then move them on as soon as possible to a general purpose hospital. Here in NZ we already do something like that specifically for birth - mothers have the choice of using a midwife and having a home birth, and the midwives move the mothers on to the hospital only if problems present.

Armisael16 11y ago

Both of these examples do rely on the non-existence of a local monopoly, which I would expect the government to enforce. I'm not advocating a government-free environment here; there would also presumably be rules about the minimum quality of education. It's worth noting that charter schools have done very well in DC. I think you're underestimating the amount of work done in hospitals that can be scheduled ahead of time - there really is a ton of it, especially for older folks. Not all hospital visits are to the ER. Also, single purpose hospitals would be a bad idea - what if you're delivering a baby and the mother starts bleeding profusely? They'd all need to have their own ER (and the attendant facilities). You'd really just have specialized hospitals, which already exist.

bandushrew 11y ago
" single purpose hospitals would be a bad idea - what if you're delivering a baby and the mother starts bleeding profusely?" you would clearly need to provide immediate care, but then move them on as soon as possible to a general purpose hospital. Here in NZ we already do something like that specifically for birth - mothers have the choice of using a midwife and having a home birth, and the midwives move the mothers on to the hospital only if problems present.