3 ms·
The vast majority of emergency medicine is not emergency medicine, but emergencies are among the most likely things to have a catastrophic impact at the individ
by yummyfajitas 10y ago
The vast majority of emergency medicine is not emergency medicine, but emergencies are among the most likely things to have a catastrophic impact at the individual level.
And this is handled by the high copay, high cap model proposed by RAND, Singapore and myself. You still have not identified any "fundamental economic problems" or misrepresentations of the behavior of the healthcare market.
Unless you're poor or chronically sick.
False - the group studied in the Oregon experiment was poor. Oregon explicitly studied a medicaid expansion. RAND included poor folks too - in fact, one conclusion you can data mine from RAND (if you are so inclined) is that low cost medical care increased certain health problems for poor folks.
(Of course, that result is just as shaky as all the other data mined results.)
You have made it abundantly clear time and again on HN that you do not believe in altruism...
When did I make this clear? Are you confusing my opposition to harmful or wasteful altruism as opposition to all altruism? You are confusing my criticism of bad implementations with opposition to solving the problem.
Concretely: I have no major objection to effective altruism - perhaps something like Singapore's model. I object to wasteful feel-good measures that don't have any measurable benefits, like Obamacare's medicaid expansion.
As for things like maintaining an excess supply of medical pros to handle crises, if that's necessary I don't think it should be provided via random inefficiency. It should be explicitly planned in.
- anigbrowl 10y agoI just can't be bothered to go around this today since we're not going to agree anyway. On altruism, I was thinking of a specific comment you made a while back about being rationally focused on your interests, reproductive ability and descendants (qua biology rather than social attitude, but I think it's consistent with your expressed libertarian viewpoint. I don't remember enough to successfully look it up right now. I think this encapsulates a key difference in our worldview: As for things like maintaining an excess supply of medical pros to handle crises, if that's necessary I don't think it should be provided via random inefficiency. It should be explicitly planned in. I used to think that, but now I favor a little general random inefficiency because we don't know what we don't know. My inclinations are utilitarian, but sadly my ability to predict the future is limited so I systematically distrust my own utility calculus.
- yummyfajitas 10y agoI'm pretty sure I know the comment you are referring to: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10180416 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10180416 Altruism in that comment actually referred to the willingness of an individual to sacrifice personal reward for the cause of white power. I said that I'm not altruistic and am happy to make choices that harm white power in return for personal gain. Also I'm not a libertarian, I'm closer to neoreactionary than to any other identifiable ideology.