8 ms·

Both arguments are valid at the same time. People do absolutely shop around to skip waiting lines in state-run systems or save money by getting private treatmen

by giobox 9y ago

Both arguments are valid at the same time. People do absolutely shop around to skip waiting lines in state-run systems or save money by getting private treatment cheaper (UK citizens getting cheaper IVF in Spain is a common one I'm familiar with), but it's also sometimes true that certain treatments or medications that have been made available in one State that might not yet be certified for clinical use in another. New stem cell based therapies (the merits of which I have no idea...) in some South American nations is one example of the latter.

iainmerrick 9y ago
That's true. I still don't see the connection to self-driving cars, though, and the idea that regulations "come at a cost and that at some point the costs can become prohibitive". GP is concerned about "regulatory capture", but the UK/Spain example you gave is about states being faster or slower to allow access to certain medical techniques, not corporations exploiting the system to lock in their market dominance.
- smokeyj 9y ago
  The point about regulatory capture is secondary to the increase in cost. But there are patients going from high cost to low cost countries (linked below). There's also "big pharma" that is using IP regulations to limit what choices consumers have. I realize IP is another can of worms but it's still an example of regulation that is having the exact opposite of the desired outcome. I would totally be for "sane" regulation, where autonomous driving components can be inexpensively tested and certified. I fear the more likely outcome will involve keeping costs prohibitively high. Considering how many people die on the road each year it would make sense for the state to sponsor a non-proprietary solution. Off the top of your head, in terms of the number of lives that can be saved per dollar - can you think of a better investment? My feelings about autonomous cars is largely influenced by how terrible humans are at driving. At this point I'd rather trust a decent self-driving car than the average human. *https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=16294182 https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=162941...

by giobox 9y ago

iainmerrick 9y ago

That's true. I still don't see the connection to self-driving cars, though, and the idea that regulations "come at a cost and that at some point the costs can become prohibitive". GP is concerned about "regulatory capture", but the UK/Spain example you gave is about states being faster or slower to allow access to certain medical techniques, not corporations exploiting the system to lock in their market dominance.

smokeyj 9y ago
The point about regulatory capture is secondary to the increase in cost. But there are patients going from high cost to low cost countries (linked below). There's also "big pharma" that is using IP regulations to limit what choices consumers have. I realize IP is another can of worms but it's still an example of regulation that is having the exact opposite of the desired outcome. I would totally be for "sane" regulation, where autonomous driving components can be inexpensively tested and certified. I fear the more likely outcome will involve keeping costs prohibitively high. Considering how many people die on the road each year it would make sense for the state to sponsor a non-proprietary solution. Off the top of your head, in terms of the number of lives that can be saved per dollar - can you think of a better investment? My feelings about autonomous cars is largely influenced by how terrible humans are at driving. At this point I'd rather trust a decent self-driving car than the average human. *https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=16294182 https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=162941...