3 ms·

>You're okay with a society where people die on the street because they didn't have enough wealth? I didn't take a position on whether or not I'm okay with a s

>You're okay with a society where people die on the street because they didn't have enough wealth? I didn't take a position on whether or not I'm okay with a society where people die in the street if they don't have enough wealth. All I said was that people who can't afford to buy health insurance need charity, whether that charity is public or private. The market is not going to help them. Attempting to fit that round peg into a square hole is going to cause a lot of issues that are very obvious to predict, in addition to all of the issues that are less easy to predict. >How much money you have isn't a determinant of the moral worth of your life Neither is anything else. The 'moral worth of your life' is fundamentally an opinion, not a fact. >So why do consider it as a relevant detail in the allocation of healthcare? Because that's how we allocate most goods and services, and it does a fairly good job at it. >Why should the obese, smoking trust-fund kid get the heart bypass but the obese smoking poor guy not? That's a pretty complicated question that comes down to an individual's own priorities and that individual's assessment of the potential effects of various alternative policies on the attainment of various goals.

rland 8y ago
>people who can't afford to buy health insurance need charity, whether that charity is public or private. The market is not going to help them. Attempting to fit that round peg into a square hole is going to cause a lot of issues that are very obvious to predict, in addition to all of the issues that are less easy to predict. So, a free market is ineffective at allocating resources in healthcare. Unless we redefine healthcare to mean "care for people who are not sick," which does not really make it healthcare at all, does it?
- sDlEzAtyoNAz 8y ago
  >So, a free market is ineffective at allocating resources in healthcare. It doesn't suspend reality, that's for sure. If you don't have the resources to pay for your own healthcare, and don't have the resources to pay someone else to pay for your healthcare, then you are going to have to get someone else to volunteer their resources for it, or you're going to go without. >Unless we redefine healthcare to mean "care for people who are not sick," which does not really make it healthcare at all, does it? Plenty of sick people, or people who become sick, are perfectly capable of having their healthcare needs met through the market. There are many, many people who have enough money to buy health insurance, even if they have some chronic conditions and therefore would need to pay someone a lot more than a healthy person would to cover their health care expenses. If your standard for effectiveness in allocation of resources in healthcare is that no one's ability to get health insurance is affected by their current health status, then yes, the market is going to be ineffective by your measure. If your standard includes, for example, having financial incentives for people to limit their own use of health care services, like how we have financial incentives for people to limit their use of basically every other resource out there (e.g. houses, cars, land, anything else that costs money), to ensure that resources are left available for other people to use, and you don't want to deal with heavy-handed government approaches to that problem, then by that standard, a health insurance market is very effective.
  - rland 8y ago
    By that measure, then, the extent to which sick people are covered simply comes down to how much "charity" healthy people are willing to volunteer. Sticker price for my child's medication is $1000 for 4 weeks' supply. I require it to keep him from dying. How much are you willing to forfeit for my cause, charitable neighbor?
    - sDlEzAtyoNAz 8y ago
      >By that measure, then, the extent to which sick people are covered simply comes down to how much "charity" healthy people are willing to volunteer. That is reality. If you can't afford something yourself, then you're going to have to have other people pay for it for you, or else you won't get it.

rland 8y ago

>people who can't afford to buy health insurance need charity, whether that charity is public or private. The market is not going to help them. Attempting to fit that round peg into a square hole is going to cause a lot of issues that are very obvious to predict, in addition to all of the issues that are less easy to predict. So, a free market is ineffective at allocating resources in healthcare. Unless we redefine healthcare to mean "care for people who are not sick," which does not really make it healthcare at all, does it?

sDlEzAtyoNAz 8y ago
>So, a free market is ineffective at allocating resources in healthcare. It doesn't suspend reality, that's for sure. If you don't have the resources to pay for your own healthcare, and don't have the resources to pay someone else to pay for your healthcare, then you are going to have to get someone else to volunteer their resources for it, or you're going to go without. >Unless we redefine healthcare to mean "care for people who are not sick," which does not really make it healthcare at all, does it? Plenty of sick people, or people who become sick, are perfectly capable of having their healthcare needs met through the market. There are many, many people who have enough money to buy health insurance, even if they have some chronic conditions and therefore would need to pay someone a lot more than a healthy person would to cover their health care expenses. If your standard for effectiveness in allocation of resources in healthcare is that no one's ability to get health insurance is affected by their current health status, then yes, the market is going to be ineffective by your measure. If your standard includes, for example, having financial incentives for people to limit their own use of health care services, like how we have financial incentives for people to limit their use of basically every other resource out there (e.g. houses, cars, land, anything else that costs money), to ensure that resources are left available for other people to use, and you don't want to deal with heavy-handed government approaches to that problem, then by that standard, a health insurance market is very effective.
- rland 8y ago
  By that measure, then, the extent to which sick people are covered simply comes down to how much "charity" healthy people are willing to volunteer. Sticker price for my child's medication is $1000 for 4 weeks' supply. I require it to keep him from dying. How much are you willing to forfeit for my cause, charitable neighbor?
  - sDlEzAtyoNAz 8y ago
    >By that measure, then, the extent to which sick people are covered simply comes down to how much "charity" healthy people are willing to volunteer. That is reality. If you can't afford something yourself, then you're going to have to have other people pay for it for you, or else you won't get it.