4 ms·
It's worked pretty well for things like universal healthcare, in those countries that value it and continue to fund it. Maybe the idea is designing an efficien
by truckerbill 8y ago
It's worked pretty well for things like universal healthcare, in those countries that value it and continue to fund it.
Maybe the idea is designing an efficient bureaucracy that prevents the agents acting within it from corrupting it.
I think making clear the mutual benefits of eudaemonia is a way we can progress towards more equality.
- tomp 8y agoYou don't actually need the government to run/fund the healthcare to fix it. You just need it to fix the obvious market failures. E.g. in the US that would be, making hospitals publish prices and preventing employers from funding health insurance, mostly.
- truckerbill 8y agoHow do you deal with cartels? Also, to whoever downvoted, doing so to otherwise relevant comments you disagree is part of the issue being discussed in the article, don't you think?
- tomp 8y agoWhat kinds of cartels? In general, I'm assuming the same as in other industries... Are there big cartels in other insurance markets, like home, car and life insurance?
- waqf 8y agoPre-existing conditions is another market failure. Not being in a position to shop around when you need emergency treatment is another. And the cartel activity whereby hospitals charge one price to insurers and a different, much higher, price to individuals is one too.
- tomp 8y agoNot sure if pre-existing conditions is a market failure, seems like a market success to me. Otherwise people would skip insurance and only get insured after they get sick (adverse selection). However, unknown pre-existing conditions should probably be covered (and if they're not, I agree that's a market failure).
- waqf 8y agoI agree you can't be insured against conditions you already know you have. But I think that means that at the moment you are diagnosed with the condition, your current insurer should be liable for future costs that arise from that condition. Because your future expected healthcare costs, and hence also your future expected free-market-priced premiums, went up at that moment — that's a loss you incurred, and you should have been able to (choose to) insure against the risk of incurring that loss. The problem is that insurance products you can buy don't cover that risk (and people have to rely on other dodges to keep their premiums reasonable, like insurance pooling) — and that's market failure.
- ardy42 8y ago> Not being in a position to shop around when you need emergency treatment is another. That's a BS solution, you don't shop around when you need emergency medial treatment, because you're in the middle of a medical emergency. You might not even be conscious. And lets say you're a weirdo who spent hours researching ahead of time, chose the "best" ER, and etched your choice onto one of those medical alert bracelets. That does you no good when you're away from home, or even just across town. Yeah, there are certain cases where market-based healthcare reforms could probably do a lot of good (especially around outpatient and elective stuff), but "the market" and "letting the market work" are not the solution to all problems.
- waqf 8y agoYou're here attacking something which in no way resembles what I was saying. After puzzling over your comment for a few minutes, my best guess is that you are unfamiliar with the expression "market failure" and badly misinterpreted it. But maybe it's not that, and something else went wrong.
- ardy42 8y agoOh, sorry. You're right.