3 ms·
The Walmart/Whole Foods analogy is so completely inappropriate to this topic that I would say it's "Not even wrong". The author placed it literally at the heart
by ademup 7y ago
The Walmart/Whole Foods analogy is so completely inappropriate to this topic that I would say it's "Not even wrong". The author placed it literally at the heart of their article (paragraph 5 of 10) and after positing it, concedes "Such a low-cost alternative does not exist for most of medical care." I wish I could say I "see what they were trying to do here" but honestly am too confused by it. Are they seriously trying to clarify basic economics? The prior paragraph was basically "People like having better options when they can afford them".
Don't get me started on them using the Mean(!!!) household GDP of $155,000. (just to clarify: using the mean here dramatically misrepresents the average American because the mean includes billionaires. the median for 2017 was $61,372)
- nerdponx 7y agoThe one thing I don't understand about it is what would be the "Walmart of healthcare" in this example? The author says it doesn't currently exist, but what would it look like if it did? It's also odd to me they stop short of saying it doesn't currently exist because of the regulation/subsidy scenario outlined. It makes me think the analogy is disingenuous in some way. Maybe there are other objections to be had, but that's the one that jumped out at me immediately.
- TheBeardKing 7y agoThe author was using it to illustrate how broken the market currently is: >Of note, there are more than 10 Walmart stores for every Whole Foods store. The opposite is true for medical care as most physicians and hospitals strive for high standards and very few concentrate on lowering costs. That puts things in perspective for a layperson - if 9/10 grocery stores were Whole Foods, the 1/10 Walmart would not be nearly enough to serve the poor population.