2 ms·

B is not at all a fair description. If a robber has a gun to my head, any transaction is far from voluntary, because there is a risk of death otherwise. If I

B is not at all a fair description. If a robber has a gun to my head, any transaction is far from voluntary, because there is a risk of death otherwise. If I were to have a terminal illness, any transaction would be far from voluntary, because there is a risk of death otherwise. A) Healthcare is negotiated by individuals, fearful for their lives, and with no other options. B) Healthcare is negotiated by bulk, by experts with the authority to set minimum standards of care. Which one will be better quality? Suppose you're running a car repair shop, but your "customers" will starve to death if they can't drive to the closest grocery store 100 miles away. Are you motivated to: 1) provide permanent service that won't break down again, 2) avoid gouging customers, 3) maintain high standards? The obvious answers are: No, No, and No, and that's exactly what happens with everything that's run by any corporation, because it's always a contract between an amoral company and an individual responsibilities. It's rather unsurprising, then, that the USA's healthcare system is of poor quality, and that people can easily be driven into bankruptcy by medical costs.

whatevsbro 13y ago
> B is not at all a fair description. If a robber has a gun to my head, any transaction is far from voluntary, because there is a risk of death otherwise Option B was running healthcare as a business, with voluntary customers. You seem to be talking about something else.
jessaustin 13y ago
If a robber has a gun to my head... This is the third time I've heard this comparison on HN, and it still confuses me. It is probably true that people in poor health are very interested in receiving health care, but that does not equate to being forced to use a particular provider, or to accepting service under onerous terms. The point of running health care like a normal business is that if one physician is overcharging or underdelivering you can just go to a different one. Maybe whatevsbro's experience doesn't match your own, but you can't dismiss it so glibly, and in that experience, patients in a "universal" system don't have the option of choosing.

whatevsbro 13y ago

> B is not at all a fair description. If a robber has a gun to my head, any transaction is far from voluntary, because there is a risk of death otherwise Option B was running healthcare as a business, with voluntary customers. You seem to be talking about something else.

jessaustin 13y ago

If a robber has a gun to my head... This is the third time I've heard this comparison on HN, and it still confuses me. It is probably true that people in poor health are very interested in receiving health care, but that does not equate to being forced to use a particular provider, or to accepting service under onerous terms. The point of running health care like a normal business is that if one physician is overcharging or underdelivering you can just go to a different one. Maybe whatevsbro's experience doesn't match your own, but you can't dismiss it so glibly, and in that experience, patients in a "universal" system don't have the option of choosing.