The goal of a healthcare system ought to maximizing the health of the people. The goal of an educational system ought to be maximizing learning.
Perhaps a free market system (used very loosely) with the goal of pursuing profits would, as a byproduct, maximize the health of the people or of learning. I see no evidence that this is the case or that it should be the case. Indeed, in the case of healthcare I have very strong evidence that profit seeking isn't a great motivator.
The U.S. spends by far the most on healthcare as a percent of GDP. It spends far more for certain drugs than socialized systems, has worse health outcomes, and far greater health access inequality.
There is also a moral aspect. It is morally wrong for someone to profit from denying someone else healthcare. Unless a free market system can be devised in such a way that maximizing profit = maximizing healthcare then such a system is immoral. Cartels and cartel pricing come to mind as something that would prevent such a system from ever being successfully implemented.
It is morally wrong for someone to profit from denying someone else healthcare.
In that case, you are an evil person, since you have profited by engaging in activities that don't deliver healthcare to others.
A person with even a basic understanding of economics would attempt to assign utility to human health and then measure whether or not a system is utility maximizing.
Personally I attempt to do this via revealed preferences - use people's choices to infer their values. And many people reveal that they don't care a great deal about health. For example, an obese person feels their health is less valuable than the enjoyment they receive from a cake or pie. Why should I assign a higher value to that person's health than they themselves do?
There's a big gap between someone who does something morally wrong and being an evil person. My income is not increased because I made a decision to deny someone health care. I am not profiting from making decisions to deny coverage to someone. Insurance companies do though. At least, for profit ones do.
My statement wasn't that it is wrong to profit from doing something other than provide health care. My statement is the it is wrong to profit from denying someone care. I have not denied anyone care and I have not increased my income as a result of such denial.
You appear not to understand what profit is and your statement regarding a basic understanding of economics is ironic given this. Your response would have been better without resorting to such a tactic.
Your last paragraph is disconcerting to me. There is much wrong with your position. People do things that are against their long term interests. People sometimes do things they don't want to do. People can be manipulated into doing things they regret. Humans, are by and large, not rational. Part of the purpose of a society is having share responsibilities. To share our burdens. It is sometimes advisable for society as a whole to look out for our long term interests and this is a good thing.
I was defining profit = earnings - expenses, but there is no point in getting into a semantic argument about the definition of profit. (Note that there actually is no standard definition of profit for an individual.)
Lets treat profit as income. Your income is not increased, but your potential consumption is increased every time you decide not to buy health care for someone who might benefit from it. Is this immoral? I'm guessing not.
If an insurance company denies someone care (increasing revenue) and spends the money on perks for the CEO (increasing expenses commensurately, for a net profit of $0), would that be moral?
People do things that are against their long term interests.
So your belief is that you know what is best for everyone else, and their choices should be subsumed to your opinions? Um, ok.
You previously equated doing an immoral thing with being evil. Now you equate my statement:
"It is sometimes advisable for society as a whole to look out for our long term interests and this is a good thing."
with knowing what is best for everyone else. You logic is faulty. I used the word 'sometimes' and this is an important word in the sentence I wrote. I also never used the phrasing that I know what is best. I said society. Your conclusions are not logically supported from what I've written or stated.
You make too many leaps and appear to go from one extreme to the other. There is a huge gap between "let everyone do as they please" to "I know what is best for everyone".
> The goal of a healthcare system ought to maximizing the health of the people.
Everybody disagrees with this. A more plausible statement would be that it ought to offer the best health/price trade-off. But even then only crazy fascists think that would be ideal. Go watch that Sliders episode where the CDC rules America.
> The goal of an educational system ought to be maximizing learning.
Really? Lots of people would disagree. You've avoided the question of what's worth learning, and I'd say it's far more important that an educational system instill a strong work ethic and a sense of morality that I can tolerate.
> Perhaps a free market system (used very loosely) with the goal of pursuing profits would, as a byproduct, maximize the health of the people or of learning.
You have created an impossible standard. No system you describe in three words is going to maximize your utility function, especially not one as absurd as yours. Also the free market vs. non-free market dichotomy is completely silly. With all the government funded research and state schools, you can't say that America's universities are a "free market". But they do have an important free market feature that lower-level public schools lack: choice of what school to attend.
> It is morally wrong for someone to profit from denying someone else healthcare.
I profit by not financing a tunnel through the mountain to the hospital. Sometimes an emergency vehicle takes too long to get to the hospital and this causes the patient to die. How is my behavior morally wrong?
> Indeed, in the case of healthcare I have very strong evidence that profit seeking isn't a great motivator.
I don't think Sliders is a good reference for discussions on health care policy. I don't think you not spending money to build an object causes you to profit. Maybe you are using the term profit in a nonstandard way. It is wrong in every instance for someone's income to increase because they denied health care to someone who needs it.
Your income increases when a road isn't built? Who pays for the increase in your income when a road isn't built? You are not using profit in a standard way.
> Who pays for the increase in your income when a road isn't built?
My employer, who pays me to write software. As we can see, writing software without seeing to it that the road gets built makes me X dollars, but writing software while seeing to it that the road gets built makes me X - Y dollars, where Y is the cost of seeing to it that the road gets built.
If the idea of me being obligated to spend my personal income on this matter makes you quibble about the definition of income and profit, pretend I'm a contractor with an LLC, and my LLC pays for the road. Either way, that's immaterial. I am letting people die by not building that road.
Comments
The goal of a healthcare system ought to maximizing the health of the people. The goal of an educational system ought to be maximizing learning.
Perhaps a free market system (used very loosely) with the goal of pursuing profits would, as a byproduct, maximize the health of the people or of learning. I see no evidence that this is the case or that it should be the case. Indeed, in the case of healthcare I have very strong evidence that profit seeking isn't a great motivator.
The U.S. spends by far the most on healthcare as a percent of GDP. It spends far more for certain drugs than socialized systems, has worse health outcomes, and far greater health access inequality.
There is also a moral aspect. It is morally wrong for someone to profit from denying someone else healthcare. Unless a free market system can be devised in such a way that maximizing profit = maximizing healthcare then such a system is immoral. Cartels and cartel pricing come to mind as something that would prevent such a system from ever being successfully implemented.
It is morally wrong for someone to profit from denying someone else healthcare.
In that case, you are an evil person, since you have profited by engaging in activities that don't deliver healthcare to others.
A person with even a basic understanding of economics would attempt to assign utility to human health and then measure whether or not a system is utility maximizing.
Personally I attempt to do this via revealed preferences - use people's choices to infer their values. And many people reveal that they don't care a great deal about health. For example, an obese person feels their health is less valuable than the enjoyment they receive from a cake or pie. Why should I assign a higher value to that person's health than they themselves do?
There's a big gap between someone who does something morally wrong and being an evil person. My income is not increased because I made a decision to deny someone health care. I am not profiting from making decisions to deny coverage to someone. Insurance companies do though. At least, for profit ones do.
My statement wasn't that it is wrong to profit from doing something other than provide health care. My statement is the it is wrong to profit from denying someone care. I have not denied anyone care and I have not increased my income as a result of such denial.
You appear not to understand what profit is and your statement regarding a basic understanding of economics is ironic given this. Your response would have been better without resorting to such a tactic.
Your last paragraph is disconcerting to me. There is much wrong with your position. People do things that are against their long term interests. People sometimes do things they don't want to do. People can be manipulated into doing things they regret. Humans, are by and large, not rational. Part of the purpose of a society is having share responsibilities. To share our burdens. It is sometimes advisable for society as a whole to look out for our long term interests and this is a good thing.
I was defining profit = earnings - expenses, but there is no point in getting into a semantic argument about the definition of profit. (Note that there actually is no standard definition of profit for an individual.)
Lets treat profit as income. Your income is not increased, but your potential consumption is increased every time you decide not to buy health care for someone who might benefit from it. Is this immoral? I'm guessing not.
If an insurance company denies someone care (increasing revenue) and spends the money on perks for the CEO (increasing expenses commensurately, for a net profit of $0), would that be moral?
People do things that are against their long term interests.
So your belief is that you know what is best for everyone else, and their choices should be subsumed to your opinions? Um, ok.
You previously equated doing an immoral thing with being evil. Now you equate my statement:
"It is sometimes advisable for society as a whole to look out for our long term interests and this is a good thing."
with knowing what is best for everyone else. You logic is faulty. I used the word 'sometimes' and this is an important word in the sentence I wrote. I also never used the phrasing that I know what is best. I said society. Your conclusions are not logically supported from what I've written or stated.
You make too many leaps and appear to go from one extreme to the other. There is a huge gap between "let everyone do as they please" to "I know what is best for everyone".
> The goal of a healthcare system ought to maximizing the health of the people.
Everybody disagrees with this. A more plausible statement would be that it ought to offer the best health/price trade-off. But even then only crazy fascists think that would be ideal. Go watch that Sliders episode where the CDC rules America.
> The goal of an educational system ought to be maximizing learning.
Really? Lots of people would disagree. You've avoided the question of what's worth learning, and I'd say it's far more important that an educational system instill a strong work ethic and a sense of morality that I can tolerate.
> Perhaps a free market system (used very loosely) with the goal of pursuing profits would, as a byproduct, maximize the health of the people or of learning.
You have created an impossible standard. No system you describe in three words is going to maximize your utility function, especially not one as absurd as yours. Also the free market vs. non-free market dichotomy is completely silly. With all the government funded research and state schools, you can't say that America's universities are a "free market". But they do have an important free market feature that lower-level public schools lack: choice of what school to attend.
> It is morally wrong for someone to profit from denying someone else healthcare.
I profit by not financing a tunnel through the mountain to the hospital. Sometimes an emergency vehicle takes too long to get to the hospital and this causes the patient to die. How is my behavior morally wrong?
> Indeed, in the case of healthcare I have very strong evidence that profit seeking isn't a great motivator.
No you don't.
I don't think Sliders is a good reference for discussions on health care policy. I don't think you not spending money to build an object causes you to profit. Maybe you are using the term profit in a nonstandard way. It is wrong in every instance for someone's income to increase because they denied health care to someone who needs it.
Nope, I'm using profit in the standard way. I'm making money by not building that road through the mountain. And people are dying because of me.
> I don't think Sliders is a good reference for discussions on health care policy.
Why?
Your income increases when a road isn't built? Who pays for the increase in your income when a road isn't built? You are not using profit in a standard way.
> Who pays for the increase in your income when a road isn't built?
My employer, who pays me to write software. As we can see, writing software without seeing to it that the road gets built makes me X dollars, but writing software while seeing to it that the road gets built makes me X - Y dollars, where Y is the cost of seeing to it that the road gets built.
If the idea of me being obligated to spend my personal income on this matter makes you quibble about the definition of income and profit, pretend I'm a contractor with an LLC, and my LLC pays for the road. Either way, that's immaterial. I am letting people die by not building that road.