

Disinvesting In the USA - bensummers
http://www.tbray.org/ongoing/When/200x/2009/11/25/De-investing-from-the-USA

======
stcredzero
There was a disturbing moment for me when a coworker just asked me out of the
blue if I was for this Health Care Reform stuff. She had it all reduced to
"you're taking money out of the pockets of some, and putting it towards the
health care of others." Then when I tried to point out that 1 - that's how the
current system works, and 2 - the disparity in prices shows that the free
market just doesn't work for American Health Care (basic microeconomics) she
just starts talking over me. Jingoism has replaced discourse. American
Democracy no longer works. It's just a doppleganger of its former self.

~~~
kiba
Why would the law of economics work differently in medicine?

~~~
dandelany
First of all, F=MA is a law. Economics is a guess.

Second of all, parent is not claiming that economists' predictions about the
free market system do not apply to health care. He's saying that the field of
microeconomics specifically predicts that in some scenarios, the free market
system just doesn't work very well; that is, the market does not facilitate a
scenario in which market participants efficiently distribute goods/services,
and therefore do not benefit optimally from them. This is called market
failure. Healthcare fits several of the criteria for a failing, nonefficient
market. Namely:

\- Monopolistic competition.

\- Healthcare is a non-optional service.

\- Informational asymmetry - that is, doctors generally have more information
about medicine, as well as about the specific medical state of their patient,
than the patient does.

For more information, see:

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microeconomics#Market_failure>

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_failure>

[PDF]
[http://www.stevereads.com/papers_to_read/uncertainty_and_the...](http://www.stevereads.com/papers_to_read/uncertainty_and_the_welfare_economics_of_medical_care.pdf)

~~~
bokonist
Almost every single "market failure" in the economic literature is really an
opportunity for a business plan.

All Arrow's paper shows is that certain naive structures for health insurance
might not work out so well. But there are plenty of other structures that
might work well. For example, here is the design for a better type of
healthcare company:

\- The company by contract defines that 80% of all premiums must be applied to
reimbursement, the other 20% of revenue pays for administration, marketing,
and profits.

\- As a result, the company cannot profit by denying care. If they deny care,
that money must be spent on another patient.

\- Since the money must be spent by contract, the company will be incentivized
to spend the money in the way that maximizes the total health of the pool, so
that they can attract more customers. The incentives of the insurance company
and the patients are actually aligned.

Unfortunately, in my state, and in most states, the above structure for a
healthcare company is illegal. Regulations prevent it. So I hardly see
healthcare as an example of "market failure" when regulations prevent the
types of business plans that would actually work.

------
andreyf
This decision may be a little short-sighted. I have seen no proof that our
political system ever worked any better in the past. During the Cold War,
America constantly elected those perceived "less Communist", and invaded
countries deemed as communist without much evidence [1], with political
discourse almost completely unrelated to reality, and things turned out just
fine (more or less).

The point about customer confidence stands, however.

1\.
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Fruit_Company#History_in...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Fruit_Company#History_in_Central_America)

------
eli_s
Regarding US healthcare:

The American system is broken and corrupt.

Broken because it denies healthcare to millions who need it or financially
bankrupts others. Healthcare is a basic human right - what exactly is the
problem with having everyone pay a healthcare levy so that universal care can
be provided? I live in Australia and my medicare contribution is ~$300 per
YEAR. I have NEVER paid for a single doctor, or hospital visit in my life -
the concept is utterly foreign to me.

Corrupt because from what I understand big pharma has lawmakers either in
their pockets or by the balls - not sure which.

I hate the 'why should I pay for other people's health cover' line - it's
something you only ever hear healthy people say.

~~~
eli_s
Am I getting down voted by Americans who don't like having their system
criticised or because people disagree with me?

~~~
DanielBMarkham
Beats me, but if you want criticism I'll give it a shot.

 _Healthcare is a basic human right_

I'm unaware of any right that involves making other people take care of me by
producing medicines, providing services, food, housing me, and tending to my
disabilities.

You can certainly argue that a lack of healthcare is a moral problem that good
people solve so that all folks have as much healthcare as is feasible, but to
say it is a right is to start trashing what real rights are, and healthcare,
for all it's importance, is nowhere near being as important as, say, free
political speech. This is a critically important thing to understand.

So I agree that morally something must be done, but I felt you went way over
the top with the language.

~~~
eli_s
"and healthcare, for all it's importance, is nowhere near being as important
as, say, free political speech."

I assume from this statement that you are either a) healthy and/or b) fully
capable of paying for all you and your families medical needs - both now and
in the future.

"I'm unaware of any right that involves making other people take care of me by
producing medicines, providing services, food, housing me, and tending to my
disabilities."

Australian doctors are highly paid. Their salaries are paid by every
Australian tax payer whether healthy or sick. By sharing the burden all of
society benefits.

You would be much more inclined to agree that healthcare is a basic human
right if you were both sick and unable to afford treatment.

The standard of living in Australia is as good or better than in the US. My
medical costs are $0. Regardless of whether I am visiting the doctor for a flu
shot or having life saving heart surgery.

Better systems are possible.

~~~
camccann
A basic human right is not the same thing as a shared moral obligation. The
language of "rights" is often reserved for "categorically permitted acts",
such as the right to think and speak as you wish.

A lot of people are resistant to using the language of "rights" in the context
of "complicated systems that impose duties and burdens on the people who
implement them". Even assuming that it is the duty and obligation of a moral,
prosperous society to provide for the health of its members, many people would
_still_ not term that a right.

~~~
eli_s
Please review your understanding of a human right.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted by the United Nations in
1948, proclaimed that “everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate
for the health and well-being of oneself and one’s family, including food,
clothing, housing, and medical care.”

In 1943, President Franklin D. Roosevelt proposed a ‘Second Bill of Rights’
for Americans, declaring ‘freedom from want’ to be one of four essential
liberties necessary for human security. Roosevelt’s definition of freedom
included “the right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve
and enjoy good health.”
<http://www.nhchc.org/Advocacy/RighttoHealthinAmerica.pdf>

This is also a good read:
[http://civilliberty.about.com/od/equalrights/f/Health-
Care-H...](http://civilliberty.about.com/od/equalrights/f/Health-Care-Human-
Right.htm)

Note that there is no mention of adequate care only for those that can afford
it.

