[ExI] Health system, again

Lee Corbin lcorbin at rawbw.com
Wed Apr 9 04:51:48 UTC 2008

Alex writes

> Anywhere that there is an interface between two
> organisations which charge each other for a service
> or product, there is wastage.

That's an over-generalization. Some times a good
deal of harmony between organizations whose
separate actions make a good fit is achieved.

> This is true of any commercial bodies such as in a
> private health system and even in fully publicly
> funded systems such as a national health service.
> In the case of national services, this is usually done
> to bolster inadequate budgets, but also because
> many people in the system get bonuses of some
> kind which they try to maximise.

It all depends on what the incentives are in each
organization for each individual. The profit motive
does tend to naturally make private companies
more efficient than government ones, (though
every rule has exceptions, of course).

> There is always someone skimming off the cream
> at these interfaces and it is fully accepted.
> For some reason we don't like the idea of paying
> for someone else's health cover,

You mean, I may not like the government coming to
my door, and---essentially---holding a gun to my
head to extort money for someone else's health
care.  (I don't mind so much when they come by
extorting money for national defense, if it really is
true that the alternative would sooner or later be
a take-over by some even worse government.)

> Smokers being a prime example. But we have
> no problem paying for the CEO's new yacht
> and a box full of Cuban cigars.

No one forces you or anyone else to pay any
particular CEO what he or she gets. The stockholders
make those decisions (at least in principle) and often
they make dumb decisions. But no one is using force
(at least up to the point where the government/corporate
collusion isn't in effect).


More information about the extropy-chat mailing list