[ExI] Healthcare and governments thinking long range
stathisp at gmail.com
Mon Jun 22 07:30:22 UTC 2009
2009/6/22 Rafal Smigrodzki <rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com>
> ### There is not a shred of evidence that government controlled health
> care is better than provided privately, in fact, all reliable evidence
> points the other way (plastic surgery, lasik, Singapore). But, you
> prefer not to see it, and cling to meaningless fakery (international
> outcome comparisons between various flavors of government control)
> that is trumpeted up as evidence. And then you compare us to Marxists.
> Go figure.
Most public health systems won't pay for plastic surgery and lasik
except under special circumstances. In fact, most private health
insurers would not fund unlimited access to plastic surgery either, on
the grounds that it isn't really "health" care.
Singapore has an extensive public health care system. They have means
testing for certain public hospital services:
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_in_Singapore). Hong Kong
also has an extensive public health system. These countries have
traditionally been ideologically committed to the free market. Why do
you think they don't just make all health care completely private? The
answer would seem to be, Because they are pragmatic enough to realise
that at least some government involvement in health care is important.
Similarly with education.
The problem is not so much having a particular ideology as having a
*rigid* ideology, of whatever political flavour.
More information about the extropy-chat