Natural solution to the tyranny problem is reducing the costs or reducing the market size. New York Times and USA Today are available nationally, though, and could compete with local papers.
Fergus falls daily journal how to#
Abstraction, but that product has to choose how to target itself. In more extreme examples, like daily newspapers, maybe one in each major city. Radio industry, 20 stations on the dial, big enough city has lots of choices. Others with similar preferences to mine help me, but those who do not share my preferences don't hurt me. If fixed costs are large but not huge then it's not enough for me to want something for the market to supply it. How many people out there affects choices. Tyranny of the majority is a choice made by the government in those cases. Post office, by contrast, or public schools, are different kinds of goods and different levels can be received. Only one level of army protection (whether privately or publicly supplied). For some goods, whatever level is provided is what is received by everyone. But markets also are subject to a similar tyranny of the majority, though not for tie color. By contrast, political process is subject to Mill's tyranny of the majority. If you have unusual tastes, market doesn't provide the goods. Do markets work as well as people think? We can only get what we want if a lot of people want what we want. What a wonderful way to make informational asymmetry even worse. There are dozens of other studies out there to prove the same point.Īs for the willingness of the “average” taxpayer to part with more income in exchange for the promise of a universally accessible system of care, I think that says more about the auction value of political rhetoric than the taxpayer’s perception and measurement of value-for-money. Is it possible that most of us just need the services of professionals who are average rather than Cadillacs, and that we would also be better off paying Prius prices rather than Cadillacs-for-all prices? Painful and humbling, but yes. Is it possible under government-sanctioned monopoly regulations to err multiple times and still practice? Amazingly, yes.
Fergus falls daily journal professional#
Robyn Dawes, a former president of the American Psychological Association and accomplished researcher, published an excellent work called House of Cards, in which he debunks the relevance of professional regulation on healthcare quality. The obsession with payer identity (apparently a trichotomy between state, insurer, or me) is also a great way to ignore the more costly and politically entrenched issue of professional regulation. This includes–and let this be settled once and for all, please–the fact that Americans actually pay less for medication, because the higher price of their patented medications is easily offset by the very low cost of their generic medications, which are produced by a highly competitive and efficient industry. Most people also do not recognize that there are some very good things about those parts of US healthcare that are truly competitive. Most Americans (and Canadians) don’t know that competition between American health insurers is severely limited by interstate trade laws, that labor supply is articially constrained by professional regulation (and in other countries, but that doesn’t matter), that principal-agent/public-choice conflicts incentivize adminsitrators and politicians to overspend on technologies that drive costs at a rate far beyond productivity growth in healthcare, and on and on. Soon others joined in with her, until I started pointing out some of the same flaws that Prof. I remember sitting in the staff room reading the NEJM article in 2005 when a doctor (an American) came in, read the title over my shoulder, and immediately began crowing about the superiority of the Canadian system. I’m a hospital administrator in Canada, though I take a very dim view of the social-insurance model.
0 kommentar(er)
