Jesse Walker | August 30, 2005
Marc Lacey has written an interesting article for The New York Times on Africa's D.I.Y. health insurance plans.
[Via Tyler Cowen.]
Help Reason celebrate its next 40 years. Donate Now!
Try Reason's award-winning print edition today! Your first issue is FREE if you are not completely satisfied.
I wonder if, were clinics here allowed to set their own prices in such a fashion, those without healthcare would band together for such benefit or look for someone else to provide it?
Also from NYT, a clear contrast of public vs. the above private
solution regarding health care for the poor:
"World's poor are crippled by corruption, study finds"
I know, to Reasonoids it's like declaring with a headline that the
sun sets in the west. What I find interesting is that the article
doesn't *clearly* state that the corrupt hospitals are state run. I
would assume and infer that though, perhaps someone else can
clarify this. It is never stated that the patients had already paid
a fee. The author, by this obvious ommission, seems to be trying to
avoid sullying the idea of state provided health care.
I see, reading it again, the hospitals are implied to be "public
services."
It's too bad the article doesn't go further and show that
connection with corruption.
I see the NYT has done away with the registration. When did that happen? I haven't been away that long.
>were clinics here allowed to set their own prices in
such a fashion
I'm not sure what you mean. Providers here do set their own
rates.
Clearly, Serafina, I don't know what I mean
either - five minutes research shows that they set their own rates
and that there are small collectives bargaining for health care
prices.
I'm just trying to make sure nobody takes me seriously. :)
I'm not sure what you mean. Providers here do set their own
rates.
Mmm, yes and no. A physician who sees purely private pay patients
can, of course set his or her own rates. But once a physician is
dealing with Medicare/Medicaid and of course, myriad insurance
plans, then rates are often set or capped for medical
procedures.
I know, to Reasonoids it's like declaring with a headline
that the sun sets in the west. What I find interesting is that the
article doesn't *clearly* state that the corrupt hospitals are
state run.
Here's from one reasonoid who will tell you: capitalism and free
markets have their warts. They can be as corrupt as anything that
any gov't ever produced. However.....
What a free market does, is keep the door open for somebody else to
come out on the ball field and do a better job. In the long run, if
the markets are left free and open, that usually happens.
It may or may not happen as soon as we the masses would like. But
once gov't agencies are created, significant change usually becomes
impossible.
Private business is not pristine, good, or moral just
because it's private, and operating in a free
market.
Capitalism ain't perfect. But I've yet to see a system that works
as well on net balance.
From the article: "But the funds tend to regulate
themselves."
But, but, Ted Rall said that was impossible! Maybe we should send
him the article and watch his head explode.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245