Analogy: How do you get people to win the game? "Reward the winner". Sure, but what's the game, how do you win it, what's the reward, how do you distribute it.
What do you mean by that? I'm sympathetic to making healthcare look more like a free market, but I don't know what a free market in health care looks like.
If you don't have money, society shouldn't just let you die. The second you try to fix that (with government) you don't have a free market.
And health care was a lot worse in the 1960s and before. Let's not pretend that before the 1960s were some golden age. In 1965 infant mortality was 24.7 deaths per live births, in 2016 it was 4.3.
The best case scenario is that each person is empowered to answer those questions themselves. The worst case scenario is to have someone else define for you what winning is and how you should go about doing it.
That's somehow even more vague than GP. I think the issue is pretty clear: The US has too expensive healthcare, and too low quality in relation to that price.
The solution "incentives" isn't really constructive in solving that issue, if you don't suggest what those incentives are.
And as for your comment: within this problem space, everyone defining their own healthcare system and solving it is even less constructive.
The point is that the "healthcare system" should be an emergent one where each person is maximally in control of their own destiny. The idea that a few wealthy, connected, buyable people could get to "define the healthcare system" is terrifying.
I think you're describing a separate problem, of campaign financing, lobbying and/or corruption.
> The point is that the "healthcare system" should be an emergent one where each person is maximally in control of their own destiny.
Again, this is a nice sounding platitude. What does it mean? Since you want everyone to be "maximally in control", does that mean Mad Max-style anarchy? Representative democracy ensuring everyone gets a voice and securing of rights?
Both ensures freedoms, but in very different directions.
Mad Max isn't anarchy, it's a centralized authoritarian dictatorship. What you're talking about where you want me to suggest a definition of "the game," how it's played, how to win, etc. is closer to Mad Max.
With regards to healthcare, the best system is one in which each individual person has autonomy over themselves. Each will have its own desires: making money, saving money, receiving treatment, etc. The "system" emerges from the accumulation of human desires and abilities. I can't tell you exactly what it looks like because I can't pretend to know what everyone will want, nor can I tell you what is best for everyone. They are best left to determine that themselves.
Mad Max was anarcho-capitalism reaching its logical conclusion, a monopoly with a financed militia.
> With regards to healthcare, the best system is one in which each individual person has autonomy over themselves. Each will have its own desires: making money, saving money, receiving treatment, etc. The "system" emerges from the accumulation of human desires and abilities. I can't tell you exactly what it looks like because I can't pretend to know what everyone will want, nor can I tell you what is best for everyone. They are best left to determine that themselves.
So basically no health care system and no social security, and bartering for whatever you want.
Just say you want libertarian minimal government and we'd have saved 10 minutes of our lives instead of vague platitudes.
>Mad Max was anarcho-capitalism reaching its logical conclusion, a monopoly with a financed militia.
Authoritarianism comes in many stripes. Capitalism can be authoritarian, but forced socialism always is.
>So basically no health care system and no social security, and bartering for whatever you want.
Emergent systems exist all over the place. The very language we're using right now to communicate is an emergent system. There is not a central authority which dictates how we must converse, and yet here we are.
>Just say you want libertarian minimal government and we'd have saved 10 minutes of our lives instead of vague platitudes.
I didn't try to give you a platitude. You wanted me to define what is best for everyone and I tried to show you that your question implies that authoritarianism is best. I disagree with your implication.
> I didn't try to give you a platitude. You wanted me to define what is best for everyone and I tried to show you that your question implies that authoritarianism is best. I disagree with your implication.
Cooperation and synergy isn't the same as authoritarianism. There's a reason that civilization and societies reached all major advances and discoveries, and not hermits or tribes.
There's immense value in limiting overhead by delegating fundamental services into a collective pool.
But all that is besides the point. On topic:
I wanted neither you or OP to define what is best, I wanted OP to clarify what he was suggesting since he was suggesting something. I wanted you to clarify what you were saying, since I didn't understand how it fit into my response to OP. Apparently it didn't.
>Cooperation and synergy isn't the same as authoritarianism. There's a reason that civilization and societies reached all major advances and discoveries, and not hermits or tribes.
You explicitly asked questions like, "how do you get people to win the game?" "How do you win it?" "What's the reward?" "How do you distribute it?"
In other words, you wanted us to dictate what "winning" means, what the rewards are for winning, and how the rewards would be distributed. That's not cooperation, that's dictation. Each person may have their own definition of winning and as long as they're not infringing on the rights of another, they can do whatever they wish to accomplish their goal.
>There's immense value in limiting overhead by delegating fundamental services into a collective pool.
Please don't forcibly dictate to me what is valuable by forcing me into a system that maximizes what you personally find valuable. I will offer the same kindness in return. That is the crux of the problem with the set of questions you asked originally and why what I've said does fit into your response to OP.
Since you bothered to reply, and completely ignored the paragraph that answered your (now repeated) comment, I have to assume that you're not here for a genuine discussion.
Analogy: How do you get people to win the game? "Reward the winner". Sure, but what's the game, how do you win it, what's the reward, how do you distribute it.