I don’t think so. Choosing to prioritize means that attention will be focused on how to make the thing you want to happen, happen. The “3 apples vs 4 kids” scenario assumes that we have a relatively efficient allocation and distribution of resources, and there are just not enough resources (ie money) to get what we need for all 4 kids. However, the US has what is generally regarded as the most expensive and relatively inefficient heath system with respect to the distribution of medical resources in the industrialized world. There’s more than enough money in the system for 4 apples if we got serious about public health.
It has. The solution looks like the NHS. Next question.
I want a Ferrari. 
That is ridiculous. The reason we don’t have child labor in the US is because parents want their kids to go to school, not to work.
Living standards a hundred years ago were a small fraction of what they are now. That is because of the abundance that capitalism provides, not government regulations. In the movie Wall Street Gordon Gecko is given a mobile phone to show he is one of the richest men in the world, today most poor people have a cell phone that is hundreds of times better.
In the 1920’s the president’s son died because of an infected blister that today could be cured for less than $10 worth of antibiotics.
America today is so much richer than it was back then it is crazy to compare the two and pretend that it is due to the government.
I don’t. Maintenance is a bitch on those things.
That’s pretty naive. If this was solely the case, we wouldn’t need to have laws literally preventing it.
Yes, companies are happy to sell us cheap cell phones. Ones built overseas with child labor and/or slave wages. Thanks for proving my point for me, I guess.
Indeed. It’s almost like some sort of Prosperity Gospel argument - of course he’s great, he can afford a Ferrari… to which the response is… wait, what?
The free market only works for health care if and only if you decide to comparison shop while suffering a heart attack.
Or, in emergency to go to a hospital three hours away because it’ll cost less than the one 5 minutes away.
More to my above point, spare me the tiresome “You’re better off than a trillionaire caveman!” schtick. That’s not the point of my remark. Do you believe that, if the labor and environmental reforms of the 20th century were revoked, that companies wouldn’t immediately slip back into offering $2/hr wages and hiring kids? Do you somehow think that this time, the “market forces” would magically create living wages where they can’t do so now with minimum wage? Do you believe that they wouldn’t immediately return to dumping their waste wherever, polluting the air, etc? When we have people in government right now trying to allow them to do exactly that?
Capitalism has indeed done a deal of good in advancing technology, etc. It’s also a predatory system that will happily feed upon the lower and middle class without protections and assuming that the free market will bring health care to all is ridiculous.
That’s a problem for your live-in mechanic.
Our family doctor drives a 12-year-old junker minivan. He’s still a premier family practice physicican. Interns come from as far away as eastern europe to study with him.
Being really damn good and in high demand doesn’t mean you’re going to be wealthy.
You know that we’ve only developed one new antibiotic in the past 30-odd years, right? Do you know why? It’s (at least in part) because the market-based healthcare system doesn’t prioritize antibiotics. Yet we come up with new erectile dysfunction and cholesterol medicines practically on a daily basis.
His flaw is that of the ~192 nations on earth, 40+ nations have universal health care. Virtually all of them are middle income or upper income nations, and UHC seems to be almost a right of passage as a nation passes from middle income to high income status (middle income = 4-12k per capita income, high income = over 13k. The US has 50k per capita income).
His ‘3 kids, 4 apples’ argument is based on his audience being either voluntarily or involuntarily ignorant of the fact that UHC has been achieved in dozens of nations.
Also in the US we have UHC for anyone over age 65. It is called medicare. It is a single payer system that covers many (but not all) of the medical bills that seniors face.
I really really dislike American exceptionalism. Taking greed. short sightedness, selfishness and the worship of the private sector, and trying to rewrite them as some sort of virtue is really obnoxious. If a communist made an argument that all private industry is terrible and how the mindless worship of the public sector would cure all ills, and ignored the fact that many foreign nations found this advice to not work, I’d find that just as persuasive as this article.
The arguments against UHC tend to be ignorant and based on lies because the arguments, at root, are not good. This author is not even remotely different in that regard.
Another good question to ask is ‘do you want a doctor who is only in it for the money’? People like that probably don’t care about their patients, and they will push for the most expensive treatments necessary even when they aren’t needed.
Actually, gatekeeping by profiteers creates artificial scarcity, which makes profit feasible. Which makes profit a bias against abundance.
Abundance itself IS a bias against profit. The law of supply and demand can’t set prices very high when the supply refuses to be scarce.
I think he said we’d have more apples if we weren’t biased against Ferraris. Your thoughts?
I think he’s an idiot.
The whole question is flawed because doctors aren’t the ones that make U.S. healthcare so expensive. Doctor pay is only a minor part of the bill that comes from the astoundingly complicated U.S. health system.
Primary care doctors, especially younger ones, don’t even make that much money all things considered. I look at my (very excellent) primary care physician who is my age and think about the fact that he probably makes about $175K but he had to go through 8 years of school and 3 years of residency to get there and then pay to join a practice. His nurses make at least half that for a fraction of the time, money and effort and they don’t have to worry about running a small business on top of everything else.
I look at my relatives that are doctors and they all say that, if someone is in it for the money, they are a fool. That is just a fringe benefit that only becomes noticeable in middle age and most of them deserve it because they had to forgo many of their prime years just to get to that point.
Yes, that works. TY.
I can’t believe in his “thought experiment” he wouldn’t show the 4 kids how to share the three apples so that everyone gets fed. He’d rather one kid go hungry, because he can’t concieve of cutting an apple.
He would make a horrible, horrible, parent.