Ron Bailey makes an interesting
Ron Bailey makes an interesting argument for treating health care more like a commodity. The heart of his case:
In other areas, we accept that the distribution of wealth is unequal: that some people live in small condominiums while others dwell in McMansions. Some eat at Jean-Georges, while others are lucky to dine at Carl’s Jr. And some shop Ross Dress For Less while others browse through Saks. And these decisions seem to work out pretty well, with people for the most part getting what they need, if not always what they want. But imagine if state regulators insisted that only haute cuisine and high fashion could be offered? Costs would obviously get prohibitive for many. Why do state regulations stymie this process of choice and differentiation leading to cheaper, more available options in health care? Is there a better way?
This only works if you accept the premise that these things are equivalent. Presumably, the poor could then get medical treatment by, say, people who aren’t doctors but slept at a Holiday Inn Express the night before. Or, instead of getting CAT scans or MRI exams, they could be treated by the application of leeches. Not as good as the rich would get, but good enough for the poor.
