Is For-Profit Healthcare Unjust? – Amartya Sen
Complete video at: fora.tv Nobel Prize-winning economist Amartya Sen answers a question as to whether for-profit medical insurance is inherently unjust. Sen agrees that this is likely the case regarding insurance companies, but notes that there are other instances where for-profit competition results in a fairer system. ----- Nobel Laureate Amartya Sen has been called the "Mother Teresa of economics" for his work on famine, human development theory and welfare economics. He argues that social justice is more than a matter of intellectual discourse, and that the idea of justice influences how - and how well -- people live. Sen offers a powerful critique of the mainstream theories of justice that, despite their many specific achievements, he argues, have taken us in the wrong direction. - Commonwealth Club of California Amartya Sen is Lamont University Professor, and Professor of Economics and Philosophy, at Harvard University and was until recently the Master of Trinity College, Cambridge. He was formerly Honorary President of OXFAM and is now its Honorary Advisor. Amartya Sen's books have been translated into more than thirty languages. His research has ranged over a number of fields in economics, philosophy, and decision theory, including social choice theory, welfare economics, theory of measurement, development economics, public health, gender studies, moral and political philosophy, and the economics of peace and war. Amartya Sen has received honorary doctorates from ...
Recent Posts
- life insurance retirement income
- home insurance for appliances
- term life insurance exclusions
- home insurance per month
- halifax home insurance legal cover
- car insurance europe cover
- auto insurance credit report
- life insurance quotes metlife
- bajaj allianz life insurance tlc
- car insurance cambridge ma
- car insurance low down payment
- life insurance corporation of india
- health insurance quotes utah
- anthem life insurance columbus ohio
- auto insurance reviews texas
Important Information
- state farm auto insurance estimate
- american express car insurance mexico
- Benefits Trupanion Pet Insurance Payment Without Limits
- Automobile insurance free Estimates: How to obtain dear Cours
- unity life insurance syracuse
- The judgement of services of retirement Visteon annulée
- life insurance charlotte nc
- life insurance policies for elderly
- Stacie Ritter takes on CEO Ed Hanway, CIGNA, and the health insurance companies
- On line Auto Insurance Quote For Full Coverage
July 17th, 2010 - 10:11
How can anyone dislike this? (apart from employees of medical insurance companies!)
July 17th, 2010 - 10:27
@ @ UncommonThinker UncommonThinker This n' is not a question of value, you doof. C' is a question of the 3rd world, children who n' anything à have to see with this conversation! Stop à the redherrings.
July 17th, 2010 - 11:04
@ Bobbiethejean Yeah because underachievers with chronic diseases are worth more than a third of the world’s children. Good CEO worth the money they earn. And the bad are always paid by the government. His big government which creates problems in our economy.
July 17th, 2010 - 11:22
doutonight @ananiasacts I certainly hope so. I already only eat fruits and vegetables, raw if at all possible. No tofu or dairy.
doutonight @donroche I completely agree, but our mismanaged systems are better than no systems, and are stepping stones on the way to better systems (which may, in fact, be without a system lol)
July 17th, 2010 - 11:54
@UncommonThinker We’re not talking about
3rd world children, we’re talking about our
own citizenry. Your 2nd sentence makes
no sense and your 3rd sentence is silly.
Just because a CEO makes millions
doesn’t mean he’s done a good job. Just
look at the asshole CEOs on wallstreet for
example. They fucked everything up and STILL
got millions in bonuses.
July 17th, 2010 - 12:53
@ Bobbiethejean Do not change the fact that millions are dying because we do not give a dam and custom send 89 cents a day to feed Third World children. If people will not provide free health care for each other in a system, what makes you thing they’ll do if they have to? If the CEO is not doing a good job, it is drawn. Plain and simple.
July 17th, 2010 - 13:19
@ Etzel33, the calculation seems to prove that it is feasible. Humanity has begun able to feed and has had centuries to composition of productivity growth since then. How is it possible that people are dying of hunger today? The United States citizen AVG AVG vs CO2/year 20T overall 2. 8T. Regardless of how significant the impact may actually be, it is still an economic externality that should be corrected. Personal responsibility is the mother of all freedoms. We can not have the effect, without cause.
July 17th, 2010 - 13:42
@ananiasacts You’re right to point out that a resolution to public finance. . . . a moral solution to government revenue, is essential to any moral argument for government activity.
I believe there is an answer in issues of land, territorial rights, including natural resources. Even perhaps patents. Any privilege granted by government, monopoly privilege, should be the source of government funding IMO, and a moral one too.
July 17th, 2010 - 14:32
@greenhell666 I usually dont go beyond any term than celtic reconstructionist.
July 17th, 2010 - 14:34
@ananiasacts Herman Hans Hoppe would agree with competitive governments.
July 17th, 2010 - 15:28
@doutonight
I do try and change things. Helath and education is not for the common good if it is miss managed. And I dont see a single country that manages it well.
July 17th, 2010 - 15:53
@etzel33, In my mind, having to rob Peter to pay Paul should happen rarely and indicates a systemic failure of the economy. We can’t both preach that theft is wrong while actively engaged in it because “in this case” it’s okay. It doesn’t work in my brain. Fair is what it is for arithmetical reasons that we can only deny, not actually change.
But I don’t believe we’ll ever need to in practice, because if we redressed the theft I explained earlier it wouldn’t be possible to become that poor.
July 17th, 2010 - 16:35
@ananiasacts I agree. If wealthier people want vanity, or supplemental coverage, fine. I don’t envy wealth. My only concern is that government protect our rights, and that includes our right to life. Gov’t has a responsibility to help people. Direct subsidy, like food stamps and medicare, even tuition vouchers, isn’t socialism. It’s just good sense for good government.
July 17th, 2010 - 17:02
@ Doutonight, Supposons that you will be able to connect the co
July 17th, 2010 - 17:49
@ Donroche “should êtreremplacée competition through cooperation.” DitÊtes you a good agorist (or mutual)? I know the concepts of free-market échangeMais I also know that many people would just use and Organization termeégoïstement on their own profit.
July 17th, 2010 - 18:29
@ Doutonight, there is every reason to believe that the future looks good for people, health-wise. I think that statisticians will have the greatest impact on our health over the next decade. It seems likely to undermine the vast amount of information available to correlate our eating habits, lifestyle, and region with data and our own body in a new kind of useful preventive medicine. You might not even need to call a doctor because they are already on the phone with you.
July 17th, 2010 - 18:36
@ananiasacts Well, there is immigration in hopes for a better life. . but yeah. .
You may be right, but I would hate it if I had to go to a doctor knowing they are only in it for the money and they will do their best to get as much of it from me.
July 17th, 2010 - 18:56
@donroche, “Why not shift the focus on building a caring society?”
Because a system that depends on the goodwill of the decent ends up being most beneficial to those willing to exploit it. I think the best we can do is to stop allowing so much theft. That we’ll get a caring society only by measuring and redressing the actual impact our lifestyles have on each other. Using more than the average share of a resource would entail purchasing the right to do so from those who must have used less.
July 17th, 2010 - 19:38
@ Etzel33, You’re right. But in my mind, the insurance business model does not make much sense for anything other than “health care more” (what you need more than what you would need if no external misfortunes have affect your health.) And he can not expect enough profit on the float cover both overhead and pay higher premiums when he has the money for less than a year. It is a waste of money HC in my opinion.
July 17th, 2010 - 20:36
@ Doutonight, would not it be nice if governments were competing with each other please their citizens or risk losing them to competition? I think the only truly legitimate role of government is to go obsolete by systematically incorporate the necessary infrastructure to respond to any request it faces in the economy itself. They seem like the brute force and very mechanical solutions to problems that are too organic to be treated this way. It’s like trying to make a costume for a tree.
July 17th, 2010 - 20:38
@donroche Because it is a common good in the society you live in, just like education, public roads, parks, policing system, etc.
You live in a free democracy, though, so you can a) try to change it, b) live with it, c) go someplace else. These are your options.
July 17th, 2010 - 21:04
@doutonight But why should I be force to pay for “free” healthcare? When I can simple look after it myself?
July 17th, 2010 - 21:29
Again conservative thought is not the difference between health insurance and health care. The title of this video is again: Healthcare, but it is going to babble on the insurance companies. For health care for profit is not unfair, but for-profit health insurance is an oxymoron. Insurance companies make money by not providing the health care costs. Medicare-for-Everyone would still care for profit health!
July 17th, 2010 - 21:59
@ donroche I too come from a country with national health care. I have access to ‘free’ health care and the opportunity to go to private doctors and pay lots of money and get treatment technologies with “best” (mostly just newer) and so on. free to reform health care in your sense, I think
July 17th, 2010 - 22:15
@greenhell666
I believe people should be free to make good and bad decisions.
Why not shift the focus on building a caring society?
I dont care for the system we are in. Money is an imaginary concept. Competition should be replaced with cooperation.