Care to elaborate?
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.
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.
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.
Health care was a lot cheaper then, and charity was available for poor people.
Sources: 1965 number from: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/series/sr_20/sr20_020acc.pdf 2016 number from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_infant_an...
https://www2.census.gov/library/publications/1960/compendia/...
You can see by the other stats in the PDF that all measures of health improved dramatically 1800-1960.
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.
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.
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.
> 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.
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.
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.
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.