Can there be such a thing as an 'untainted' good? Health care is a good, albeit a tainted one; the more that good is made equally available to everyone, the greater the good becomes and the less resources it takes to maintain. And what really taints it? I propose that money, in itself, does.
"After all, there's less money to be made from a healthy population than in a sick one."
Degenerative diseases such as AIDS, Diabetes, immunological failures, etc., are the most profitable of course. One of the things which ruined the NHS was the introduction of the idea of the "internal market" as a means through which to maximize efficiency. The notion that a market system will always produce optimal results is idiotic; it very rarely will.
I wonder if corporations can possess the necessary attributes to allow them to be 'alive'? Or to think? I wonder what a corporation might think. I mean 'thinking' in a very legalistic sense. I believe it is the case that the 'corporation' is a separate legal 'entity' from the owners and / or executives of the corporation. Those people (CEOs and stockholders), are agents 'on behalf of' the corporation which is required by law to have a purpose, a 'function.' The corporation must, though, fulfill its duties, whatever they might be. I like the analogy with an AI: though I would dispute that corporations are presently sapient, that they possess some of the properties an AI must possess is perhaps a safer statement.
"After all, there's less money to be made from a healthy population than in a sick one."
Degenerative diseases such as AIDS, Diabetes, immunological failures, etc., are the most profitable of course. One of the things which ruined the NHS was the introduction of the idea of the "internal market" as a means through which to maximize efficiency. The notion that a market system will always produce optimal results is idiotic; it very rarely will.
I wonder if corporations can possess the necessary attributes to allow them to be 'alive'? Or to think? I wonder what a corporation might think. I mean 'thinking' in a very legalistic sense. I believe it is the case that the 'corporation' is a separate legal 'entity' from the owners and / or executives of the corporation. Those people (CEOs and stockholders), are agents 'on behalf of' the corporation which is required by law to have a purpose, a 'function.' The corporation must, though, fulfill its duties, whatever they might be. I like the analogy with an AI: though I would dispute that corporations are presently sapient, that they possess some of the properties an AI must possess is perhaps a safer statement.
