In this model (Doc as consumer) I think we are to assume that the patient is the third party? The HMO model places the Doc in the role of labour receiving a wage from the insurance co. I haven’t pondered this much until now.

in all honesty I am not too familiar with the “health care as a third-party payer problem,” so a link would be helpful.

Tim– re: adverse selection… let’s continue this via email.

Tim et al: Andreas mother has passed away, so the vacation is over… I’m gonna leave things around here in your capable hands for the next few days.

Interestingly, and Tyler Cowen posted a pretty interesting piece on this to Marginal Revolution about a year and half or two years ago, the insurance market may not suffer from informational problems too badly. Maybe you know more about how sick you’re going to get than the company can guess based on the actuarial data, maybe you don’t, but the sorts of people who are likely to want to purchase insurance might be the sorts of people who are in general responsible and concerned about the future: good risks. Irresponsible people don’t think about the future, and might not try to buy insurance anyway. I don’t think it’s cut-and-dried. Not that the health “insurance” market isn’t fucked up, it is, just for other reasons, I think.

Lending, I think, can have some interesting informational issues, but that’s usually about risk-of-default, and with universal credit scoring I think that’s less of a problem that it once was.

Unfortunately, this is completely off topic, and even if it weren’t, you seem chronically unable to engage in an honest dialogue without flagrant lies and misrepresentations about the positions of other people.

If you’re looking for people to have an “honest dialogue” about why all U.S. troops are murderers and democratic government is illegitimate then you’re probably not going to find it here, particularly since you seem to have a reading comprehension problem.

I suspect you’ll find that most of the people here view your moral relativism as something of a ‘liberal’ doctrine. I suppose to test your theory we can take a straw poll:

The belief that not all people hold the same set of morals is indeed “liberal”. If only we all believed in the same God and Bible! Maybe you can incorporate this groundbreaking idea into an end of term essay or LiveJournal post.

Tim:

emily: Informational asymmetry is overrated as a reason for market failure. Everybody read “The Market For Lemons” and then started seeing information problems everywhere, if all you have is a hammer…etc. And, frankly, the regulators always have worse information than any market participant, so it’s not like they can act optimally. That gets missed a lot. Frankly, I think externalities and discontinuity in supply are more common issues, although only the former can be addressed through policy…if you get lucky to pick the right way to go about it.

Doesn’t it depend on the particular market? I would argue that asymmetrical information can be a significant problem. Not because it affects, say, the market for used cars, but because it plays a huge role in health insurance and lending markets. And regulations which aim to minimize asymmetrical information (such as labeling requirements) are a lot less destructive than, say, regulation of prices or onerous environmental laws. (In other words, if political forces insist on market regulation, wouldn’t this sort of imposition be preferable?)

I think I’ve almost been convinced to join the Black Bloc.

I would encourage you to email me as well, or check out Randy Barnett’s (a mainstream libertarian [oxymoron noted - ed.] scholar) two articles on Pursuing Justice in a Free Society available [here]

I concur. Seriously. (I have a sneaking suspicion that Barnett might have issues with the whole “MURDERERS” bit, though…)

What troubles me about anarchism is that much like markets, in order to operate even passably (not only utopically) is that there needs to be informational symmetry when individuals and groups interact. If everyone was on the same page (especially concerning the non-use of violence), how could anyone be coerced? Unfortunately, we live in a time and place of both intellectual and socio-economic disparity that prevents the elevated place that many types of anarchism seek. And that doesn’t even account for those people who have differing opinions; everyone at some point will be submitting to the will of another. Don’t think that I believe American democracy is perfect–but I think that Timothy’s point about a progression towards warlordism is well taken, and the most possible scenario with anarchy. I wished that question had actually been addressed…

Summary: Anarchy won’t be for me until I become a universe-sauntering omnipotent strobing light.