It’s obvious how to fix health care. Just make everything run systematically, like FedEx or Amazon.
That would require fixing (against change) the set of criteria on which a decision will be made. If I asume delay/deny/defend then, for each individual participant, that’s a lost business opportunity. The new criteria for which someone has unfortunately not retained the information to qualify are an avoided cost for an insurer.
In the acually post-apocalpytic would without systemic law or politics, I could see the dynamics going either way. The succeeding people might tell stories about why they were generous or not, with continually shifting criteria, or their decision might come with no justification because that’s the best demonstration that they’re in power.
This is reminds me of an aphorism that I can’t place at the moment. What I think I remember is: whenever the success criteria for liberalism conflict, they are re-prioritised so that the women lose. Citations welcome.
I’ve just seen discussion of 2010s USA healthcare as an apocalypse corrupted:
I’m abusing LW to post a narrow comment about:
That would require fixing (against change) the set of criteria on which a decision will be made. If I asume delay/deny/defend then, for each individual participant, that’s a lost business opportunity. The new criteria for which someone has
unfortunatelynot retained the information to qualify are an avoided cost for an insurer.In the acually post-apocalpytic would without systemic law or politics, I could see the dynamics going either way. The succeeding people might tell stories about why they were generous or not, with continually shifting criteria, or their decision might come with no justification because that’s the best demonstration that they’re in power.
This is reminds me of an aphorism that I can’t place at the moment. What I think I remember is: whenever the success criteria for liberalism conflict, they are re-prioritised so that the women lose. Citations welcome.