what was published in the NY TIMES Magazine: Peter Singer’s excellent article makes a major point: the operation of markets in distributing scarce health resources among people and alternative uses is just as much a form of rationing as are the decisions of “soulless” bureaucrats.
As with all markets, those with the most purchasing power get first dibs on the use of resources, following the principle of “one dollar, one vote.” Unfortunately, Singer’s utilitarian analysis distracts us from a major point: all such rationing is a political decision. In the United States, political decision making has again and again given the advantage to the richest. Is it possible that this results not from philosophical analysis but from the disproportionate political power of the rich? JAMES DEVINE Professor of Economics Loyola Marymount University the original version: Peter Singer's excellent article makes a major point made by serious economists: the operation of markets in distributing scarce health resources among people and alternative uses is just as much a form of rationing as are the decisions of "soulless" bureaucrats. As with all markets, those with the most purchasing power get "first dibs" on the use of resources, following the principle of “one dollar, one vote” (Insurance plans simply make this fact more nuanced.) Unfortunately, Singer's utilitarian analysis distracts us from a major point: all such rationing is a political decision. In the United States, political decision-making has again and again to give the advantage to the richest, promoting such practices as purely cosmetic plastic surgery. Is it possible that this results not from philosophical analysis but from the disproportionate political power of the rich? -- Jim Devine / "All science would be superfluous if the form of appearance of things directly coincided with their essence." -- KM _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
