Hits and Misses
Did 
you know that selling stocks makes you richer, even if you buy them back? One more reason to ignore the latest inequality claims.
Ethics question: should we redistribute organs?
Should medicine still be considered an art?
Good news: no evidence that primary care physicians offer less care to Medicaid, community health center, or uninsured patients. Bad news: access is not the same.
“Overall, the pre-tax incomes of the top 1% of households rose 19.6% compared to a 1% increase for the rest of Americans.”
Is this good or bad?
The data itself is meaningless. We need to be focused on individual interactions. If people are participating in voluntary exchanges and income is becoming more unequal, so be it, everybody is better off anyway. It just doesn’t matter.
Right. “Income inequality” is used to mislead.
God or bad is a normative judgment. If you think it bad that all income growth goes to very few people, it is bad. If you think having all of our national wealth controlled by very few people, it is bad. If you think that a small elite group of extremely wealthy people will use that money wisely to run our country, it is good.
Or, you just view it as s symptom that something is wrong.
Steve
“As I keep saying, income inequality data is basically meaningless, regardless of whether you include cap gains or not. Economists should focus on economic inequality, which is best measured by consumption inequality.”
This. It is ridiculous to call income inequality a problem. As incomes have gotten more unequal, everybody, especially poor, have become better off.
“Solving” income inequality makes everybody poorer, not richer.
Yes, we should redistribute organs.
Involuntarily? If I need a kidney transplant I can just take one of yours without your consent?
That would mean that nobody’s life is their own. You would have no rights, you would be a subject.
“Ethics question: should we redistribute organs?”
Good post.
It doesn’t matter if killing one person could save a thousand, society has no right to forcibly remove that person from the world.
Maybe those who commit suicide could go to hospitals, have it done like a procedure, and their organs could go to good use.
“Should medicine still be considered an art?”
Should art still be considered art?
ouch.
Touche.
“Good news: no evidence that primary care physicians offer less care to Medicaid, community health center, or uninsured patients. Bad news: access is not the same.”
The price is always paid, whether with money, time, or quality, it is paid.
Doctors have and ethical obligation to treat patients equally regardless of ability to pay. Unfortunately, the ability to pay will substantially limit the availability of treatment, as well as access.
http://www.robtenerymd.com/blog/?p=272
A doctor nowadays is certainly more a “scientist” than “artist”. But I cannot say the same development has been made by lawyers…
What would art even be? Just a feeling or creative impulse? I guess since we don’t know everything, we will always take an artists approach to some things. The more we learn, the more scientific we become.
Certainly there are benefits to technology and scientific studies point us in the right direction for treatment. However, there is no substitute for the art of listening to a patient, and placing stethoscope and hands on the human body to help elucidate the diagnosis and reassure the patien.
Ethics question: should we redistribute organs?
There was a funny Monty Python scene about this in The Meaning of Life!
“Bad news: access is not the same.”
Nor should it be. Medicaid’s population is not the same as the general population. It is heavily tilted towards OB, pecs and nursing home care.
Steve
“Would it be morally permissible for you to operate anyway? Everybody to whom I have put this second hypothetical case says, No.”
Thank goodness!