tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8574042803645542600.post6222267287646124968..comments2024-02-12T17:29:49.084-05:00Comments on Loose Ends in Economics: Državni intervencionizam u (relativno) slobodnoj KanadiPredrag Rajsichttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00301941050662222192noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8574042803645542600.post-17494612804576230072015-05-24T22:09:44.019-04:002015-05-24T22:09:44.019-04:00Very interesting, I enjoy reading your blog. I thi...Very interesting, I enjoy reading your blog. I think this is really a choice between 1) lower waiting time and higher transfer of resources or 2) higher waiting time and lower transfer of resources from other sectors of economy. I think free-market based healthcare service providers would be great solution only if number of sick people is high enough, to be profitable (I am aware this could sound very bad). If number of sick people is not high enough to be profitable, healthcare service providers would be in problem, and then the choice is between no healthcare service or again transfer of resorces from other sectors of economy. And nobody can predict how many people would get sick (including mild health problems). Example, in a city of 300000 citizens over a year it might be 500, 5000 or 50000 sick people. So there might appear a problem of oversupply or shortage of doctors in short intervals, and in later case there is a possibility of supply not rising fast enough to meet demand (especially in case of serious illnesses and emergency cases). And that could be a big problem when it comes to health! So choice is between potential oversupply or shortage of healthcare services, and I would choose modest oversupply. In the end I think transfer of resources is ok, not a bad thing. It could be beneficial having a small number of "reserve" doctors draining resources just in case, but there's possibility of real need for them never appearing. Pozdrav iz Srbije :))Milannoreply@blogger.com