But this cracked me up:
Though the vaunted Free Market has no incentives to, say, take care of babies with cancer, a well-functioning market can definitely be a great way to see which provider offers the cheapest price for a roll of toilet paper or a bushel of apples.
It is fairly obvious that there are:
- people with babies with cancer,
- and their Friends and Relations,
- people who have had babies survive cancer,
- people who have had babies die from cancer,
- people who have other tragedies to do with cancer,
- medics who care about babies,
- medics who are just doing their job,
- medical researchers who want fame and fortune
How best can they co-operate to ensure that these resources are brought to bear to provide the most effective treatment or palliative care for babies with cancer? Well, medicine is a not-really-but Free Market - loads of guild controls, loads of government interference - some of it justified, much of it less so - but there is no reason that paediatric cancer treatment should be any different to, say, adult cancer treatment. Or hip replacements, frankly.
Luckily for my still-too-high blood pressure, at the bottom, this was linked:
Well worth reading the response in full (much more than the OP.)
Are you really going to indirectly compare “babies with cancer” and “getting a ride?”
If anyone was wondering why the endlessly breathless hipster-press gets the stink-eye, I think I can hook you up.
When you open your article — when the lead paragraph — is patent bullshit, you significantly undercut your credibility.
“Though the vaunted free market has no incentives to, say, take care of babies with cancer.”
You mean, aside from all those people who care about babies with cancer?
Now, of course, that the cluebat has struck home, let's see if it has any lasting impact.