The College of New Jersey.
J Law Med Ethics. 2012 Fall;40(3):537-46. doi: 10.1111/j.1748-720X.2012.00687.x.
In this paper I argue that the free-market provision of health care is both practical and morally sound, and is superior in both respects to its provision by the State. The State provision of health care will be inefficient compared to its free-market alternative. It will thus provide less health care to persons for the same amount of expenditure, and so save fewer lives and alleviate less suffering for two reasons: state actors have no incentive to husband their resources effectively, and that in a non-market setting, special interest groups can capture resources through lobbying, perverting them away from their efficient allocation. Given these considerations of efficiency a utilitarian should morally prefer the free-market provision of health care to its State-based rival. Furthermore, even if one is not a utilitarian, the free-market provision of health care will be more morally sound than its State-based alternative because it will likely better respect the autonomy of persons, and will better refrain from imposing values upon persons. With these points in hand, I address two prominent objections to a free market system of health care.
在本文中，我主张，自由市场提供的医疗保健在实践上和道德上都是合理的，并且在这两个方面都优于国家提供的医疗保健。与自由市场的选择相比，国家提供的医疗保健将效率低下。因此，由于以下两个原因，国家在相同的支出下将为更少的人提供医疗保健，从而挽救更少的生命并减轻更少的痛苦：国家行为者没有有效管理其资源的动机，而且在非市场环境中，特殊利益集团可以通过游说来获取资源，从而使资源偏离其有效配置。考虑到这些效率因素，功利主义者应该在道德上更倾向于自由市场提供的医疗保健，而不是基于国家的竞争对手。此外，即使一个人不是功利主义者，自由市场提供的医疗保健在道德上也比基于国家的替代方案更合理，因为它可能会更好地尊重个人的自主权，并更好地避免对个人强加价值观。掌握了这些要点，我将解决对医疗保健自由市场制度的两个突出反对意见。
