"I agree that health isn't being funded properly. But that isn't the same as saying they are not funded enough. There's more than enough money, but it's managed poorly - which is why I believe "bottom-up" funding is better than top-down funding."

Health is not funded enough. There are two questions here, how it is administrated and how it is funded. It should not be administrated from the the top-down in the sense that it should not be micro managed because that is incredibly inefficient and there are informational failures in that over-management will have problems with the overbloated management structure that is too far from the 'coalface' of what is happening. I'm not sure what "bottom-up" funding means, so please elaborate. At the moment (roughly speaking) most health is funded publicly except dentistry. This provides a disincentive to seeing a dentist for checkups, cleaning and so on, especially for people with lower incomes, which leads to a greater risk of dental problems, and greater cost overall. With health in general, if someone is unhealthy, there are also external costs, they may be more likely to pass on a disease, and they are less productive. For both these reasons, just leaving health funding to "the market" will lead to massive market failures, as has been demonstrated by the increased portion of US GDP that is spent on health there.

 out of  found this valuable. Do you find this valuable?    

I can't see why this idea is getting so little support. We let police carry guns to protect us. However they are never their when you need them. Bus drivers are everywhere.

1  out of 1 found this valuable. Do you find this valuable? Do you?