testa-j%osu-20@OHIO-STATE.ARPA (09/21/86)
From: "Keith F. Lynch" <KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU> > Well, the "donations" are in a sense voluntary now. You think the >courts are NOT swayed by politics? You think their opinions do NOT >pretty closely match those of the general population? No. But their opinions would be influenced much more by popularity if their existence depended on popularity. > For the courts to be biased >in a libertarian direction - if that even makes any sense - is not a >bad thing. That's not the kind of bias i'm worried about. I'm more worried about the times where a popular lynch-mob movement (no pun intended) might override due process rights for the accused ... "aw, we KNOW he's guilty, why bother with the technicalities of a trial??" > And convincing people to contribute drains resources. A similar > situation exists with the health-care industry today. In Ohio, > we are flooded with commercials on TV showing us pictures of > helicopters flying around particular hospitals. This is a waste > of money; it doesn't cure a single disease; if they spent their > time and money on health care, perhaps the cost wouldn't be so > high. > > Well, this is the classic dilemma of advertising. Doesn't >advertising a product increase its cost? After all, the consumers >are then paying the cost of the advertising as well as the cost of >manufacture, distribution, and packaging. > The answer is no, not really. To the extent that advertising >increases purchases (or donations) it causes the unit cost to go >DOWN. Oh, come on now! This makes sense for toothpaste and cars, but for health care (or courts) ?? I can see it now -- Mr. X sitting home one night watching TV, says to his wife "gee, i was thinking, after seeing that ad from Mount Foo Hospital -- what do you think if i go have a heart transplant next week? They're having a special discount." -joe testa- ------- -------