Healthcare always has been and probably always will be a terrible model for paid service. Its not a public utility function or non-contestable in the same sense we think electric wires and sewerage are (we could in fact run two sewerpipes to every home and contest that function of course. We just think its silly. economic wraps 'thinks its silly' up in fancy language) but it is, (I beleive) probably a public utility function in the wider sense.<p>Discriminating over ability to pay for health, is not net beneficial to society.<p>Amazon may be the exemplar dis-intermediator, but really, this is a replacement, a stand in, for what I think we can call a failed state: the US federal-state system is incapable of overcoming popular issues on tax and socialized service, so instead it has to use price-function and cost-function forcing from the private sector to achieve the outcomes which in other economies, we do by saying "lets do this on the tax"<p>Amazon is the wrong way to fix this problem. The article is on the money for what healthcare can expect but thats different to the imperative of what we should do. Well, what I think "we" <i>for the US</i> should do. I live in another country. I am probably wrong. But I don't think so.