The Role of Government in a Market Economy, also known as Chapter 3. It discusses the advantages and shortcomings of a free-market system. A free-market system is a market with absolutely no government involvement whatsoever. Adam Smith, a Scottish philosopher, strongly believes a society with the attitude "every man for himself" would benefit in the long run because if everyone had the same self-interest, it would lead towards a common goal. But since we don't live in his ideal world, yes, the government does intervene in the market causing third-party effects, unmet public goods, and issues of privatization.

January 19, 2007
Edmonton aims to screen all for diabetes. A cost expectancy of about $15.6 billion, the government is now undergoing a new diabetes screening program making it a reportable disease. They believe diabetes, if not detected early and treated, can lead to much more serious problems such as blindness, loss of limbs, kidney failure and even death. By 2010, if you're going to the doctors, a walk-in clinic, or the hospital they will have your blood-sugar level recorded into a central database. This screening program would hopefully reduce the cases of diabetes and treat the patients who are at risk.

Doesn't this article relate to economics most relevantly? Because I did not just choose the first news article that popped onto the screen when I clicked "health", I did hard, pencil-chewing research I really did. If you choose not to believe me and wonder what does this article have to do with chapter 3, be prepared to be amazed, my friend. If all goes well, I'll be amazed myself.

So the government is trying to take action by declaring this new screening program for diabetes. This would definitely raise some eyebrows in Edmonton since the government is planning to invest $15.6 billion into this program. The third-party effect goes as follows: you head to your doctor's for a check-up, now instead of the regular you get a regular plus a diabetes screening; the third party comes in which is society and the effect may be higher taxes because these screening's do not sound cheap. It may become an unmet public good since it's being presented as a new regulation and you cannot necessairly charge anyone who is benefiting from this service. Should the government really go through with this new program? Or should it be the choice of the individual whether or not to participate? This sparks the debate on whether or not health care should be privatized and how much saying does the government get. If health care was privatized, I think barely any companies would take on this new program. Not only is it expensive, but it seems tedious to frequently update your blood-sugar level data. Having brought that up, you can always rebute by saying that North Americans have been intaking so much sugar in their diet that diabetes is one of the most common diseases. And it's about time the government is taking action to help slow down the rate of cases. Both points standing strong, I would have to lean towards the government's side for this one because testing for diabetes should be a grant more than a chore. Better safe than sorry, right?

News Article:
http://www.cbc.ca/health/story/2007/01/19/diabetes-database.html

I myself have one of the biggest sweet tooth ever, and I would like to see where my blood-sugar level stands. Though taxes may increase throughout the year because of the huge investment to fund this new program, I think many people will be amazed and would be grateful to be aware if they are at risk of diabetes. It might just give everyone a reality check, and will make you give some thought to your diet.