Are the salaries here actually good market outcomes?
These salaries either indicate that the market is not functioning properly or that we shouldn’t concern ourselves with preserving market function at all, i.e., in what contexts does one person get so much ($102 million in a year), and others get nothing at all (there are 40 million Americans without insurance)?
These CEOs are not innovators, they are power brokers. They don’t innovate anything; innovation in healthcare would result in and reward universal coverage, not exclusion from coverage.
Let me also try to document lobbying efforts by the healthcare industry, before arguing whether a “market” exists in healthcare in the United States.
In what contexts do the interests of the powerful decide the rules of the game, and favor the interests of the strong over those of the weak?
Consider again the Manhattan Indians. If I pay a shitload for grossly inadequate insurance coverage (I have the Wampum and sailor piss plan), is there really a market in existence where such unequal exchanges are possible?