Editing SimHealth (section)

==Reception==
''[[Computer Gaming World]]''{{'}}s Keith Schlesinger in June 1994 said that "''SimHealth'' is a trailblazer in the simulations genre, but as a game it has problems". Acknowledging that "it wasn't primarily designed as an entertainment product", he criticized the "not well developed" victory conditions, reporting that he got a high score in one game by "sacrific[ing] nearly all of the big and small business firms in the country to achieve the win! What kind of a victory is that?" Schlesinger found that adopting an extreme libertarian ideology including ending [[Medicare (United States)|Medicare]] and many other government services resulted in almost hands-off victory although "the entire private insurance industry goes bankrupt in the first three months". He nonetheless concluded that "''SimHealth'' offers much at a good price, and in a good cause", and recommended it to those "not too fussy about winning and losing", or wanting to be able to alter the model's 152 assumptions.<ref name="miller199406">{{Cite magazine
 |last=Schlesinger
 |first=Keith
 |date=June 1994
 |title=The High Price Of Medi-Carelessness
 |url=http://www.cgwmuseum.org/galleries/index.php?year=1994&pub=2&id=119 
 |magazine=Computer Gaming World
 |pages=116, 118
 }}</ref> ''[[Entertainment Weekly]]'' gave the game a C−, writing, "For a vivid demonstration of just how complex — and boring — the health care crisis is, try spending a few hours with SimHealth, which lets you do what Hillary Clinton couldn't: design a successful national health care system."<ref>{{cite magazine |url=http://www.ew.com/article/1995/01/13/simearth |title=SimEarth |language=en |date=Jan 13, 1995 |first=Benjamin |last=Svetkey |access-date=26 June 2023 |magazine=[[Entertainment Weekly]] |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110501024634/http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0%2C%2C20184081%2C00.html |archive-date=2011-05-01}}</ref>

[[Paul Starr]], a health care policy expert writing for ''[[The American Prospect]]'', was critical of the game. He pointed out various factual errors and extensively criticized its community vs. efficiency and liberty vs. equality axes, arguing that these values were not necessarily opposed to each other. He ultimately concluded that game "has no value in assessing health care reform."<ref>{{cite magazine |last1=Starr |first1=Paul |title=Seductions of Sim: Policy as a Simulation Game |magazine=The American Prospect |date=Spring 1994 |issue=17 |pages=19–29 |url=https://www.princeton.edu/~starr/17star.html}}</ref>