Economically it would be the market clearing price so would be beneficial to the market generally. Sounds like a great thing.
In fact, this would lead to widespread pricing discrimination [2] based on what they learned (or bought) about you. Imagine seeing 20% markup on virtually everything available to you online, because every retailer can see your higher-than-average income before their page loads in your browser.
Personalized content (which everyone seems to love) is just an inch away from personalized pricing.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Efficient-market_hypothesis
It's not perfectly efficient because there isn't perfect information, however it's more efficient than it otherwise would be.
More information in the system = greater efficiency.
More information does not always increase market efficiency. In fact, it can have just the opposite effect when there is information asymmetry.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_asymmetry
http://www.economicsonline.co.uk/Market_failures/Information...
Or let's go back to the Paris example. If everyone is paying the most they can afford, that leaves less money on the table for restaurants, cheese and wine when actually in Paris. It's 'great' if you only look at the market dynamics of flights and ignore the economic/social benefits of cheap travel.
The notion of a "public good" also isn't about how things should be treated, but more about how things necessarily are.
It sort of seems you're making an argument unrelated to economics here, even though it's using words also used in the jargon of economists.
If one is to believe that healthcare products should be subject to market forces, then their prices should be variable in the same way other products are. In which case the answer to the question is, yes someone with a "niche" health problem would pay a substantially high price.
If however one believes that healthcare should not be subject to market forces, that is, it should be available to all equally (non-excludable) and cannot incur asymmetric costs between users (non-rival) then the answer is no, it would not be good.
This is a fine opinion to have, but you do yourself no favors by misusing jargon like this.
This says nothing of the possibility that one party has a lot of information, and the other party has relatively little information, and the guy with very little information is getting screwed.
Genuinely wondering. My economics is a bit rusty so not sure if what I said is remotely valid
The consumer surplus is zero, but the producer surplus is the maximum possible value.
In other words, the monopolistic supplier would otherwise charge a higher price for everyone if it is unable to price discriminate. If price discrimination is successful, more consumers can afford the product.