August 5, 2011 at 7:01 am
It's not about freedom for me. It's about trust.
Well, that is a much better argument then the freedom one. I'm very glad to live in a country with for your universal health care, and I do think our NHS is a great achievement, but politicians will keep tweaking things, mainly to show that they're doing something. So the service can vary depending on which bunch of reprobates is in power. (Tends to get worse under the Tories, who are the equivalent of your Republicans.)
There are ways of providing universal health care with the private sector still running the actual hospitals, which many European countries do. It's arguable they get even better results then our NHS. They just provide a basic level of insurance for everyone which you can use to pay for your healthcare anywhere, and choose to top up to a higher level if you wish. It almost takes politicians out of the equation completely.
Because everyone gets at least basic cover, people with pre-existing conditions, or who happen to be poor are still covered.
August 5, 2011 at 7:08 am
GSquared (8/5/2011)
Freddie-304292 (8/5/2011)
I really don't see what this argument has to do with freedom. The government builds your roads, your railways, maintains your public parks. It provides many services for your tax dollars and that doesn't male you less free.The arguments for and against should be about practicality and fairness imho.
You live in a country where you can't drink until you're 21. I had to show Id to buy a beer last time I was over there and I'm 40. A man cam die for his country but not buy a beer? Not tell hid colleagues if he's gay. can't marry if he's gay. How is that freedom?
Paying the government for your healthcare rather then an insurance company that will do everything it can to avoid paying out should you fall ill does not make you free. Not being able to get insured because you have a pre existing condition does not make you free.
I'm free to fall ill whatever my current financial services and my college had a bar. That's freedom.
It's not about freedom for me. It's about trust.
Yes, we live in a regulated society, and some/many/most of those regulations are pure BS.
But how can I trust the government to manage my insurance for me? How can I trust them to manage my finances (social security) for me? They can't manage their own finances worth spit, why should I trust them to manage mine?
If the average elected official were to take on a job as an accountant, all of his clients would be broke and he'd be rich.
Not freedom. Trust and confidence.
While I can certainly see not having confidence in government:
1) I don't see why you'd have any more confidence or faith in a private company. They may run things better for themselves, but they are still not looking out for you. In fact, they are overtly trying to get as much out of you while giving as little away as possible. And while the traditional right wing position is faith in "the market", the truth is that in many of these sectors, there are massive economies of scale and barriers to entry, and you end up with an oligopoly, not true market competition. And that constrains your options as a consumer.
2) I also think its a bit of a cop out. Assuming that government will always be bums and idiots and scandalous, and that government programs will always be boondoggles also means you aren't really trying to change anything. You assume the next guy will be as bad. You assume the program can't be fixed. And that gives license for the problems to thrive. If you can't build consensus to scrap the program you've created an all or nothing between scrapping it and status quo, so incremental progress can't be made. It also lets you dismiss any new idea without having to get into the details of it. Instead of looking at "does it make more sense for government to do this one thing", you just have a blanket no without looking at the particulars of the situation.
August 5, 2011 at 7:11 am
Freddie-304292 (8/5/2011)
It's not about freedom for me. It's about trust.
Well, that is a much better argument then the freedom one. I'm very glad to live in a country with for your universal health care, and I do think our NHS is a great achievement, but politicians will keep tweaking things, mainly to show that they're doing something. So the service can vary depending on which bunch of reprobates is in power. (Tends to get worse under the Tories, who are the equivalent of your Republicans.)
There are ways of providing universal health care with the private sector still running the actual hospitals, which many European countries do. It's arguable they get even better results then our NHS. They just provide a basic level of insurance for everyone which you can use to pay for your healthcare anywhere, and choose to top up to a higher level if you wish. It almost takes politicians out of the equation completely.
Because everyone gets at least basic cover, people with pre-existing conditions, or who happen to be poor are still covered.
I haven't lived with it, so I can't speak from direct experience, but from what I've read, your NHS has the usual advantages and disadvantages of any monopoly, plus the disadvantages of anything funded by taxes and controlled by politicians. If everyone is happy with it, or at least happier than without it, that's fine.
But don't believe all the media lies about how horrible medical insurance is here in the US. I've experienced having pre-existing conditions while being very, very low income, and I had no problem whatsoever getting the medical analysis and treatment I needed. Keep in mind, most of the information you get on the situation here is from politicians and "news" organizations who have manipulating you as their primary purpose and diseminating valuable information way off the bottom of the list of priorities. I have the same here, which is why I caveat my opinions about your NHS as I do.
- Gus "GSquared", RSVP, OODA, MAP, NMVP, FAQ, SAT, SQL, DNA, RNA, UOI, IOU, AM, PM, AD, BC, BCE, USA, UN, CF, ROFL, LOL, ETC
Property of The Thread
"Nobody knows the age of the human race, but everyone agrees it's old enough to know better." - Anon
August 5, 2011 at 7:21 am
I haven't lived with it, so I can't speak from direct experience, but from what I've read, your NHS has the usual advantages and disadvantages of any monopoly, plus the disadvantages of anything funded by taxes and controlled by politicians. If everyone is happy with it, or at least happier than without it, that's fine.
That's very true. But I would say there are some advantages to it being funded by taxes and run by politicians as well as disadvantages. But there are disadvantages in every system.
But don't believe all the media lies about how horrible medical insurance is here in the US.
That's a very fair point. Here I am getting annoyed about Americans repeating the lies they've been told about our system without thinking that what I've read about your system is filled with the same half truths and lies.
No system is perfect and people always fall through the cracks. It's easy to find anecdotal evidence of the people for whom things go wrong and say the whole system is useless. As scientists keep saying to me anecdotes aren't data.
August 5, 2011 at 7:57 am
The interview process has gotten to be incredibly difficult. I know someone who has great skills, 17 years of experience in top financial companies, great work ethics. So you can't exactly call him a dweeb. This person was laid off because his contract ended. Since that he's been looking for a job, gone through dozens of interviews unable to pass them. He would answer all the questions, and then there will be one that he can't answer (you can't possibly know everything) so the interviewers just loose interest right away. Same story repeats every time... The questions he is being asked are outrageous. Looks like your experience and proven record of success doesn't mean anything anymore. They don't even give him a chance.
August 5, 2011 at 8:19 am
Nevyn (8/5/2011)
GSquared (8/5/2011)
Freddie-304292 (8/5/2011)
I really don't see what this argument has to do with freedom. The government builds your roads, your railways, maintains your public parks. It provides many services for your tax dollars and that doesn't male you less free.The arguments for and against should be about practicality and fairness imho.
You live in a country where you can't drink until you're 21. I had to show Id to buy a beer last time I was over there and I'm 40. A man cam die for his country but not buy a beer? Not tell hid colleagues if he's gay. can't marry if he's gay. How is that freedom?
Paying the government for your healthcare rather then an insurance company that will do everything it can to avoid paying out should you fall ill does not make you free. Not being able to get insured because you have a pre existing condition does not make you free.
I'm free to fall ill whatever my current financial services and my college had a bar. That's freedom.
It's not about freedom for me. It's about trust.
Yes, we live in a regulated society, and some/many/most of those regulations are pure BS.
But how can I trust the government to manage my insurance for me? How can I trust them to manage my finances (social security) for me? They can't manage their own finances worth spit, why should I trust them to manage mine?
If the average elected official were to take on a job as an accountant, all of his clients would be broke and he'd be rich.
Not freedom. Trust and confidence.
While I can certainly see not having confidence in government:
1) I don't see why you'd have any more confidence or faith in a private company. They may run things better for themselves, but they are still not looking out for you. In fact, they are overtly trying to get as much out of you while giving as little away as possible. And while the traditional right wing position is faith in "the market", the truth is that in many of these sectors, there are massive economies of scale and barriers to entry, and you end up with an oligopoly, not true market competition. And that constrains your options as a consumer.
2) I also think its a bit of a cop out. Assuming that government will always be bums and idiots and scandalous, and that government programs will always be boondoggles also means you aren't really trying to change anything. You assume the next guy will be as bad. You assume the program can't be fixed. And that gives license for the problems to thrive. If you can't build consensus to scrap the program you've created an all or nothing between scrapping it and status quo, so incremental progress can't be made. It also lets you dismiss any new idea without having to get into the details of it. Instead of looking at "does it make more sense for government to do this one thing", you just have a blanket no without looking at the particulars of the situation.
The thing about faith in a private company, is that I can shop around and get more of what I want than with a government mandated monopoly. Case-in-Point: I used to bank with Wells Fargo, till they stole money from me via fees that I should not have been charged and that they said couldn't be refunded because their computer wouldn't let them. Now I bank with B of A, and when I had an issue with a paycheck being pulled back after I'd already used it to pay bills, the branch manager cancelled all the fees, even though they were technically legitimate. In other words, one company used "the computer won't let us" to justify taking $600 of my money that they had no rights to, while the other company went out of their way to help me out in a sticky situation. If there were a banking monopoly, I wouldn't have the options I do. Other people will have other experiences, even with the same companies, and can make their own judgement calls. But not in a monopoly. What you have with the NHS is a mandated monopoly. The only way to avoid being a paying NHS customer is to avoid paying taxes. Usually only the very poor and the very rich get to do that, and the rest of us have to cover for those two groups.
As for assuming the government will always be run poorly, I'm only basing that judgement on a study of all governments in recorded human history, up to present time. I maintain that government is the embodied aggregate irresponsibility of the nation, based on detailed study of the behavior of every government I can find records on. My lack of faith is backed, in other words, by overwhelming amounts of data.
You're also generalizing beyond the scope of my statements on this subject. I don't "blanket no" the subject. There are places that I believe "common good" is best served by government, mainly in terms of mutual defense. Also keep in mind that I think litigation is a better solution to more problems than legislation. Despite the overwhelming and eggregious flaws in our justice system, I see it as having the potential for greater flexibility to specific situational judgement than the blanket policies created by legislation. This is especially true when politicians get out of hand, and pass laws they themselves haven't read.
- Gus "GSquared", RSVP, OODA, MAP, NMVP, FAQ, SAT, SQL, DNA, RNA, UOI, IOU, AM, PM, AD, BC, BCE, USA, UN, CF, ROFL, LOL, ETC
Property of The Thread
"Nobody knows the age of the human race, but everyone agrees it's old enough to know better." - Anon
August 5, 2011 at 8:19 am
This is very true. I may not be able to provide a correct answer to a theoretical question that has nothing to do with the job I am being interviewed for, but I've never had a task or a problem that I wan't able to resolve. Something is wrong with the interiewing process.
August 5, 2011 at 8:26 am
GSquared (8/5/2011)
Nevyn (8/5/2011)
GSquared (8/5/2011)
Freddie-304292 (8/5/2011)
I really don't see what this argument has to do with freedom. The government builds your roads, your railways, maintains your public parks. It provides many services for your tax dollars and that doesn't male you less free.The arguments for and against should be about practicality and fairness imho.
You live in a country where you can't drink until you're 21. I had to show Id to buy a beer last time I was over there and I'm 40. A man cam die for his country but not buy a beer? Not tell hid colleagues if he's gay. can't marry if he's gay. How is that freedom?
Paying the government for your healthcare rather then an insurance company that will do everything it can to avoid paying out should you fall ill does not make you free. Not being able to get insured because you have a pre existing condition does not make you free.
I'm free to fall ill whatever my current financial services and my college had a bar. That's freedom.
It's not about freedom for me. It's about trust.
Yes, we live in a regulated society, and some/many/most of those regulations are pure BS.
But how can I trust the government to manage my insurance for me? How can I trust them to manage my finances (social security) for me? They can't manage their own finances worth spit, why should I trust them to manage mine?
If the average elected official were to take on a job as an accountant, all of his clients would be broke and he'd be rich.
Not freedom. Trust and confidence.
While I can certainly see not having confidence in government:
1) I don't see why you'd have any more confidence or faith in a private company. They may run things better for themselves, but they are still not looking out for you. In fact, they are overtly trying to get as much out of you while giving as little away as possible. And while the traditional right wing position is faith in "the market", the truth is that in many of these sectors, there are massive economies of scale and barriers to entry, and you end up with an oligopoly, not true market competition. And that constrains your options as a consumer.
2) I also think its a bit of a cop out. Assuming that government will always be bums and idiots and scandalous, and that government programs will always be boondoggles also means you aren't really trying to change anything. You assume the next guy will be as bad. You assume the program can't be fixed. And that gives license for the problems to thrive. If you can't build consensus to scrap the program you've created an all or nothing between scrapping it and status quo, so incremental progress can't be made. It also lets you dismiss any new idea without having to get into the details of it. Instead of looking at "does it make more sense for government to do this one thing", you just have a blanket no without looking at the particulars of the situation.
The thing about faith in a private company, is that I can shop around and get more of what I want than with a government mandated monopoly. Case-in-Point: I used to bank with Wells Fargo, till they stole money from me via fees that I should not have been charged and that they said couldn't be refunded because their computer wouldn't let them. Now I bank with B of A, and when I had an issue with a paycheck being pulled back after I'd already used it to pay bills, the branch manager cancelled all the fees, even though they were technically legitimate. In other words, one company used "the computer won't let us" to justify taking $600 of my money that they had no rights to, while the other company went out of their way to help me out in a sticky situation. If there were a banking monopoly, I wouldn't have the options I do. Other people will have other experiences, even with the same companies, and can make their own judgement calls. But not in a monopoly. What you have with the NHS is a mandated monopoly. The only way to avoid being a paying NHS customer is to avoid paying taxes. Usually only the very poor and the very rich get to do that, and the rest of us have to cover for those two groups.
As for assuming the government will always be run poorly, I'm only basing that judgement on a study of all governments in recorded human history, up to present time. I maintain that government is the embodied aggregate irresponsibility of the nation, based on detailed study of the behavior of every government I can find records on. My lack of faith is backed, in other words, by overwhelming amounts of data.
You're also generalizing beyond the scope of my statements on this subject. I don't "blanket no" the subject. There are places that I believe "common good" is best served by government, mainly in terms of mutual defense. Also keep in mind that I think litigation is a better solution to more problems than legislation. Despite the overwhelming and eggregious flaws in our justice system, I see it as having the potential for greater flexibility to specific situational judgement than the blanket policies created by legislation. This is especially true when politicians get out of hand, and pass laws they themselves haven't read.
With all due respect - have you tried shopping your healthcare solutions around? It's a nice theory, but when I read this post my first reaction was - what country are you living in, because it does NOT describe what I've seen in the US.
The reality is - as an individual, you have the choice to a. take what your employer gives you, or b. go without coverage. Personal coverage is either outlandishly priced or requires you to be in such perfect shape that you don't "need" insurance: any blemish on your health record, and you can forget going with private healthcare insurance. Unless of course in that .5% of the population where you're earning a couple of million each year and are blessed with being able to buy yourself your own doctor.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Your lack of planning does not constitute an emergency on my part...unless you're my manager...or a director and above...or a really loud-spoken end-user..All right - what was my emergency again?
August 5, 2011 at 8:26 am
What you have with the NHS is a mandated monopoly. The only way to avoid being a paying NHS customer is to avoid paying taxes. Usually only the very poor and the very rich get to do that, and the rest of us have to cover for those two groups.
That's true, but you do have the power to campaign against and vote against the Government if they don't improve things. Money isn't you're only weapon.
August 5, 2011 at 8:48 am
GSquared,
Sorry to hear about the problems you experienced with banks.
I belong to a few credit unions and they treat their members very well.
Regards,
WC
For better, quicker answers on T-SQL questions, click on the following...
http://www.sqlservercentral.com/articles/Best+Practices/61537/
For better answers on performance questions, click on the following...
http://www.sqlservercentral.com/articles/SQLServerCentral/66909/
August 5, 2011 at 8:50 am
Matt Miller (#4) (8/5/2011)
GSquared (8/5/2011)
Nevyn (8/5/2011)
GSquared (8/5/2011)
Freddie-304292 (8/5/2011)
I really don't see what this argument has to do with freedom. The government builds your roads, your railways, maintains your public parks. It provides many services for your tax dollars and that doesn't male you less free.The arguments for and against should be about practicality and fairness imho.
You live in a country where you can't drink until you're 21. I had to show Id to buy a beer last time I was over there and I'm 40. A man cam die for his country but not buy a beer? Not tell hid colleagues if he's gay. can't marry if he's gay. How is that freedom?
Paying the government for your healthcare rather then an insurance company that will do everything it can to avoid paying out should you fall ill does not make you free. Not being able to get insured because you have a pre existing condition does not make you free.
I'm free to fall ill whatever my current financial services and my college had a bar. That's freedom.
It's not about freedom for me. It's about trust.
Yes, we live in a regulated society, and some/many/most of those regulations are pure BS.
But how can I trust the government to manage my insurance for me? How can I trust them to manage my finances (social security) for me? They can't manage their own finances worth spit, why should I trust them to manage mine?
If the average elected official were to take on a job as an accountant, all of his clients would be broke and he'd be rich.
Not freedom. Trust and confidence.
While I can certainly see not having confidence in government:
1) I don't see why you'd have any more confidence or faith in a private company. They may run things better for themselves, but they are still not looking out for you. In fact, they are overtly trying to get as much out of you while giving as little away as possible. And while the traditional right wing position is faith in "the market", the truth is that in many of these sectors, there are massive economies of scale and barriers to entry, and you end up with an oligopoly, not true market competition. And that constrains your options as a consumer.
2) I also think its a bit of a cop out. Assuming that government will always be bums and idiots and scandalous, and that government programs will always be boondoggles also means you aren't really trying to change anything. You assume the next guy will be as bad. You assume the program can't be fixed. And that gives license for the problems to thrive. If you can't build consensus to scrap the program you've created an all or nothing between scrapping it and status quo, so incremental progress can't be made. It also lets you dismiss any new idea without having to get into the details of it. Instead of looking at "does it make more sense for government to do this one thing", you just have a blanket no without looking at the particulars of the situation.
The thing about faith in a private company, is that I can shop around and get more of what I want than with a government mandated monopoly. Case-in-Point: I used to bank with Wells Fargo, till they stole money from me via fees that I should not have been charged and that they said couldn't be refunded because their computer wouldn't let them. Now I bank with B of A, and when I had an issue with a paycheck being pulled back after I'd already used it to pay bills, the branch manager cancelled all the fees, even though they were technically legitimate. In other words, one company used "the computer won't let us" to justify taking $600 of my money that they had no rights to, while the other company went out of their way to help me out in a sticky situation. If there were a banking monopoly, I wouldn't have the options I do. Other people will have other experiences, even with the same companies, and can make their own judgement calls. But not in a monopoly. What you have with the NHS is a mandated monopoly. The only way to avoid being a paying NHS customer is to avoid paying taxes. Usually only the very poor and the very rich get to do that, and the rest of us have to cover for those two groups.
As for assuming the government will always be run poorly, I'm only basing that judgement on a study of all governments in recorded human history, up to present time. I maintain that government is the embodied aggregate irresponsibility of the nation, based on detailed study of the behavior of every government I can find records on. My lack of faith is backed, in other words, by overwhelming amounts of data.
You're also generalizing beyond the scope of my statements on this subject. I don't "blanket no" the subject. There are places that I believe "common good" is best served by government, mainly in terms of mutual defense. Also keep in mind that I think litigation is a better solution to more problems than legislation. Despite the overwhelming and eggregious flaws in our justice system, I see it as having the potential for greater flexibility to specific situational judgement than the blanket policies created by legislation. This is especially true when politicians get out of hand, and pass laws they themselves haven't read.
With all due respect - have you tried shopping your healthcare solutions around? It's a nice theory, but when I read this post my first reaction was - what country are you living in, because it does NOT describe what I've seen in the US.
The reality is - as an individual, you have the choice to a. take what your employer gives you, or b. go without coverage. Personal coverage is either outlandishly priced or requires you to be in such perfect shape that you don't "need" insurance: any blemish on your health record, and you can forget going with private healthcare insurance. Unless of course in that .5% of the population where you're earning a couple of million each year and are blessed with being able to buy yourself your own doctor.
Your cynicism towards my intelligence, integrity, and judgement is duly noted.
I do live in the US. I haven't had the particular problems you are detailing here. Your mileage may vary. My experiences != your experiences. Please stop assuming that means I'm dishonest, stupid, and ignorant.
Even if you're stuck with the two (a) and (b) options you listed, which is indeed true for many people, that doesn't mean the company you work for can't shop around for better options, giving you some flexibility even within option (a). My current employer recently switched insurance carriers, because they got a better bid from a competitor to the one they used to use. We now get better coverage for less money. Couldn't do that under single-payer.
As for the option of voting to change things, that has a lot more inertia than simply switching to a different insurance company. It took 15 minutes and one phone call to change my car insurance last week, and cut the cost by nearly 2/3rds. It takes 4 years at least to change presidents, 6 to change senators, and is a much less certain proposition requiring significantly more effort and money, than making a phone call to an insurance company and asking for a quote.
Do any of these statements make me right and someone else wrong? No. They merely express my priorities and information and opinions on the subject. The wonderful thing about being possessed of self-will and an analytical mind is that we can disagree about anything/everything, and both be right from our own points of view.
- Gus "GSquared", RSVP, OODA, MAP, NMVP, FAQ, SAT, SQL, DNA, RNA, UOI, IOU, AM, PM, AD, BC, BCE, USA, UN, CF, ROFL, LOL, ETC
Property of The Thread
"Nobody knows the age of the human race, but everyone agrees it's old enough to know better." - Anon
August 5, 2011 at 9:36 am
GSquared (8/5/2011)
Your cynicism towards my intelligence, integrity, and judgement is duly noted.
I do live in the US. I haven't had the particular problems you are detailing here. Your mileage may vary. My experiences != your experiences. Please stop assuming that means I'm dishonest, stupid, and ignorant.
Even if you're stuck with the two (a) and (b) options you listed, which is indeed true for many people, that doesn't mean the company you work for can't shop around for better options, giving you some flexibility even within option (a). My current employer recently switched insurance carriers, because they got a better bid from a competitor to the one they used to use. We now get better coverage for less money. Couldn't do that under single-payer.
For what it's worth - there was no implication intended that you were being unintelligent, dishonest, stupid or ignorant. If it read that way - then I'm sorry. These kinds of debates tend to get very personal, so if there was extra heat in my comment, again, it's not intended to insult.
I just happen to not agree with one of your premises. It's very true that our individual experiences will vary. The concern I still keep coming back to is how easily you can go from having the options you articulate very eloquently, to having no such options.
My take on it: try being self-employed after cancer (or for that matter working for any of those really small companies that make up some 60% of the US economy), and you get a cold hard case of just how few options you really get. As an individual you're too expensive to rate on your own, and the organization is too small to take you on either. This happened to my wife: thankfully for both of us - I happened to be working for a large organization, so she ONLY lost her business, instead of losing her business, our savings and the house. My challenge now is to ensure I am at all times covered, by one of those large plans which don't require a personal health statement, or my wife will lose her coverage and won't be able to get it back.
And don't get me wrong - that boondoggle that got passed last year is no solution (it frankly solves none of the problems and creates ones that weren't there). There still are a host of issues with our current setup, which unfortunately don't seem to get solved without a uniform base: our current patchwork of options doesn't help for those cases.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Your lack of planning does not constitute an emergency on my part...unless you're my manager...or a director and above...or a really loud-spoken end-user..All right - what was my emergency again?
August 5, 2011 at 9:53 am
Matt Miller (#4) (8/5/2011)
GSquared (8/5/2011)
Your cynicism towards my intelligence, integrity, and judgement is duly noted.
I do live in the US. I haven't had the particular problems you are detailing here. Your mileage may vary. My experiences != your experiences. Please stop assuming that means I'm dishonest, stupid, and ignorant.
Even if you're stuck with the two (a) and (b) options you listed, which is indeed true for many people, that doesn't mean the company you work for can't shop around for better options, giving you some flexibility even within option (a). My current employer recently switched insurance carriers, because they got a better bid from a competitor to the one they used to use. We now get better coverage for less money. Couldn't do that under single-payer.
For what it's worth - there was no implication intended that you were being unintelligent, dishonest, stupid or ignorant. If it read that way - then I'm sorry. These kinds of debates tend to get very personal, so if there was extra heat in my comment, again, it's not intended to insult.
I just happen to not agree with one of your premises. It's very true that our individual experiences will vary. The concern I still keep coming back to is how easily you can go from having the options you articulate very eloquently, to having no such options.
My take on it: try being self-employed after cancer (or for that matter working for any of those really small companies that make up some 60% of the US economy), and you get a cold hard case of just how few options you really get. As an individual you're too expensive to rate on your own, and the organization is too small to take you on either. This happened to my wife: thankfully for both of us - I happened to be working for a large organization, so she ONLY lost her business, instead of losing her business, our savings and the house. My challenge now is to ensure I am at all times covered, by one of those large plans which don't require a personal health statement, or my wife will lose her coverage and won't be able to get it back.
And don't get me wrong - that boondoggle that got passed last year is no solution (it frankly solves none of the problems and creates ones that weren't there). There still are a host of issues with our current setup, which unfortunately don't seem to get solved without a uniform base: our current patchwork of options doesn't help for those cases.
I may have read more into your first sentence than was intentionally put there. It happens. No big deal.
I totally agree with you that what we've got is broken in numerous ways. And that there doesn't appear to be a real solution on the horizon. My only real point on all of this is that nationalizing it just trades one set of eggregious problems for another set, and I've yet to see proof that it actually improves the overall situation, except from the viewpoint of certain politicians' careers and beaurocrats' pocketbooks.
Part of the problem is that it's very hard to get enough unspun information about any of these things. Most of the so-called "data" available about both systems (private vs public insurance) is so subject to distortion, omissions, and straight-up fabrications, that it's very difficult to really come to conclusions about what would be best.
So I'd rather have multiple competing sources and avoid monopoly-by-fiat.
One solution I've taken a bit of a liking to is set up a nationalized safety net that will cover anything over 15% of income/available credit in any given year, so long as at least 3 doctors agree it's necessary, and 2 of those aren't going to directly benefit from saying so. Everything below that is left in the hands of private insurance, or just pay cash if you have it. That would cover the issues with pre-existing, and with low-income (that's why it's a percentage), while shielding the middle-class from the kinds of disasters they currently end up going into bankruptcy to cover, without encouraging the rich to use taxpayer dollars for every hangnail. Make fraud on it have extreme penalties and it should be safe enough in that regard. It'll be open to some abuse, but so is everything designed by the human mind.
But will it work? Who knows? I just think it makes more sense than what we have now.
- Gus "GSquared", RSVP, OODA, MAP, NMVP, FAQ, SAT, SQL, DNA, RNA, UOI, IOU, AM, PM, AD, BC, BCE, USA, UN, CF, ROFL, LOL, ETC
Property of The Thread
"Nobody knows the age of the human race, but everyone agrees it's old enough to know better." - Anon
August 5, 2011 at 10:05 am
GSquared (8/5/2011)
The thing about faith in a private company, is that I can shop around and get more of what I want than with a government mandated monopoly. Case-in-Point: I used to bank with Wells Fargo, till they stole money from me via fees that I should not have been charged and that they said couldn't be refunded because their computer wouldn't let them. Now I bank with B of A, and when I had an issue with a paycheck being pulled back after I'd already used it to pay bills, the branch manager cancelled all the fees, even though they were technically legitimate. In other words, one company used "the computer won't let us" to justify taking $600 of my money that they had no rights to, while the other company went out of their way to help me out in a sticky situation. If there were a banking monopoly, I wouldn't have the options I do. Other people will have other experiences, even with the same companies, and can make their own judgement calls. But not in a monopoly. What you have with the NHS is a mandated monopoly. The only way to avoid being a paying NHS customer is to avoid paying taxes. Usually only the very poor and the very rich get to do that, and the rest of us have to cover for those two groups.
Again, the issue here is that many industries where the public/private debate crops up are oligopolies (which act in near monopolistic fashion).
You can switch health insurance companies, but there are few of them, and as a result they are not as competitive for your business as they ought to be. The free market theory thing that is meant to happen is that consumer dissatisfaction leads to the rise of a new competitor who takes them on. But to start a health insurer, you need billions of dollars. You need a network of health care providers with contracted rates. And you can't immediately compete because large blocks of consumers are locked into group plans. Which means that you don't get the benefits of competition that you ought to.
And we should distinguish between government bureaucracy and a monopoly. There is a difference, due to accountability first, and motive second.
They have many of the same pitfalls but not all of them.
For example, both will lead to limited choice and limited innovation. But a private monopoly will also seek to maximize return by setting price accordingly at high levels. A bureaucracy, though it might not operate efficiently, will price things according to their cost, and has no incentive to raise the price beyond what it requires. Still not ideal, but not really the same as a monopoly.
As for assuming the government will always be run poorly, I'm only basing that judgement on a study of all governments in recorded human history, up to present time. I maintain that government is the embodied aggregate irresponsibility of the nation, based on detailed study of the behavior of every government I can find records on. My lack of faith is backed, in other words, by overwhelming amounts of data.
"Run poorly" is a very subjective term. There is wide variation in how well different governments and bureaucracies have run. You are drawing a line at some point and saying "none of them have ever passed this line". But that blows past the debate of how close various ones have come to that line, and whether things could come any closer.
I also personally think it is overly generous in its assessment of how private enterprise has done relative to that line.
You're also generalizing beyond the scope of my statements on this subject. I don't "blanket no" the subject. There are places that I believe "common good" is best served by government, mainly in terms of mutual defense.
If you have a preset opinion on the things government should or should not do, then this is exactly what I meant.
You have your bucket of "best served" options, and you assume anything outside of it can't work. This is dangerous logical territory, because when someone suggests something new outside those options you have already decided it can't work and are only looking for support as to why, as opposed to examining the particulars of that issue.
Also keep in mind that I think litigation is a better solution to more problems than legislation. Despite the overwhelming and eggregious flaws in our justice system, I see it as having the potential for greater flexibility to specific situational judgement than the blanket policies created by legislation. This is especially true when politicians get out of hand, and pass laws they themselves haven't read.
I'll take a pass on this for now. We've hijacked enough without starting a new debate over the state of the US judicial system.
August 5, 2011 at 10:26 am
For example, both will lead to limited choice and limited innovation. But a private monopoly will also seek to maximize return by setting price accordingly at high levels. A bureaucracy, though it might not operate efficiently, will price things according to their cost, and has no incentive to raise the price beyond what it requires. Still not ideal, but not really the same as a monopoly.
Can't pass up that one. Really? Because in my experience, and according to every record I've ever seen, government projects tend to go over budget and over deadline even more than private contracts do. California, for example, is spending simply vast amounts of money on its education system, and getting very, very poor service out of it. The "price" (taxes) is massively inflated there, to the point that people and businesses are moving out of there faster than the rate of population growth.
I'm not going to disagree with the monopolies overpricing thing argument. That's far too well proven to disagree with. But contrasting government costs and prices to that seems inaccurate to me.
We are, after all, talking about an organization that will gladly pay over $100 for a hammer that can be purchased for $5 at a local Home Depot.
- Gus "GSquared", RSVP, OODA, MAP, NMVP, FAQ, SAT, SQL, DNA, RNA, UOI, IOU, AM, PM, AD, BC, BCE, USA, UN, CF, ROFL, LOL, ETC
Property of The Thread
"Nobody knows the age of the human race, but everyone agrees it's old enough to know better." - Anon
Viewing 15 posts - 211 through 225 (of 238 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply