Communist Education?

[Agathon]

Originally posted by skywalker

It's still a fallacy to claim that current science is wrong because all previous science has been wrong.

Really, and what fallacy would that be? It looks like a straightforward inductive inference to me.

Remember that this is expressing a probability, not a certainty. It's quite likely that a lot of our scientific beliefs are wrong, because we don't yet understand everything as is evidenced by the lack of a grand unified theory.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Arrian

What can I say, but that I disagree? "Capitalism" has been around for a few hundred years, so far as I can see. Yet my (admittedly rather dim) view of human nature is based on human history going back far beyond the industrial revolution.

Like what?

Will human behavior change under a communist system? Yes, of course. But not the way communists hope, I think. People will still compete and try to get ahead.

But people compete now in certain specified ways rather than just competing in everything. Why would someone want to get ahead if they're pretty much satisfied with the way things are or if communal effort will get them what they want more efficiently?

The rules of the game, however, will have changed, so that people must adapt to them. And adapt they will. The only hope you would have, I think, would be to somehow channel that competition towards things you think are good for all. A system based on honors, perhaps, as opposed to wealth? Dunno if that would work.

You are still assuming that people will feel the same way no matter what happens. Look at the example of public health care. People pissed and moaned about this when it was introduced, now no one cares because it is so much more efficient than private insurance.

Imagine if our current way of doing things resulted in environmental disaster. People would simply dump the things they formerly did because they'd realise how silly it was.

Anyway, I would really like to see a group of people (a large one) set up a "real" communist state somewhere, without the tyranny/oppression bit, and be left alone by everyone else, and see how they do... over a few generations (so obviously I'd be dead by the time the experiment can really be judged). But that hasn't happened yet, and the attempts thus far have not been encouraging. Therefore, I remain *extremely* skeptical about communism.

It's not a case of "setting one up" but merely waiting for it to evolve.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Patroklos
Efficient in everyone has access to it, not efficient in actually giving people quality of service. So I guess you believe in quantity over quality?

There's nothing really wrong with it. No private system can ever be as efficient as a public health system due to insurance overheads among other things.

Canada spends a vastly less percentage of its GDP on health care, yet manages to provide world class health care to all its citizens. The US spends about two to three times that and still can't deliver to everyone. No doubt a very few people enjoy a higher standard than Canadians, but the majority do not.

Why do you think that every other western country has state health care? Only the US doesn't because of lobbyists and a commitment to liberty. But the truth is that sometimes we are better off if we give up particular liberties.

Health care in the US is a sort of perverse joke. You spend money like water and get bugger all for it.

[Ben Kenobi]

Canada spends a vastly less percentage of its GDP on health care, yet manages to provide world class health care to all its citizens.

World class health care?

That does not mean we have an efficient system. There are lots of problesm, waiting lists for surgery and such. It seems better to us because we don't deal with the system on a regular basis.

[joncha]

Originally posted by Agathon


Why do you think that every other western country has state health care? Only the US doesn't because of lobbyists and a commitment to liberty. But the truth is that sometimes we are better off if we give up particular liberties.

Health care in the US is a sort of perverse joke. You spend money like water and get bugger all for it.

Wow. I think the whole "liberty" thing is the justification, not the reason. The sole reason for a private healthcare system is greed.

Greed on the part of the wealthy, who are in a position to pay for inflated health costs, can take the chance and not pay into the system because they can afford it when they actually need it, and can be callous enough to not want to pay for the "freeloaders" who need care but can't afford it. Greed also of big business, who can profit far more off of other peoples misery (definately not hyperbole in the case of healthcare corporations) under a private system.

The concept behind a public is, if someone needs medical care, heal them. The driving motive behind a private system is profit, so... if we can make some money out of it, heal people. If not, screw it and screw them.

jon.

[joncha]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


World class health care?

That does not mean we have an efficient system. There are lots of problesm, waiting lists for surgery and such. It seems better to us because we don't deal with the system on a regular basis.

It was world class until the "Liberals" cut the funding for everything. Give me a conservative government over a liberal one any day, at least they're open about it when they're screwing us over.

jon.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


World class health care?

That does not mean we have an efficient system. There are lots of problesm, waiting lists for surgery and such. It seems better to us because we don't deal with the system on a regular basis.

But waiting lists are just a symptom of scarcity. If you listed everyone in the US who needed surgery and was having to wait for it and included those people who would never get it (add the time they wait until they die), you would find that the total time waited per person would be much larger than it is in Canada. Hence the Canadian system is much more efficient at allocating surgery.

More to the point, a lot of problems with the state system occur because stupid politicians underfund it. One reason for this is that people irrationally prefer tax cuts even though they will be worse off overall due to cuts in services. I can't think of a better example of citizen irrationality than that.

Don't be fooled into knocking a state health system. It's not perfect because no health system is - we have to ration resources. But state systems absolutely spank private systems for efficiency.

The right would be better off picking on something else. When it comes to health care, they are simply out to lunch.

[joncha]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


It has been whomever I invited to join, however, I never said that others couldn't invite people to join. I don't think Poly allows closed clubs, though. In any event, there's nothing we could do to stop anyone from slapping CPA on themselves.

Since this is, essentially, a joke party, there's not a lot of point in weeding out police. Don't get me wrong, we take our politics seriously, but hell, one should always beable to laugh at onesself. Humor is a very human thing, and communism is about creating a world in which we can be fully human.

So, if you want in, you're in. If not, you're not.

I'll take that as an invite.

The police thing was a weak, 3am attempt at humour. Although the sentiment can apply to right wing ****ers making ridiculous arguments as "members" of the party. All part of the fun of OT rant/counter rant, I guess.

jon.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by joncha


Wow. I think the whole "liberty" thing is the justification, not the reason. The sole reason for a private healthcare system is greed.

Greed on the part of the wealthy, who are in a position to pay for inflated health costs, can take the chance and not pay into the system because they can afford it when they actually need it, and can be callous enough to not want to pay for the "freeloaders" who need care but can't afford it. Greed also of big business, who can profit far more off of other peoples misery (definately not hyperbole in the case of healthcare corporations) under a private system.

The concept behind a public is, if someone needs medical care, heal them. The driving motive behind a private system is profit, so... if we can make some money out of it, heal people. If not, screw it and screw them.

jon.

The liberty thing is essentially the same reason why car insurance is compulsory. If you left it up to people to insure voluntarily, some would try to free ride because they either don't think they will have an accident or they know that they can declare bankruptcy in the event they are sued. That being so we would all be collectively underinsured and that is inefficient. Making insurance compulsory stops people from trying to free ride and everyone ends up better off.

[Ben Kenobi]

That being so we would all be collectively underinsured and that is inefficient.

Look at what happened in New Brunswick. Why have a state monopoly on car insurance? Open the field up to some competition and maybe we'd see some improvements in efficiency.

Now, if this is the case for car insurance, why not health care? There are some aspects that would seem to favour privatisation much more than others.

[joncha]

Originally posted by Agathon


The liberty thing is essentially the same reason why car insurance is compulsory. If you left it up to people to insure voluntarily, some would try to free ride because they either don't think they will have an accident or they know that they can declare bankruptcy in the event they are sued. That being so we would all be collectively underinsured and that is inefficient. Making insurance compulsory stops people from trying to free ride and everyone ends up better off.

You see, I'd call that greed, not liberty. I guess I've just forgotten how regressive the terrain of debate is in the states. ie, Greed = Liberty and Sharing = Theft. *sigh*

jon.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


World class health care?

That does not mean we have an efficient system. There are lots of problesm, waiting lists for surgery and such. It seems better to us because we don't deal with the system on a regular basis.

You are just the person who needs to read Joseph Heath's The Efficient Society. You should be able to get it at any good Canadian bookstore. It's a nice summary of why Canada is a more efficient country than most.

It's an easy read and a good introduction to the topic. I don't agree with him about everything but he offers a good Hobbesian analysis of why Canada works so well.

If you do read it you'll recognize a lot of the arguments as ones I occasionally offer - since this book reignited my interest in collective action problems and public policy. Sometimes I even pinch his examples because they are so good. My favourite one is about the havoc that was caused by privatizing streets.

[joncha]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


Look at what happened in New Brunswick. Why have a state monopoly on car insurance? Open the field up to some competition and maybe we'd see some improvements in efficiency.

Now, if this is the case for car insurance, why not health care? There are some aspects that would seem to favour privatisation much more than others.

I thought NB did have a private system. I could just be mixing them up with Nova Scotia... either way, most studies have shown that the public car insurance systems in Canada are far more effiecient that the private ones.

The CBC did a whole series on it over the summer, but here's an article that mentions some of the details. The insurance companies, you'll note, disagree.

http://www.cbc.ca/storyview/CBC/2003/09/10/Consumers/car_insurance030910

jon.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi

Look at what happened in New Brunswick. Why have a state monopoly on car insurance? Open the field up to some competition and maybe we'd see some improvements in efficiency.

Sometimes this is the better way. Notice that car insurance is compulsory even if it is supplied by private insurers.

New Zealand has an even better solution. We have no fault accident insurance for everyone so there are no lawsuits. People don't have to have car insurance, but the financial penalty of not having it is not as severe when you are only paying for repairs to cars rather than being sued. You don't have to pay the lawyers much either.

Now, if this is the case for car insurance, why not health care? There are some aspects that would seem to favour privatisation much more than others.

The short answer is because it ends up cheaper. In Canada the state only monopolises the insurance scheme - the hospitals and clinics are private businesses. Most doctors prefer it this way because they are guaranteed prompt payment. Private insurers have a habit of quibbling..

[Ben Kenobi]

My favourite one is about the havoc that was caused by privatizing streets.

I don't doubt there are areas that should not be privatised. and I agree that Canada, as a society is more efficient than many other places. I just think there are ways we can improve our health care system.

Yes, the state does pay promptly, but it also pays too freely. Even Canada's system has plenty of waste we can trim.

The insurance companies, you'll note, disagree.

It's an interesting question, as to which is more efficient, but we have to look over the long run.

For example, as a student I benefit greatly from the collective power of all the students having to pay for a bus pass. In turn, this increases the ridership for the buses, making public transit more competitive when compared to other forms of transportation.

The problem is that this arrangement does not cater well to innovation, nor does it adapt well to changes in circumstances.