Adam Smith. Communist

[kentonio]

Woah, that's a pretty bleak view of things. If it's that bad I'd expect various statist systems to outperform capitalist systems in a wide number of areas. Unfortunately for your argument, usually they do not.

Examples please, you seem to be beginning with the assumption of having already proven your case. In the UK we nationalized and then re-privatized a large number of industries, and there were some very stark lessons as to the benefits, risks and consequences of each. Interestingly we have never felt the desire to privatize state schooling, despite also having some absolutely excellent public (private) schools. Same with healthcare. Those services are just totally unsuitable for systems that demand consistent performance at the lowest levels as well as the highest.

The weakness of private that you see is easily overcome through regulation, transparency, and consumer choice. I see more ****ing up when state systems have no reason to pay attention to outcomes (consumers). Having to compete for patients and students would go a long way to fixing problems that I see in the public systems that I am familiar with.

Since when did consumer choice play any significant role in healthcare or for that matter education? Sick people want to get better and parents want their kids to be well educated, it's rarely much more complicated than that. Since when was your average patient in any educated position to choose the kind of treatment that is going to be best for them?

As for competing for patients/students, how exactly do you ensure that every potential patient/student is catered for, when each hospital or school is a business that has to protect their bottom line? If there's a rural area with very small numbers, are those patients/kids basically just ****ed unless they are able/willing to travel a huge distance to wherever the closest school/hospital happens to be?

Health and Education are essential services and need to cater for everyone. Sometimes that means that they are going to be more expensive in one area than another, and that's something that can be dealt with when its a public not a private service.

[notyoueither]

Examples please, you seem to be beginning with the assumption of having already proven your case. In the UK we nationalized and then re-privatized a large number of industries, and there were some very stark lessons as to the benefits, risks and consequences of each. Interestingly we have never felt the desire to privatize state schooling, despite also having some absolutely excellent public (private) schools. Same with healthcare. Those services are just totally unsuitable for systems that demand consistent performance at the lowest levels as well as the highest.

Well, there is the matter of the economic system used by the leading economies of the world, but that's pretty general.

How about the US healthcare system? Sure it sucks in many ways, but it is excellent for prompt, competent care for those who can pay. The issue is extending it to cover all those who cannot afford to pay or who foolishly thought themselves immortal and did not need to pay for insurance before catastrophe struck.

Since when did consumer choice play any significant role in healthcare or for that matter education? Sick people want to get better and parents want their kids to be well educated, it's rarely much more complicated than that. Since when was your average patient in any educated position to choose the kind of treatment that is going to be best for them?

As for competing for patients/students, how exactly do you ensure that every potential patient/student is catered for, when each hospital or school is a business that has to protect their bottom line? If there's a rural area with very small numbers, are those patients/kids basically just ****ed unless they are able/willing to travel a huge distance to wherever the closest school/hospital happens to be?

Health and Education are essential services and need to cater for everyone. Sometimes that means that they are going to be more expensive in one area than another, and that's something that can be dealt with when its a public not a private service.

Consumer choice is pretty fundamental to ensuring that goods and services are delivered at the highest quality for the best price. You aren't going to get the best out of any system where consumers are prisoners with no ability to say 'this product sucks so I will use a different one or one supplied by someone else.' It's the very thing that is sacrificed to the detriment of all by enforced public only delivery of selected essential services.

Choice of doctors, clinics, and treatments would greatly help the healthcare system where I am. It's the lack of choices that lead to the long wait times and substandard delivery being too common. The same goes for education. Parents should be choosing schools for their kids. They should be looking for measurments of results, quality of faculty, and suitablility of programmes for their kids. It's win-win-win, except for poor teachers and administrators who should not be occupying their positions.

Also, I'm not proposing an either, or. I specifically said that I would prefer a blended system where public and private systems compete with each other. That's how we get consistent quality and control costs.

[Sava]

You guys ever notice the similarity between how free market types refer to themselves and the way the mafia operates?

Both call themselves "businessmen"... or cite their job as "entrepreneur".

Both hate the federal government.

Both want guns so they can take justice into their own hands.

Both want to operate against the public interest.

Both feel entitled to suck money out of the economy.

If anyone complains, they hire goons to keep everyone in line.

I fail to see the difference between the two... other than the whole Italian stereotype thing.

[notyoueither]

We marvel at some of the things you see, Sava. I mark it up to good drugs and a very active imagination.

[Felch]

Elementary and secondary state schools generally don't have open enrollment in the US, right?

For the most part, you go to whatever school your home is assigned to. There are a lot of exceptions, but that's the general rule.

[kentonio]

Well, there is the matter of the economic system used by the leading economies of the world, but that's pretty general.

How about the US healthcare system? Sure it sucks in many ways, but it is excellent for prompt, competent care for those who can pay. The issue is extending it to cover all those who cannot afford to pay or who foolishly thought themselves immortal and did not need to pay for insurance before catastrophe struck.

You can't just say it works for the well off so it must be able to work for everyone. There's a massive amount of issues to take into account the further down the wealth pyramid you go, not least that the number of people gets larger and larger.

To be absolutely honest though, I've little or no interest in the issues, because to me the outcome is abhorrent. I think the privatization of healthcare is a cancer that leads to a fractured relation between doctor and patient and feeds into an extremely unpleasant national sense that healthcare should be treated as a commodity not as an essential human need. It leads to politicians cutting budgets because hey **** the poor, and to too many of the poor turning against each other on the basis of not wanting to pay for other peoples healthcare.

Consumer choice is pretty fundamental to ensuring that goods and services are delivered at the highest quality for the best price. You aren't going to get the best out of any system where consumers are prisoners with no ability to say 'this product sucks so I will use a different one or one supplied by someone else.' It's the very thing that is sacrificed to the detriment of all by enforced public only delivery of selected essential services.

Good, it should be sacrificed because for the most part it's a false flag waved to get people to act against their best interests. So everyone should have choice? So for every hospital we should have two hospitals, fighting to out compete each other? How about when one buys out the other, and closes it down, what happens to your choice then?

Choice of doctors, clinics, and treatments would greatly help the healthcare system where I am. It's the lack of choices that lead to the long wait times and substandard delivery being too common. The same goes for education. Parents should be choosing schools for their kids. They should be looking for measurments of results, quality of faculty, and suitablility of programmes for their kids. It's win-win-win, except for poor teachers and administrators who should not be occupying their positions.

No it isn't a lack of choice that leads to long waiting times and substandard delivery, it's poor management or under resourced facilities, nothing more. Doctors and teachers need to be concentrating on little things like trying to give their patients or students the best treatment/education they can, not worrying that if they don't get them through the doors quickly enough they won't have a job next week.

Also, I'm not proposing an either, or. I specifically said that I would prefer a blended system where public and private systems compete with each other. That's how we get consistent quality and control costs.

How exactly? Does everyone still get taxed to pay for the public option regardless of whether they use it?

[kentonio]

Well, there is the matter of the economic system used by the leading economies of the world, but that's pretty general.

How about the US healthcare system? Sure it sucks in many ways, but it is excellent for prompt, competent care for those who can pay. The issue is extending it to cover all those who cannot afford to pay or who foolishly thought themselves immortal and did not need to pay for insurance before catastrophe struck.

You can't just say it works for the well off so it must be able to work for everyone. There's a massive amount of issues to take into account the further down the wealth pyramid you go, not least that the number of people gets larger and larger.

To be absolutely honest though, I've little or no interest in the issues, because to me the outcome is abhorrent. I think the privatization of healthcare is a cancer that leads to a fractured relation between doctor and patient and feeds into an extremely unpleasant national sense that healthcare should be treated as a commodity not as an essential human need. It leads to politicians cutting budgets because hey **** the poor, and to too many of the poor turning against each other on the basis of not wanting to pay for other peoples healthcare.

Consumer choice is pretty fundamental to ensuring that goods and services are delivered at the highest quality for the best price. You aren't going to get the best out of any system where consumers are prisoners with no ability to say 'this product sucks so I will use a different one or one supplied by someone else.' It's the very thing that is sacrificed to the detriment of all by enforced public only delivery of selected essential services.

Good, it should be sacrificed because for the most part it's a false flag waved to get people to act against their best interests. So everyone should have choice? So for every hospital we should have two hospitals, fighting to out compete each other? How about when one buys out the other, and closes it down, what happens to your choice then?

Choice of doctors, clinics, and treatments would greatly help the healthcare system where I am. It's the lack of choices that lead to the long wait times and substandard delivery being too common. The same goes for education. Parents should be choosing schools for their kids. They should be looking for measurments of results, quality of faculty, and suitablility of programmes for their kids. It's win-win-win, except for poor teachers and administrators who should not be occupying their positions.

No it isn't a lack of choice that leads to long waiting times and substandard delivery, it's poor management or under resourced facilities, nothing more. Doctors and teachers need to be concentrating on little things like trying to give their patients or students the best treatment/education they can, not worrying that if they don't get them through the doors quickly enough they won't have a job next week.

Also, I'm not proposing an either, or. I specifically said that I would prefer a blended system where public and private systems compete with each other. That's how we get consistent quality and control costs.

How exactly? Does everyone still get taxed to pay for the public option regardless of whether they use it?

[Boris Godunov]

Scrambled eggs are to be made by adding heavy cream or nothing.

Omelettes should have a tsp of water added if you want them fluffy.

[Felch]

I think the privatization of healthcare is a cancer that leads to a fractured relation between doctor and patient and feeds into an extremely unpleasant national sense that healthcare should be treated as a commodity not as an essential human need.

Is it okay to treat foodstuffs as commodities? Food is an essential human need after all.

I still get a kick out of you claiming to be "conservative." You seem to have about as firm of a grip on that word as you do "rationing."

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Vouchers don't help with parental involvement.

Not per se, but are a leading indicator that the parents who choose to use them likely will be involved (as they have done the requisite homework to choose a better school and take the steps to enroll there) and that furthermore the schools that allow their use will likely be active in promoting that involvement.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Uhmmm explain how CEO's profits make a minimum wage worker give you better service?

Define CEO's profits

[kentonio]

Is it okay to treat foodstuffs as commodities? Food is an essential human need after all.

To a degree yes it is. Do I want to eat bacon or chicken is a more realistic choice than do I want to be treated with medicine one or medicine two. At the same time because food as a whole is an essential item, it requires some protection to avoid for example commodity traders artificially inflating the price of rice to make a few million dollars while simultaneously causing the starvation of millions of Asians.

The point here is not simply that any essential item or service should be provided by the state, but rather that ensuring the availability of an essential item or service is something that needs to be managed by the state. Sometimes the only way to do that effectively is via direct state ownership and other times it's enough to just provide careful regulation.

[notyoueither]

You can't just say it works for the well off so it must be able to work for everyone. There's a massive amount of issues to take into account the further down the wealth pyramid you go, not least that the number of people gets larger and larger.

To be absolutely honest though, I've little or no interest in the issues, because to me the outcome is abhorrent. I think the privatization of healthcare is a cancer that leads to a fractured relation between doctor and patient and feeds into an extremely unpleasant national sense that healthcare should be treated as a commodity not as an essential human need. It leads to politicians cutting budgets because hey **** the poor, and to too many of the poor turning against each other on the basis of not wanting to pay for other peoples healthcare.

The outomes in Germany, Switzerland, and other OECD coutries are abhorrent?

This is where healthcare debate breaks down in the US, Canada, and the UK, it seems. Sacred cows shall not be questioned, and it is distasteful to even begin to consider alternatives.

Good, it should be sacrificed because for the most part it's a false flag waved to get people to act against their best interests. So everyone should have choice? So for every hospital we should have two hospitals, fighting to out compete each other? How about when one buys out the other, and closes it down, what happens to your choice then?

Perhaps the area could only support one hospital? Or maybe your scenario is a red herring? If two hospitals are operating profitably there is no way you could or would finance buying one and shutting it down in a market system. There would be nothing to prevent a competitor from filling the vacuum and the eeevil capitalists having to eat the loss from their greed.

No it isn't a lack of choice that leads to long waiting times and substandard delivery, it's poor management or under resourced facilities, nothing more. Doctors and teachers need to be concentrating on little things like trying to give their patients or students the best treatment/education they can, not worrying that if they don't get them through the doors quickly enough they won't have a job next week.

Whatever system you have, capitalist or statist, ultimately the only way to make it work for consumers is to allow them to make choices; to reward those who do a better job with their patronage. All the rest of this is just clap trap. It is ridiculous to suggest that a profit motive necessarily detracts from quality of product or service, on it's face. There is a very damn good reason that the Soviet system collapsed, and Mao's systems was only saved by adopting capitalism. Here's a hint, overall quality of Chinese goods and services did not decline when profit was allowed, it skyrocketed.

It is also an insult to the professionalism and integrity of millions of healthcare workers in the developed world who choose their vocations not as a result of dollars and cents, but because they have a genuine interest in helping people.

How exactly? Does everyone still get taxed to pay for the public option regardless of whether they use it?

Yes.

To a degree yes it is. Do I want to eat bacon or chicken is a more realistic choice than do I want to be treated with medicine one or medicine two. At the same time because food as a whole is an essential item, it requires some protection to avoid for example commodity traders artificially inflating the price of rice to make a few million dollars while simultaneously causing the starvation of millions of Asians.

The point here is not simply that any essential item or service should be provided by the state, but rather that ensuring the availability of an essential item or service is something that needs to be managed by the state. Sometimes the only way to do that effectively is via direct state ownership and other times it's enough to just provide careful regulation.

It isn't bacon or chicken. It is where to get the best bacon for the consumer, and that can vary by individual. Primary healthcare practioners (GPs, etc) should facilitate the patient's decision making for the more complex aspects of the system.

This does not need to be managed by the state as is well evidenced by the examples of Germany and Switzerland, to name two.

[Sava]

We marvel at some of the things you see, Sava. I mark it up to good drugs and a very active imagination.

I haven't smoked in 9 months, so I credit my imagination.

[Sava]

Define CEO's profits

I was being lazy. If you want to seriously respond, substitute "CEO's profits" with "corporate profits"... most of which go to top executives or shareholders... very few of whom are low level employees.

So how do corporate profits make a minimum wage employee give you a higher quality product or service?

Profit motive is just another one of those idiotic free market beliefs that doesn't have any basis in reality.