Yay, politicians interfering in scientific funding is a thing again..

[regexcellent]

There was a country full of STEM majors once. They all got easily convinced that to reform their economy it was necessary to sell nationalized enterprises to random people.

Convinced rightly, of course.

[kentonio]

Convinced rightly, of course.

Please give a justification for why essential public services such as water or power are better off in private ownership rather than public ownership.

[regexcellent]

Please give a justification for why essential public services such as water or power are better off in private ownership rather than public ownership.

He wasn't talking about either power or water, but my power and water are privately owned (well, power at least, not sure about water) and I've never had trouble with either. That's almost universally true across the United States.

Also, the burden isn't on me to prove that enterprises in general shouldn't be government-run. Food production and distribution is a much more necessary public service and it isn't government run, except in communist countries.

[C0ckney]

thankfully there's no substantive difference between food production and water or power supply, otherwise you'd look like a complete imbecile...

[N35t0r]

It's much easier for free-market competition to occurr in food production and distribution than in utilities (also, I don't know in the US, but over here utilities are heavily regulated by the government).

Also, millions of people die every year from malnutrition, so I'd vouch that the free market isn't doing that well in the area.

[The Mad Monk]

Because engineering might get you a great new bridge or building material but social sciences could potentially tell you why it's a really stupid ****ing idea to lock up millions of people for non-violent drug offenses and maybe provide new ways to manage major issues in society?

Interesting question. Who started this, and why? It goes much further back than the "War On Drugs" The first bans happened when, the 60s? That movie was back in the 20s or 30s, right? Weren't those the time when interest in the social sciences really took off?

[The Mad Monk]

So would you be equally happy with politicians being able to come into the emergency room and decide which treatments Medicare patients should be given for instance? After all, it's the public's money.

They already do. I'm sure yours do too, if you dig deep enough.

[Buster Crabbe's Uncle]

How much DO UK politicians interfere with National Health, anyway? I understood it was cheap and crappy care, but I never hear about Parliament getting an oar in, just much red tape...

[DinoDoc]

So would you be equally happy with politicians being able to come into the emergency room and decide which treatments Medicare patients should be given for instance? After all, it's the public's money.

What is the role of NICE in the UK again?

[kentonio]

They already do. I'm sure yours do too, if you dig deep enough.

Nope. Because we have the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE).

What is the role of NICE in the UK again?

"NICE was established in an attempt to defuse the so-called postcode lottery of healthcare in England and Wales, where treatments that were available depended upon the NHS Health Authority area in which the patient happened to live, but it has since acquired a high reputation internationally as a role model for the development of clinical guidelines. One aspect of this is the explicit determination of cost–benefit boundaries for certain technologies that it assesses.[5] NICE also plays an important role in pioneering technology assessment in other healthcare systems through NICE International, established in May 2008 to help cultivate links with foreign governments." - Wiki

They're health professionals, not politicians.

How much DO UK politicians interfere with National Health, anyway? I understood it was cheap and crappy care, but I never hear about Parliament getting an oar in, just much red tape...

It's neither cheap nor crappy, our health outcomes beat the hell out of yours in most substantive ways.

[regexcellent]

It's really depressing how many people hold the downright autocratic view that federal bureaucracy should just be left to its own devices without any oversight from elected officials.

[kentonio]

It's really depressing how many people hold the downright autocratic view that federal bureaucracy should just be left to its own devices without any oversight from elected officials.

Which is why no-one in the world said that ever.

[regexcellent]

You did, in the OP of this very thread.

[Sava]

It's ironic to you bring that up because the logic so far used to justify removing political oversight from scientific spending applies to military spending as well. All spending actually.

I haven't mentioned anything about the topic.

Also, I don't think you know what irony means.

[Sava]

He wasn't talking about either power or water, but my power and water are privately owned (well, power at least, not sure about water) and I've never had trouble with either. That's almost universally true across the United States.

Also, the burden isn't on me to prove that enterprises in general shouldn't be government-run. Food production and distribution is a much more necessary public service and it isn't government run, except in communist countries.

No... just heavily subsidized.

It's the worst of both worlds.

Lots of government resources go to production (corn, for instance), but the public doesn't get any of the benefits... and "private" business doesn't have to be held accountable!

Corporatism

You are a wonderful little corporatist.