On Thu, 13 Sep 2007 18:18:46 -0400 Roberto C. Sánchez <roberto@connexer.com> wrote: > On Thu, Sep 13, 2007 at 04:41:18PM -0400, Lennart Sorensen wrote: > > On Thu, Sep 13, 2007 at 03:13:06PM -0500, Harry Penner wrote: > > > In other words, the people who have a choice whether to accept the > > > quality and wait times associated with health care in the government > > > system, don't. That doesn't make you pause to think, even a tiny bit? > > > > > > If you can't let go of that nutty socialism-is-good-for-the-people meme, > > > try thinking of it this way instead: > > > government monopoly on health care = microsoft/your goliath of choice > > > > government monopoly on health care = everybody gets it > > > Is that the same way that government monopoly on DSL (that is what the > telephone system is nearly everywhere) means everyone gets it? I don't think a private company would invest money to reach the customers on the last horse town. Government would do this faster. Still government was much slower on providing DSL at all. > > Or what about the government monopoly on rail travel? free markets only work when there is competition. I doubt there can be much competition in public transportation or other infrastructure. In germany we don't have to pay for using the motorways. When I travel to france I have to pay MUCH money for using the privatised motorways. In germany we have privatised railways. Still the rails are owned and administered by the government. So competitors can use the same rails. This leads to an enourmous mess when you are trying to buy tickets. Whenever I travel more than 75km. I have to select between regular tickets and special offers from different providers. A real mess. With differences in prices beyond 200%. You cannot privatise and decentralise a system which is centralised by nature. > > Or what about the government monopoly on electric power? You know that > there are people who can't afford to get it for free and so have to > bribe the government to keep from having it shut off. > > Or what about getting passports issued? > > > > free market health care = open source in germany we have a free market health care system with public insurance companies. About 0 competition since the insurance companies pay any price and no one cares. The physicians don't care about costs because they and their clients don't have to pay the bill. This changed about a year ago. Goverment enforced more competition and the prices dropped to less than a half of the former prices. Free Markets work.... if there is competition. > > > > free market health care = only those who can afford it get it > > > Please show me two examples of things that can be done by both the > private sector and government (so, things like military defense don't > count) that the government does *better* than can be done in the private > sector. (BTW, you can't use the Post Office as they are really a > self-sustaining entity not funded by tax dollars). OK. Now we have, as you told post offices. For instance I would adduce education (at least in germany). Private schools are mainly for lazy children of rich parents who would have flunked every exam in public schools. You can study at universities for free or for 500 eur/semester. (depends on which federal state you live in). Motorways. I don't know a country with better or more motorways then germany. Almost all intereuropean traffic passes germany. > > > > ...and now we can all feel good about discussing politics on > > > debian-curiosa. ;) > > > > Those who can't afford it have to either have insurance or do without, > > and insurance companies tend to be much slower at approving care than > > the monopoly government system is at providing it. So sure you get a > > shorter wait list but you have to wait a while for things to get bad > > enough to be approved before you can even get on a wait list. > > > This stopped being true a long time ago. The name of the game today is > prevention. Today, insurance companies will quickly approve things that > were some time ago viewed as frills or unncessary since those things are > often much cheaper than waiting for a crisis situation. > > > Some things work better when everybody has access to it and everybody > > pays for it (as taxes do). Things like health care, public transit, and > > the like. > > > Really? Yes. Things that work centralised by nature or that need some kind of network. Like all infrastructure. Electricity, water, public transportation, motorways. For some of these you may privatise the providers. Still the networks better remain with the governemnt. Great britain tried to privatise the whole railways. Now the rails slowly decay. Accidents become more and more common while the companies just try to get as much money from the rails as possible before they are completely gone. Only rarely companies in the free market will be able to manage things like infrastructure for the long run. > Is that why tax payers fund public transit and then have to pay > to actually use it? If that is your idea of an ideal system, then I > don't want it. Do you pay for using the motorways? The pavement? I pay taxes for our motorways in germany, but I don't use them. I'd rather prefer to pay less taxes for motorways and pavements and pay some charges when I use the motorways. There is no ideal system. Still there are systems which are proven to work for specific tasks. I don't think the free market is an ideal system. Still it has stood the test for many years. blub, Christopher
Attachment:
pgphcDFZYvjyX.pgp
Description: PGP signature