On Fri, Sep 14, 2007 at 10:38:27PM +0200, Christopher Zimmermann wrote: > 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. > Well, except that a government monopoly (as in defense or municipal utilities) and a government-granted monopoly (as in telephone service) *should* be the same from the customer's perspective. However, they are not. I think that this is because while a regulated company is regulated, it is still a company and, of course, will work to maximize profits. In and of itself this is not bad. However, as you point out below this does not work when there is no competition. "Deregulated" power (which wasn't really deregulated, just re-regulated under different regulations) shows that really well. Private power companies have little motivation to maintain/improve power infrastructure as it is a cost sink. Besides, where else will the customers go? > > > > 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. > I tend to agree with you that infrastructure is generally not will suited for competitive marketplaces. > 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. This is not free market. Insurance companies are heavily regulated by government (at least in the US). It is a borderline government granted cartel situation. > 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. > Agreed. > > > > > > 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. > I think that in the US private schools are almost universally better than public schools at all levels. Now, there are some exceptions, like UC Berkely. > > > > > > ...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. I am mostly in agreement here. > 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. I don't consider motorways as public transit. When I think of public transit, I am thinking of commuter rail, buses, etc. > 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. > I think that in most cases the free market is the ideal system. Of course, you pointed out that it only works where there can be competition. Regards, -Roberto -- Roberto C. Sánchez http://people.connexer.com/~roberto http://www.connexer.com
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature