Five Places Government Has Business:

areyoushittin'me? · #11 (**permalink**) 05-14-2008, 11:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Agent_Grey

2. Medicine. No one should go without healthcare. No one. I don't care if you're the most degenerate crack addict to ever smoke a pipe. I don't care if you're an ax murderer. People who do not have the option to get treatment basically don't have options at all. All non-elective care should be covered, and it should be covered by taxpayers.

The problem with the healthcare argument is that as soon as someone mentions coverage for all the argument becomes "socialized medicine" which is apparently a conclusion that you have suggested with your "covered by taxpayers" comment.

The reality is that in many countries ALL people have decent healthcare and not necessarily from a socialist program and for a heck of a lot less money per capita...if anyone is truely interested in learning more about the possibilities I suggest you watch the following program:

FRONTLINE:sick around the world | PBS

g'night

nathanbforrest45 · #12 (**permalink**) 05-15-2008, 08:10 AM

The mail. Because of the nature of the beast I will accept that mail service for private letters should probably be a monopoly. However, both Federal Express and United Parcel Service do a much better job of delivering what used to be called "parcel post" by the post office, and at a lower rate. Furthermore, who writes to anyone any more. If I want to get in touch with my daughter I email her, its fast and its free. More and more billing is done on line, bill paying is done on line and in general the US Postal service is becoming more and more obsolete.

Medical. The health system is healthy. If you want to see a total collapse of health care in this country turn it over to the government. One only need look at the VA and Medicare to see the fraud and waste that would occur, not to mention the reduction in personal service. The vast majority of Americans have insurance of some sort. Many of those who do not do not by choice. When I was 30 I didn't think I needed health insurance except for some major incident. You could buy "hospital" insurance then to cover any hospital cost. Today, we have been convinced by the nanny state crowd that we need to go to the doctor for a hang nail, all of which runs up the cost and puts a burden on the medical system.

Airlines. How innane is that? Why not have a government mandated rail system or a government sponsered vacation home? What about nationalizing General Motors, after all we all need some form of transportation don't we? Airlines are a private business, the government has absolutely no business being in business.

Public Utilities. These were originally started by private business and then taken over by the government in many cases. Household electricity was promoted by the street car companies who used electricity to power the street cars. They produced more eletricity then they needed so devised a method of creating a demand by offering to wire your home for free and then selling the excess to the consumer, much like the cell phone companies do when they sell us phones for a nickle ninty eight. Water companies, while coming from a different place, were still originally created by private companies and in many places still are. Again, government has no business in business,

Education. The best schools in this country are private schools. Enough said.

Carson · #13 (**permalink**) 05-15-2008, 10:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Agent_Grey

1. The Mail. It's in the constitution. So, they have this whole thing called amendments, maybe you've heard of them.

2. Medicine. No one should go without healthcare. No one. I don't care if you're the most degenerate crack addict to ever smoke a pipe. I don't care if you're an ax murderer. People who do not have the option to get treatment basically don't have options at all. All non-elective care should be covered, and it should be covered by taxpayers. I disagree, I think you underestimate how widespread abuse would be in such a system.
3. Public Utilities. As water lines and power lines do NOT have any potential for competition amongst providers once they are entrenched, there is no logical reason for private businesses to handle their administration. Zero Competition=Zero incentive for businesses to provide services cheaply or ethically. not that the government does much better but agreed
4. Airlines. Planes will simply never be both comfortable AND economical. It's worthless to keep throwing money at corporate giants to stay in a clearly unprofitable business at the expense of common needs and wants of travelers. Agreed, is this supposed to be an argument to keep government assistance going to flight companies because if so it sucks.

5. Education. Not as we do it now neccesarily, but if we can establish a true standardized curriculum, even one in multiple tracks, then there is no reason to allow for rich people to continue segregating their children from exposure to people of different ethnicities, faiths, and social classes, not to mention unevenly dividing the availability of good teachers. So your saying we should ban private education. Thats a shitty idea and a fantasy it will never happen

Okay, five things to attack or the concept as a whole.

Bring it.

it is what it is

Agent_Grey · #14 (**permalink**) 05-15-2008, 11:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Teak

Just because its used doesn't mean it the best, or even good, for that matter. Look at your comment on Medicare, below.

Medicare is a good alternative to nothing for a thing that everybody needs. The postal service is a good alternative to nothing for something of debatable neccessity.

Quote:

The government does not just test a system. Once it's in place it will never be replaced, or abolished. Besides it not the governments job.

What a preposterous argument, if that were true, no government program would ever change, get replaced, or be abolished. This happens all the time. What people tend to forget is that it's rare because there usually isn't public DEMAND to a great enough extend to warrent it.

And its a vicious cycle with no beginning or end. People with your perspective assume the system is immutable and thus do nothing to actually try and organize meaningful change, treating your government as though its totally out of your hands. Then, shocking gasp, the government is run as though it's totally out of your hands, and this creates the kind of apathy that feeds into that perspective. Chicken. Egg. Chicken. Egg. Chicken...

Quote:

So what you're looking for is a ride on the national healthcare gravy train. Sorry, I still like to have a little control over my healthcare, and to date no one has outlined, in detail, anything better.

I don't need the gravy train... I work in the field and my insurance is actually great. If everyone could pay what I pay for health care and get the same coverage, I would have no complaints.

But I think to some extent, at least, control in healthcare is more false than people realize. How many people do you know who come in to see a doctor, judge them incompetant, and choose to see another one? I'm not saying it never happens, but even you must admit that it's pretty damned rare.

The idea that we're paying out of our asses for decent care, or settling for horrible care, all in the name of choosing between caregivers we are either physically incapable of choosing because we've collapsed at our desks, or proffesionally incapable of making an informed decision about because we lack the education needed is reprehensible.

At the end of the day, my arguments on this are largely moral. I would rather pay into a system, even if it meant a much higher tax rate, that actually covered everyone. I'd sleep better at night knowing that just because I'm getting good care woudln't mean that there were five other people who couldn't have it, which is how things are now. Besides, I'm healthy... it' stupid to be in a system where a healthy person who doesn't make much use of the health care he has can't share it.

Quote:

I'm sure there are some systems out there just as good as ours. Are they better, I don't know, neither do you, never having experienced them.

That's not entirely true, I've lived in a socialized system for a year, Japan's, and while i had some issues with how they do medicine in a more general sense over there (making people swallow the yucky powders inside the pills instead of just putting into pills themselves, don't ask me why) I didn't feel like the care was insufficient.

Also I payed a lot less for it then I could for insurance here, even though I was paying something like two or three times the usual rate for care over there.

What people here don't seem to get is that if EVERYONE pays into a system, it actually gets way cheaper then if the system is only put onto the backs of a few of us and our employers.

Quote:

Yes, we have a high infant mortality rate. Almost as high as the incidence of pregnant women using drugs and alcohol, and not bothering to go to the free clinic for pre-natal treatments.

You know this is an interesting postulate. I'm going to do a little research when I have time later today and see what I can come up with comparing those numbers, as well as the numbers of pregnant women using drugs and alcohal in the other countries.

Just out of curiosity, if our rate of pre-natal substance abuse is higher, why do you think that is? I don't have a good answer, I'm just wondering.

Quote:

Plain and simple it is not the governments job to hold your hand throughout your life. Individuals are responsible for themselves and their immediate family. The government is tasked with providing a reasonably secure place for people to engage in those activities necessary to their well being.

Well yeah, I don't want communism, I just think that there are some areas where we could be using our government as a tool instead of bitching about it as some unstoppable force in our lives.

And individual responsibility stops at the door of disease, plain and simple. No one chooses to get sick. The idea that we apply the rules of free-market capitalism to ANY area of society where the laws of supply and demand fall apart is the acme of foolishness.

Carson · #15 (**permalink**) 05-15-2008, 11:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Agent_Grey

Medicare is a good alternative to nothing for a thing that everybody needs. The postal service is a good alternative to nothing for something of debatable neccessity. Both of these have feasible alternatives, private insurance and ups or fedex.

What a preposterous argument, if that were true, no government program would ever change, get replaced, or be abolished. This happens all the time. What people tend to forget is that it's rare because there usually isn't public DEMAND to a great enough extend to warrent it.

And its a vicious cycle with no beginning or end. People with your perspective assume the system is immutable and thus do nothing to actually try and organize meaningful change, treating your government as though its totally out of your hands. Then, shocking gasp, the government is run as though it's totally out of your hands, and this creates the kind of apathy that feeds into that perspective. Chicken. Egg. Chicken. Egg. Chicken... what a crock of shit

I don't need the gravy train... I work in the field and my insurance is actually great. If everyone could pay what I pay for health care and get the same coverage, I would have no complaints.

But I think to some extent, at least, control in healthcare is more false than people realize. How many people do you know who come in to see a doctor, judge them incompetant, and choose to see another one? I'm not saying it never happens, but even you must admit that it's pretty damned rare.

The idea that we're paying out of our asses for decent care, or settling for horrible care, all in the name of choosing between caregivers we are either physically incapable of choosing because we've collapsed at our desks, or proffesionally incapable of making an informed decision about because we lack the education needed is reprehensible.

At the end of the day, my arguments on this are largely moral. I would rather pay into a system, even if it meant a much higher tax rate, that actually covered everyone. I'd sleep better at night knowing that just because I'm getting good care woudln't mean that there were five other people who couldn't have it, which is how things are now. Well thats a great reason for a massive tax increase, so you can sleep better, pretty selfish Besides, I'm healthy... it' stupid to be in a system where a healthy person who doesn't make much use of the health care he has can't share it. Thats just ridiculous

That's not entirely true, I've lived in a socialized system for a year, Japan's, and while i had some issues with how they do medicine in a more general sense over there (making people swallow the yucky powders inside the pills instead of just putting into pills themselves, don't ask me why) I didn't feel like the care was insufficient.

Also I payed a lot less for it then I could for insurance here, even though I was paying something like two or three times the usual rate for care over there.

What people here don't seem to get is that if EVERYONE pays into a system, it actually gets way cheaper then if the system is only put onto the backs of a few of us and our employers. What you don't get is everyone will never pay into a system so the rest is just bs

You know this is an interesting postulate. I'm going to do a little research when I have time later today and see what I can come up with comparing those numbers, as well as the numbers of pregnant women using drugs and alcohal in the other countries.

Just out of curiosity, if our rate of pre-natal substance abuse is higher, why do you think that is? I don't have a good answer, I'm just wondering. Because Americans are selfish bastards

Well yeah, I don't want communism, I just think that there are some areas where we could be using our government as a tool instead of bitching about it as some unstoppable force in our lives. Your wrong.

And individual responsibility stops at the door of disease, plain and simple. No one chooses to get sick. Some people put themselves in harms way. like you choose to have unprotected sex or smoke cigerettes The idea that we apply the rules of free-market capitalism to ANY area of society where the laws of supply and demand fall apart is the acme of foolishness.

the laws of supply and demand are far from falling apart

wow · #16 (**permalink**) 05-15-2008, 12:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Agent_Grey

Incorrect. The postal service is self-funded, which is awesome, don't get me wrong, but it does NOT seek to make profit, nor is it allowed to. No one, not even the post-master-general gets richer if the post-office is more used, that individuals salary is subject to increase only be congressional aproval.

Well yes, obviously no one is suggesting that Dick Gephardt or Nancy Pelosi be allowed into the room during your colonoscopy, but that doesn't change the fact that a single-payer system would actually cover anyone instead of the illusion of coverage we have now.

The politicians would only be responsible for keeping public money in trust for the purpose, and, naturally, disclosing the expenditure of every penny so we'd actually KNOW how much goes into research, instead of the current system where advertising boner pills is erroniously counted as such.

Not true. Politicians have political reprisal to fear. If they mismanage a service they get voted out or recalled or impeached. How we abbandoned the idea of holding politicians to a more efficient standard instead of making a blanket decleration that they couldn't be efficient is beyond me.

Ah that old conservative saw. It's all mean ol' nasty taxations fault. Taxes do not comprise the majority of airline expense by a long shot, and eliminating them wouldn't free up even a fraction of the funds needed to make travel both comfortable and feasible. When you consider the corporate wellfare handouts that have kept the giants afloat as long as they have, they pretty much haven't actually PAID any taxes in years.

I agree, yet you would rob poor children's parents of the choice to go to prohibatively expensive schools with higher-paid teachers in nicer neighborhoods. This is one of those examples where corporate choice is a false choice.

Incorrect. The postal service is self-funded, which is awesome, don't get me wrong, but it does NOT seek to make profit
The Postal Reorganization Act signed by President Richard Nixon on August 12, 1970, replaced the cabinet-level Post Office Department with the independent United States Postal Service. The Act took effect on July 1, 1971.

The USPS is the third-largest employer in the United States (after the United States Department of Defense and Wal-Mart) and operates the largest civilian vehicle fleet in the world, with an estimated 260,000 vehicles, the majority of which are the easily identified Grumman LLV "mail truck".
If the USPS did not make a profit, it would not be able to provide employee benefits and pay.

Taxes do not comprise the majority of airline expense by a long shot
By a long shot, fuel is the airlines biggest expense and the Federal Govt. taxes their fuel.

Not true. Politicians have political reprisal to fear. If they mismanage a service they get voted out or recalled or impeached. How we abbandoned the idea of holding politicians to a more efficient standard instead of making a blanket decleration that they couldn't be efficient is beyond me.
Only if the media tells you about this mismanagement, otherwise, no one gets voted out of office for mismanagement.
The politicians would only be responsible for keeping public money in trust for the purpose, and, naturally, disclosing the expenditure of every penny so we'd actually KNOW how much goes into research, instead of the current system where advertising boner pills is erroniously counted as such.
Like the Social Security trust fund that does not exist?
Social Security has been a complete disaster because Politicians stole the money. There is no reason to trust any Politician with anyone's money.

TakuanSoho · #17 (**permalink**) 05-15-2008, 12:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wow

Not true. Politicians have political reprisal to fear. If they mismanage a service they get voted out or recalled or impeached. How we abbandoned the idea of holding politicians to a more efficient standard instead of making a blanket decleration that they couldn't be efficient is beyond me.
Only if the media tells you about this mismanagement, otherwise, no one gets voted out of office for mismanagement.[b]

Don't forget to add that they can gerrymander the system to pretty much protect them regardless of what the people want. Explains their nearly 99% re-election rates.

Agent_Grey · #18 (**permalink**) 05-15-2008, 01:58 PM

Quote:

The USPS is the third-largest employer in the United States (after the United States Department of Defense and Wal-Mart) and operates the largest civilian vehicle fleet in the world, with an estimated 260,000 vehicles, the majority of which are the easily identified Grumman LLV "mail truck".
If the USPS did not make a profit, it would not be able to provide employee benefits and pay..

Not true, "Not For Profit" status means the a business or organization need only generate enough revenue in order to pay its employees and maintain it's operation. It does not have shareholders who seek to increase profitability.

Also while the PMG isn't a post anymore, they are still an agency within the executive branch.

Quote:

By a long shot, fuel is the airlines biggest expense and the Federal Govt. taxes their fuel.

Obvously, but you aren't giving me any breakdown as to what the overall cost of the fuel vs. the tax on it is. Plus you have to factor in the money they dump right back into the airline industry every year. It would be like the government taking taxes from your check only to pay down your mortgage with it, it's not really much of a tax.

Quote:

Like the Social Security trust fund that does not exist?
Social Security has been a complete disaster because Politicians stole the money. There is no reason to trust any Politician with anyone's money.

Right, and when the American people were given a choice between one candidate who said his top priority would be to keep that money in trust, and another who had a serious interest in privatizing every aspect of government he could, they chose the latter. (no I do not want to get into debates about the 2000 election; in my view it shouldn't have been as close as it was to begin with, so whether there was fraud or not isn't really the issue)

And to your point about Gerrymandering, I would argue that if the public (and the media, yes) would actually make a point of educating people about the practice, and calling attention to it where it happened, you could create actual political reprisal. Ignorance protects these practices far better than anything else could.

Agent_Grey · #19 (**permalink**) 05-15-2008, 02:12 PM

Quote:

Both of these have feasible alternatives, private insurance and ups or fedex.

Well my point was that there were feasible alternatives to the postal service; so you aren't really disagreeing with me there. I have no problem with that, I don't want businesses entirely out of delivery, I just think the government can and should (and does) have a place there as well.

As for private insurance being a feasible alternative, it's not. The whole point of my statement was that not everyone can actually afford private insurance, so there isn't really a choice there for them.

Quote:

what a crock of shit

A strongly worded response, devoid of any actual information.

I know it's easier to blame all the problems with a system on the system itself, but it doesn't actually help anything in the end to do so.

Quote:

Thats just ridiculous

Again, no argument, here... but I'll ask you a question in return: Why is it rdiculous for me to want to live in a system where everyone is taken care of based on their needs, yet NOT rediculous to live in a system where having a need (such as treatment for a chronic condition) to begin with might disqualify you from being able to recieve affordable care from a private insurer?

I think the absurdity, the ridiculousness lies clearly within the latter category.

Quote:

What you don't get is everyone will never pay into a system so the rest is just bs

*laughs* Then why does it work elsewhere? Why do most industrialized countries on the globe have cheap access to reliable health care? It isn't like they're dropping like flies in countries with socialized medicine, so how can you possibly argue that I'm spinning you a tale?

Quote:

Because Americans are selfish bastards

You know, even as much as I am part of that "blame America first" liberal crowd that you always hear about, I find statements like this devoid of merit. For one thing, it's not an answer. It doesn't begin to tell us WHY Americans are selfish bastards, it just gives a short, stupid answer and tries to get away from the subject as quickly as possible.

Quote:

Your wrong.

Oh? I am.

okay, nevermind then, all my statements are cheerfully withdrawn. Obviously this mountain of evidence that's being thrown against my every statement in this posting is more than I can possibly hope to argue against.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Carson

the laws of supply and demand are far from falling apart

Oh? Then explain to me how they work when someone can't choose the good or service they are attempting to purchase?

Let's say a six year old girl gets a rare form of Lymphoma that only 12 doctors nationwide can treat, and only one of them is in her area. In a supply and demand system, his services come at a high price because they are in very low supply, yet the lack of demand doesn't decrease their price because of the risk involved, and the fact that no consumer who needs them can just walk away like they can with say, a nice Vase.

How does the supply and demand system serve her better than an alternative?

Carson · #20 (**permalink**) 05-16-2008, 09:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Agent_Grey

Well my point was that there were feasible alternatives to the postal service; so you aren't really disagreeing with me there. I have no problem with that, I don't want businesses entirely out of delivery, I just think the government can and should (and does) have a place there as well.

As for private insurance being a feasible alternative, it's not. The whole point of my statement was that not everyone can actually afford private insurance, so there isn't really a choice there for them.

A strongly worded response, devoid of any actual information. You cherry picked that one, I guess answering the real questions was too much to ask

I know it's easier to blame all the problems with a system on the system itself, but it doesn't actually help anything in the end to do so.

Again, no argument, here... but I'll ask you a question in return: Why is it rdiculous for me to want to live in a system where everyone is taken care of based on their needs, yet NOT rediculous to live in a system where having a need (such as treatment for a chronic condition) to begin with might disqualify you from being able to recieve affordable care from a private insurer? Because it gives people no incentive to take care of themselves, it also gives incentive to not take care of yourself. Pretty bad idea when you recognize how many lazy Americans would be happy to lay around and have the taxpayer foot the bill.

I think the absurdity, the ridiculousness lies clearly within the latter category.

*laughs* Then why does it work elsewhere? Because they are not Americans. There is lots of things that go on elsewhere that are not feasible here. Why do most industrialized countries on the globe have cheap access to reliable health care? It isn't like they're dropping like flies in countries with socialized medicine, so how can you possibly argue that I'm spinning you a tale? I'm not saying that. I just think your underestimating the # of Americans who would take advantage of a system like that.

You know, even as much as I am part of that "blame America first" liberal crowd that you always hear about, I find statements like this devoid of merit. For one thing, it's not an answer. It doesn't begin to tell us WHY Americans are selfish bastards, it just gives a short, stupid answer and tries to get away from the subject as quickly as possible. Nobody asked me why they were selfish bastards. I just stated the fact because it is relevant. But truthfully they are selfish because thats what the government presses upon them. The entire system is based on greed and greed is what you get.

Oh? I am.

okay, nevermind then, all my statements are cheerfully withdrawn. Obviously this mountain of evidence that's being thrown against my every statement in this posting is more than I can possibly hope to argue against. Yeah if you think you can use the government at all, your wrong.

Oh? Then explain to me how they work when someone can't choose the good or service they are attempting to purchase? They can, BTW the laws of supply and demand apply to much more than health care. In such a huge equation health care doesn't even matter
Let's say a six year old girl gets a rare form of Lymphoma that only 12 doctors nationwide can treat, and only one of them is in her area. In a supply and demand system, his services come at a high price because they are in very low supply, yet the lack of demand doesn't decrease their price because of the risk involved, and the fact that no consumer who needs them can just walk away like they can with say, a nice Vase.

How does the supply and demand system serve her better than an alternative?

It doesn't, like I said you can't base a supply and demand system on an isolated, far from normal case.