@booinyoureyes I dont believe democratic ownership is the right way to go in all industries. But you seem to promote that private ownership somehow is generally more society friendly - Im not talking about fish, but doctors, which we all have a relationship with somehow. If we are talking about consumer goods I can agree, but in many other industries which are different and which I think are more effective run through public means.
For instance, if all hospitals are privately owned the main goal will, overall, be *profit*. We might marginally make the road to profit more society friendly through regulations, but overall that will be the overriding directive - hence priotitizing patients who give a greater payoff, deals with insurance companies and not least, beaureucracy. It is far less effective to have several hospitals competing against each other than hospitals who are given a concrete budget and tasked with healing people. The tv-show House might be inaccurate medically (I have no idea) but it displays this dynamic pretty well.
You can argue, and I would agree, that politicians are often inept - but I would still say they are far more thrustworthy, and have to show concrete results of hospitals actually curing people first and foremost rather than to give shareholders profit. Now, if the government is more beholden to private interests - which is the case some places - rather than (mostly) the people, this will not work, so therefore that has to be regulated first.
Also because while I didn't choose my politician, I can leave one corporation for one that serves me better. It is easier to correct a problem in a market than in a bureaucracy, particularly when two different people have different desires when it comes to a good/service.
This is a good point. The issue we have now, the people voted for the Liberals, turns out that was a crap idea but we can't do anything about it for another four years. Labor has been pushing for a double dissolution and reelection but if I recall the government has to call that and I highly doubt they will.
Doctors are a very good point as well. In Australia we have both private health care and hospitals as well as public health care run through a system called "Medicare". It's a set 1.5% tax levy, with exemptions for low income families of course. There's also an additional 1% for people on 70k or more a year. That pays for free bulk billed doctors visits as well as trips to the emergency room and ambulances whenever you need one. There's no paperwork or mess involved. The whole carries the burden so the whole can benefit. This system has worked fine since the 70's and was going to continue working quite well until the Liberals turned up and decided we now need to pay a 7 dollar "Co payment" everytime we see a GP.
That was not a real issue to myself who goes to a doctor maybe once a year and has an okay income however, now that I'm engaged with a one year old son, it becomes a major annoyance. Money is tighter then it was and children have an alarming knack for needing to see doctors. Most Australian's see this as unfair and kicking the poor while there down is not considered a good thing on the whole here. There have been substantial protests all over the country but the government just ignores them.
Tony Abbott likes to plow on ahead with his own little plans while spouting the rhetoric 'All is well'.
@Aristillius I respect your position, and clearly your heart is in the right place, but I disagree on a couple points. I think you also chose the industry in which careful analysis makes way for knee-jerk emotional responses, but even in this case I (mostly) disagree with your analysis.
I'll go piece by piece. I'll start with the last point you made, since I think it of all your points it is the one I find the silliest.
Since we are doing a direct comparison, between voters in one system and consumers in the other, I cannot possibly accept this to be true. Someone who is purchasing something with the product of their own labor, something that they need, are not a rational group? Someone that is *choosing* to do something is not behaving rationally? Who will behave more rationally, the person who is acquiring a good or service for himself and his family, or a government official who is not personally involved in the outcome? The voter is the *most* irrational person around. All you need to do is look at the Nixon vs Kennedy debates in the United States. Those who listened on the radio unanimously agreed that Nixon won. Those who watched it on TV said Kennedy won. Why? Because the way he *looked*! That is far far far from rational behavior. Why should someones *health* (the most important thing in the world) be subject to the whims of an uneducated populace that has no stake in the outcome of their own choice? Not to mention that due to the purview of most governments, people are selecting officials to look over things that they have NO idea about. I wouldn't trust my barber to choose my nurse, why would I trust the person chosen by the person chosen by the person my barber decided to vote for to do so? The more removed from the situation the worse!
This is another huge advantage of private industry: people want different things. If I want something done one way and you the other, in a market we can both get what we want by going elsewhere. One company will make a product/service geared toward my interests, another toward your interests. Both will profit. They will fill gaps because they will seek a competitive advantage over the other.
When there is a one-size-fits-all nationalized system, what signals will they get to make the changes necessary so that we both have the freedom to choose a product/service that is right for us? None. Wanna know why? Because there is no incentive to please the individual. They only need to barely satisfy 50.1% of the population the next election cycle
For instance, if all hospitals are privately owned the main goal will, overall, be *profit*.
First: My main problem with the majority of socialist solutions is that they stem from an unrealistically pessimistic view of humanity (ie they are all greedy evil people who would let people die rather than accept less money for an operation) As someone who is studying hard to become a doctor, and comes from a family of physicians, I find your view of a healthcare professional's motivations to be a bit distasteful.
I want you to think about all the people you know. Your friends. Your family. Then tell me how many of those people would deny someone a basic service that they need for their health because they can't pay as much. I don't think you would accuse the person working at a supermarket to be greedy and money hungry for his work. Food is even *more* important than medicine. If people were so greedy and would deny people service, then why is there not mass starvation in the*privatized* (gasp!) food industry? Because market forces keep prices down! If one market is too expensive they will go out of business since people will shop elsewhere. This is why I find this comment:
@booinyoureyes It is far less effective to have several hospitals competing against each other than hospitals who are given a concrete budget and tasked with healing people.
to be completely wrong
Second: I think this idea that profit is bad is absurd. You are an educator. You make a profit on your labor in wages. Do you give something in return? When I bought my iPod, Steve Jobs made a profit from me. Was he evil? Does he now owe me my money back? Should I beat him up and retrieve the sixty bucks I spent? No! because in a voluntary exchange both parties benefit... that is *why* it happens in the first place. I valued his iPod more than my 60 bucks, he valued my 60 bucks more than I value his iPod. He made a profit... yet I also come out on top. That is the entire beauty of voluntary exchange. We both benefit, not lose. The world is not a zero sum game. One person's benefits does not require another person's loss. But if you mandate one uncontested system then the parties do not interact under mutually beneficial circumstances
Third: (kinda joking, but the point stands) If you doubt House's portrayal of medicine then I have absolutely no idea why you would trust its portrayal of economic interaction. =p
Now, if the government is more beholden to private interests - which is the case some places - rather than (mostly) the people, this will not work, so therefore that has to be regulated first.
Government's are always beholden to private interests: the interests of those who govern. Lets not pretend that public officials and employees don't make a profit on their labor. I have yet to hear of an unpaid government employee in a significant position. You are a teacher, right? You get paid. You profit from your labor. Are you greedy? Of course not. Yet you still look out for yourself and your family. This is why I think this fear of private greed is overplayed. It's always the "other guy" who is greedy.
In conclusion, I do agree that market forces don't work as well in medicine when it comes to Urgent Care. In emergencies and life threatening interest, it is difficult to keep prices down through competition. This is why I don't have a problem with health vouchers and saving accounts that are meant for this purpose. There are no solutions, only tradeoffs, when it comes to most complicated problems. But overall, even in the industry you chose as an example (which I think is a topic usually *far* too influenced by knee jerk emotional reactions to have a proper discussion on, though we seem to be doing fine) I see more advantages to a (mostly) private system than I do in complete nationalization.
I will like to say one thing: I like how we are discussing these touchy issues and no one has called another person a @#$@ like they do on most internet forums
I hope this remains the same, as I have a great respect for my friend @Aristillius and others with whom I disagree here.
About the one... ahem... touchy topic with @Anduin and @CaloNord ... I wouldn't wave the Union Jack (or in my case Ole' Glory) quite as, um, aggressively as Anduin, but I do disagree that there is a debt owed. As a fellow history major, I agree with Anduin about the fact that the Soviets needed the rest of the Allies just as much as the allies needed the Russians. The Russians were in bad shape and could barely feed their own population in PEACETIME (hey... a nationalized agricultural system!), never mind during total war. They simply would have lost the resource battle alone, and like the mummy stated, they had more soldiers than guns... yet that didn't stop them from marching those poor boys into battle. There was no way they could have lasted through a concentrated German invasion. If the Brits and the Americans (and Canadians and Aussies that are oft overlooked!) had not stormed Normandy, Hitler would have taken Russia before winter even came
It is refreshing! I don't mind a little passion it's good! But it hasn't degenerated into mindless name calling and a whole bunch of people shouting AMERICA F@$K YEA. :P Oh no I agree they would have been pretty much screwed without the rest of the allied powers threatening other fronts and the fronts opened in Africa. Italy and later in Normandy. However, around 90% of German casualties suffered between the invasion of Russia with Barbarossa and 1944 Normandy invasion were suffered on the Eastern front. It was a MASSIVE meat grinder for the Wehrmacht manpower and resources. Not to mention the Luftwaffe, forced to divert huge numbers of aircraft from France to support the operation. If the Germans hadn't broken the NAP with Stalin then 4 million German soldiers 600 000 trucks and tanks would have been free to fight in Africa, Italy and Normandy... We needed them as much as they needed us. Yes the Soviets did waste A LOT of men, Soviet casualties number over 20 million and yes they were utterly wasteful with how they employed their men but still. It was really was an alliance of necessity that was really unrealistic to expect it would last longer then the wars end but still. America was fiercely anti-communist and really didn't make ANY effort to maintain the peace after the war. Granted there is nothing we can do about it now, long in the past and most people involved are long dead but I find it a fascinating topic none the less!
"...As someone who is studying hard to become a doctor, ..."
Wait, what?
I majored in history, minored in economics and did premed Just took a semester off from med school to open a new office with my dad, but starting again in September (which unfortunately means I will post here *very* sporadically )
"...As someone who is studying hard to become a doctor, ..."
Wait, what?
I majored in history, minored in economics and did premed
Alright then. I guess I wouldn't really know how one goes about... Doing college.
I went to the University of Rochester where there are no requirements so you can take whatever you want as long as you meet what is required for your major (premed is not a major just a set of required courses). It is a very forward thinking educational system. I am actually very into education policy, but that's a whole other issue lol
"...As someone who is studying hard to become a doctor, ..."
Wait, what?
I majored in history, minored in economics and did premed
Alright then. I guess I wouldn't really know how one goes about... Doing college.
I went to the University of Rochester where there are no requirements so you can take whatever you want as long as you meet what is required for your major (premed is not a major just a set of required courses). It is a very forward thinking educational system. I am actually very into education policy, but that's a whole other issue lol
I just kinda assumed to be a doctor you would have to major in biology or something similar. I don't pretend to know how this works though.
That is a hell of a lot better then most universities here. To get in here you need to do the prerequisite board subjects in high school. If you don't, no entry, no higher education, no degrees... haha I like that idea much better. We should really have a fort-nightly debate thread...
I just kinda assumed to be a doctor you would have to major in biology or something similar. I don't pretend to know how this works though.
You just have to fulfill the requirements. If you do it right you actually end up just two classes away from a biology minor
While we are on education we might as well continue on this line. In the modern economy most educational fields are becoming less and less useful, but college is at an all time high in tuitions. Mark Cuban, a successful businessman and the owner of the Dallas Mavericks recently made some interesting comments on it. http://www.mlive.com/lansing-news/index.ssf/2014/06/student_loan_bubble_will_burst.html I know my girlfriend is in massive debt, and we are worried about paying it off. She is also a med student, and we will be able to pay off her debt. But what about an art student? Will they be able to pay of their debts? Will their art degree give them that much of a competitive advantage in such a creative field? Most importantly: would they have felt the need to go to school for that area of focus if they were not given such a massive loan when they were 17-18 years old? Its kind of a problem when federal loans are thrust on kids who have yet to make a major financial decision. I decided to pay for my own medical school (I'm very lucky in that my parents took care of the rest of my college tuition after my scholarships) since I felt the need to take responsibility for my life. It was my own decision and I made it as a 23 year old who had work experience and savings.
I don't know if I'd like it if I had to repay someone for a three figure loan that I decided to take when I was still a teenager without so much experience.
Not to mention that it has helped drive up prices well beyond the rate of inflation. If people can now afford to go to expensive private schools to study pottery and fields that do not help them find employment with loans that will be paid off "in the future" of course schools will jack up their prices. This makes it more expensive for the poor souls who really need an education to make their lot in life and succeed in their field. Very complicated situation.
I began my undergraduate education in 2006. The tuition was 38k per year then. Now it is up to 45 thousand. And we have 17 year olds going to school with "undecided" as their major?
I can't really comment on the state of the higher education system without doing some reading a little later tonight, I don't want to go off half cocked so the speak. However I do see your point, is an arts degree worth anything? I could see if you were going to work in something like graphic design or conceptual design for example it might be helpful but your talking a relatively small field compared to something like a medical based degree for example.
Hahahaha! I'd be game to do a thread maybe once or twice a fortnight about a different topic everytime? Something that is bound to cause debate and thought. I love getting other peoples opinions, a lot of the time they help broaden and enlighten my own view
I just don't want to spam the off-topic with endless threads that don't go anywhere
@Anduin Unfortunately I have some bad news. After taking your vital signs, I have noticed a slight problem (very slight)
You don't have any.
Do not despair though. Your blood pressure is quite low, and you don't appear to be breathing heavily. A little dry skins perhaps, but nothing a little moisturizer or embalming fluid couldn't help with.
Overall, despite your lack of life signs you appear to be in tip top shape!
That is a hell of a lot better then most universities here. To get in here you need to do the prerequisite board subjects in high school. If you don't, no entry, no higher education, no degrees... haha I like that idea much better. We should really have a fort-nightly debate thread...
I think you may have misundestood. There are certainly requirements to get into the University. I took many exams (SATs, SAT IIs, a bazillion APs and though I did not take them other students take an exam called the ACT... which has nothing to do with thespians)
What I was referring to was the policy that most schools here have about classes you need to take while attending the university. They are called "General Education" and are subjects unrelated to your major.
This is all fun and some people might find them useful to their development, or they may use them to find a new passion if they are undecided. However, for someone with a clear plan in mind it could be at best a very *expensive* detour or at worst a complete roadblock in the way of what you want to accomplish. Yet for many schools it is also an excuse to raise tuition every other year.
Where I went they did not have such requirements. You had complete academic freedom. As you can probably tell from my political positions, I place a lot of value on liberty and choice . For me it was great: I could take History and Econ classes while fulfilling my pre-medical requirements while not having to worry about meeting my "Deep Sea Pottery" pre-requisite in order to get my degree!
That is a hell of a lot better then most universities here. To get in here you need to do the prerequisite board subjects in high school. If you don't, no entry, no higher education, no degrees... haha I like that idea much better. We should really have a fort-nightly debate thread...
I think you may have misundestood. There are certainly requirements to get into the University. I took many exams (SATs, SAT IIs, a bazillion APs and though I did not take them other students take an exam called the ACT... which has nothing to do with thespians)
Ahh I get you! As I said I've never really looked into it. I was really set on enlisting from a pretty young age, which I did as soon as I was old enough. If I recall in Western Australia they are trialing the option to allow University entrants to sit an aptitude test, if they score high enough to get into the field they want to study they can then go on to sit all their entrance exams and so on. Without worrying about having completed the board certified subjects at high school. Something they wanted to test because the majority of students at uni there were from overseas. Mainly asia.
I see what you mean though, why force students to study a subject completely unrelated to what they want to do? Ohhh money. Always comes down to money.
@Squire I sit on the fence a little here. I agree with both of you to be honest. Privatization can be amazing for business but you're exactly right only in areas where there is healthy competition. Otherwise you've just released the only control you had over it and given a business out to make a profit a total monopoly over a certain thing. Public transport is a prime example, here it's privatized and expensive and slow. It's cheaper and faster for me to catch a taxi then use a train and bus. In Western Australia it's owned and operated by Transperth, a government business. It's cheap, efficient and widely used. It uses a smart rider, a card you can tag on when you get onto a bus or train and tag off when you get off it. Nice and easy. Works like a prepaid card.
@Squire has a good point about the difference in aims between private and public running of organisations. In many cases there's an uneasy halfway zone between the two, as with the public transport example. The only competition that occurs is during the bidding for contracts, past that a company is effectively granted a monopoly on certain routes. Not all corporations work in a real market, and many markets are neither as free or uncorrupt as economists theorise.
As soon as a customer is faced with choosing between products they must have, there is potential for abuse. In the UK you legally must have Car Insurance if you intend to drive. There have long been concerns about increasing and disproportionate insurance premiums and warnings about price fixing. Similarly with gas and power suppliers there are current investigations about price-fixing ongoing in the UK. These companies are only truly competing against the consumer, not each other, and consumers are only have a choice between a bunch of crooks.
A number of private corporate organisations aim to "Maximise Shareholder Value", ahead even of making profits. This can lead to short-termism, aiming for rapid gains in share price at the expense of long term growth and stability. In no small part this contributed to the 2008 financial crisis.
One CEO claimed last year that using a maze of off-shore accounts and holding companies to avoid corporation tax was his "fiduciary duty". This undermines any social responsibility credibility his company ever had. A company avoiding taxation and then having more representation than voters because of their financial power is morally indefensible (and yet very common).
I'm not saying public ownership is the answer. I regularly deal with less-than-competence or beaurocratic waste in the public sector, and I work there. As part of a recent job application I had to send a full 500 grams of documents (approx 1 lb) to an organisation I'd worked for less than two years ago. Certain types of service do lend themselves to public ownership though - anything that consumers do not have a choice over, and anything that improves the effectiveness of the nation without necessarily being profitable.
TL;DR - Private companies can be bad, but Public ownership is not always good.
Perhaps like a protangonist faced with a terrible choice we need to take a third option. If only we could work out what that is.
Hospitals, Doctors and Dentists, Libraries, Roads, Railways were the things that should really belong to the public. We sold the railways here, hence they decided to get rid of public owned trains and busses and sell them to the privatizing medicare so doctor and hospital trips are going to be insanely expensive before long. Yay.
That I find is the biggest issue. I don't always like the way things are but I'm damned if I can come up with a better way that will work in the modern world. It's just really bloody hard to get people to go for radical change, even though I have NO idea what that radical change is yet.
Money and corruption are ruining the land, crooked politicians betray the working man, pocketing the profits and treating us like sheep, and we're tired of hearing promises that we know they'll never keep.
Ultimately it comes down to what do we do about it? How do we change? It's been this way for thousands of years and we've yet to come up with a better way. Are we doomed to repeat it forever?
I don't think so. Change can, and does, happen - it just takes a while, and a properly thought out and properly planned movement.
Finally...come on, where's the flaming?? Don't tell me this'll be the first politics thread in the history of the internet that doesn't turn into a flame war! (it's probably because you're all left-wing, hence there are no reasons to disagree strongly on stuff. :-P )
We shall have to start a movement. Something for change, just as soon as we figure out exactly what that change should be... *Tents fingers...* I got nothing... Lets go for a beer.
Hahahaha Apparently there isn't going to be one. I shall start a controversial debate thread once a week or so. Just to see what everyone has to say and let everyone have a chat! Hopefully it will stay fairly civil. I like that this forum is a bastion of calm in a sea of chaos. I think the next one shall be... RELIGION. DUN DUN DAH... :O
But no, I love hearing from everyone so if you guys want to keep posting I'm certainly game to keep reading and researching! Knowledge and self enlightenment is what life should be about. Not bloody money and material crap.
@CaloNord This whole thread puts me in mind of Winston Churchill's quote, "It has been said that Democracy is the worst form of government apart from all those other forms that have been tried from time to time".
There are legitimate complaints about just about every government, economic system and politico-socio-economic state. As you rightly say, the $64,000 question is: how do we do better?
Independent Oversight and Transparency are aspects that can be improved in most things. Transparency makes people less likely to do or say stupid or risky things, and Independent Oversight means that mistakes can't be covered up and forgotten as easily. Often Oversight and Transparency are lacking at high levels in powerful organisations though - think Investment Banking and the Security Services over the past few years. Sadly a number of senior Intelligence figures recently refused to give evidence to the UK Home Affairs Select Committee, which is part of their oversight arrangements.
@Corvino Exactly right. There really isn't anyway it can be done as things stand now that will make everyone happy. Honestly, nothing will ever be perfect and you'll never be able to please everyone in any event.
Lies and outright crime in the banking and investments sector has led to some amazing financial disaster here in the past. Especially if you happened to be one of the folk who invested in something through a company that it turns out had in fact been pocketing your money in Cayman's account and fudging the books...
I can tell you right now, Intelligence agencies, defence research agencies and the military itself have a lot more power then they rightly should. There is also an alarming lack of oversight for pretty much everything they do. I can tell you that from experience. For the most part, they get their budget, what they do with it is up to them. But I've seen a few VERY expensive hammers before...
Sorry, gonna be a bit busy today to respond to these, but I just want to say a couple things. I generally agree with most of what @Corvino said. And like what @Squire said when it comes to transportation there is a clear lack of competition for consumers. Corvino made a very good point about car insurance, and it is one of the main issues I have with the system recently passed in the states called the Affordable Care Act (colloquially referred to as Obamacare). It is often misrepresented by both sides as a socialized healthcare system, but it is far more akin to the private-public partnerships that Corvino referred. These are always anti-competition and corrupt the pricing system... while also serve as easy targets for corruption. Franklin Roosevelt set up many similar type systems in the States that didn't work out well for this purpose (he ended up actively destroying food while Americans were actually starving in order to deal with priced distortion in the agricultural industry!)
I also agree with Corvino about oversight and transparency in government (big fan of Snowden... now that I have admitted that I'm probably the first hamster on the NSA's list). When you DON'T have a choice to go to another company, you better make sure that the government is as open as possible. If you see the number of dollars that are unaccounted for in the annual budget of the United States (well, we don't even do budgets anymore since our politicians are so useless) you will be astounded.
I do think that there are areas in which transparency is not desirable, usually involving national security, but oftentimes these concerns are used as excuses for overreach. The hardest part about government services is that it is hard to hold people accountable and fix the issues that arise. After a slew of recent controversies and scandals, the president of the United States has claimed to have first heard about them on television. After the NSA revelations, literally nothing has changed a year later. The disturbing part about democracy is that half of the voting population condemns him while having supported similar acts by his predecessor while the other half of the population is falling over eachother trying to come up with excuses for their beloved leader. Ah... democracy. Maybe Churchill is right about it being the best so far, but man do I wish some of its problems could be fixed.
Politics is merely the incredibly well refined art of having fully grown adults argue as illogically and emotionally as 4 year olds and get even less accomplished. No, wait, sometimes 4 year olds apologize, make up, and compromise. I've found that this is pretty much a world wide phenomenon
It was pretty ridiculous when members of the intelligence oversight committees in both the US and UK admitted the first time they'd heard details of NSA/GCHQ large-scale online surveillence was from the Snowden leaks, @booinyoureyes. That was exacty what made me very sceptical about claims that the oversight was adequate and the scale of survelleince appropriate.
Firstly, @booinyoureyes Why isn't Obamacare the same as our Medicare system? Everyone pays a small tax, the poor are exempt, the rich pay slightly more and everyone who doesn't want private health cover just goes to a doctor who bulk bills?
@OneAngryMushroom They never apologize. They just keep lying and blaming it on the other party. :P Hoping the general public don't really care enough to pull them up on it. For the most part, it works. Unless it DIRECTLY affects them in a bad way most people will just go "Aww thats unfortunate" and move on.
@Nonnahswriter Oh hell yes! Schools! So am I! Despite us apparently having a "Debt and deficit disaster" as the government calls it, they have set aside something like 900 million to put Chaplains in public schools and replace the proper councilors... Because Abbott's a Catholic and thinks they can do a better job. If I wanted a religious education/influence I'd put my kids in a private christian school.
Comments
I dont believe democratic ownership is the right way to go in all industries. But you seem to promote that private ownership somehow is generally more society friendly - Im not talking about fish, but doctors, which we all have a relationship with somehow. If we are talking about consumer goods I can agree, but in many other industries which are different and which I think are more effective run through public means.
For instance, if all hospitals are privately owned the main goal will, overall, be *profit*. We might marginally make the road to profit more society friendly through regulations, but overall that will be the overriding directive - hence priotitizing patients who give a greater payoff, deals with insurance companies and not least, beaureucracy. It is far less effective to have several hospitals competing against each other than hospitals who are given a concrete budget and tasked with healing people. The tv-show House might be inaccurate medically (I have no idea) but it displays this dynamic pretty well.
You can argue, and I would agree, that politicians are often inept - but I would still say they are far more thrustworthy, and have to show concrete results of hospitals actually curing people first and foremost rather than to give shareholders profit. Now, if the government is more beholden to private interests - which is the case some places - rather than (mostly) the people, this will not work, so therefore that has to be regulated first.
Finally, consumers are far from a rational group.
Doctors are a very good point as well. In Australia we have both private health care and hospitals as well as public health care run through a system called "Medicare". It's a set 1.5% tax levy, with exemptions for low income families of course. There's also an additional 1% for people on 70k or more a year. That pays for free bulk billed doctors visits as well as trips to the emergency room and ambulances whenever you need one. There's no paperwork or mess involved. The whole carries the burden so the whole can benefit. This system has worked fine since the 70's and was going to continue working quite well until the Liberals turned up and decided we now need to pay a 7 dollar "Co payment" everytime we see a GP.
That was not a real issue to myself who goes to a doctor maybe once a year and has an okay income however, now that I'm engaged with a one year old son, it becomes a major annoyance. Money is tighter then it was and children have an alarming knack for needing to see doctors. Most Australian's see this as unfair and kicking the poor while there down is not considered a good thing on the whole here. There have been substantial protests all over the country but the government just ignores them.
Tony Abbott likes to plow on ahead with his own little plans while spouting the rhetoric 'All is well'.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/11/08/us-cuba-food-reform-idUSBRE9A70QC20131108
Both countries have definitely had issues with food shortages.
I respect your position, and clearly your heart is in the right place, but I disagree on a couple points. I think you also chose the industry in which careful analysis makes way for knee-jerk emotional responses, but even in this case I (mostly) disagree with your analysis.
I'll go piece by piece. I'll start with the last point you made, since I think it of all your points it is the one I find the silliest. Since we are doing a direct comparison, between voters in one system and consumers in the other, I cannot possibly accept this to be true.
Someone who is purchasing something with the product of their own labor, something that they need, are not a rational group? Someone that is *choosing* to do something is not behaving rationally? Who will behave more rationally, the person who is acquiring a good or service for himself and his family, or a government official who is not personally involved in the outcome?
The voter is the *most* irrational person around. All you need to do is look at the Nixon vs Kennedy debates in the United States. Those who listened on the radio unanimously agreed that Nixon won. Those who watched it on TV said Kennedy won.
Why? Because the way he *looked*!
That is far far far from rational behavior. Why should someones *health* (the most important thing in the world) be subject to the whims of an uneducated populace that has no stake in the outcome of their own choice?
Not to mention that due to the purview of most governments, people are selecting officials to look over things that they have NO idea about. I wouldn't trust my barber to choose my nurse, why would I trust the person chosen by the person chosen by the person my barber decided to vote for to do so? The more removed from the situation the worse!
This is another huge advantage of private industry: people want different things. If I want something done one way and you the other, in a market we can both get what we want by going elsewhere.
One company will make a product/service geared toward my interests, another toward your interests. Both will profit. They will fill gaps because they will seek a competitive advantage over the other.
When there is a one-size-fits-all nationalized system, what signals will they get to make the changes necessary so that we both have the freedom to choose a product/service that is right for us? None.
Wanna know why? Because there is no incentive to please the individual.
They only need to barely satisfy 50.1% of the population the next election cycle First: My main problem with the majority of socialist solutions is that they stem from an unrealistically pessimistic view of humanity (ie they are all greedy evil people who would let people die rather than accept less money for an operation)
As someone who is studying hard to become a doctor, and comes from a family of physicians, I find your view of a healthcare professional's motivations to be a bit distasteful.
I want you to think about all the people you know. Your friends. Your family. Then tell me how many of those people would deny someone a basic service that they need for their health because they can't pay as much.
I don't think you would accuse the person working at a supermarket to be greedy and money hungry for his work. Food is even *more* important than medicine. If people were so greedy and would deny people service, then why is there not mass starvation in the*privatized* (gasp!) food industry?
Because market forces keep prices down! If one market is too expensive they will go out of business since people will shop elsewhere. This is why I find this comment: to be completely wrong
Second: I think this idea that profit is bad is absurd. You are an educator. You make a profit on your labor in wages. Do you give something in return?
When I bought my iPod, Steve Jobs made a profit from me. Was he evil? Does he now owe me my money back? Should I beat him up and retrieve the sixty bucks I spent?
No! because in a voluntary exchange both parties benefit... that is *why* it happens in the first place. I valued his iPod more than my 60 bucks, he valued my 60 bucks more than I value his iPod. He made a profit... yet I also come out on top. That is the entire beauty of voluntary exchange. We both benefit, not lose.
The world is not a zero sum game. One person's benefits does not require another person's loss. But if you mandate one uncontested system then the parties do not interact under mutually beneficial circumstances
Third: (kinda joking, but the point stands) If you doubt House's portrayal of medicine then I have absolutely no idea why you would trust its portrayal of economic interaction. =p
Next point Government's are always beholden to private interests: the interests of those who govern. Lets not pretend that public officials and employees don't make a profit on their labor. I have yet to hear of an unpaid government employee in a significant position.
You are a teacher, right? You get paid. You profit from your labor. Are you greedy? Of course not. Yet you still look out for yourself and your family.
This is why I think this fear of private greed is overplayed. It's always the "other guy" who is greedy.
In conclusion, I do agree that market forces don't work as well in medicine when it comes to Urgent Care. In emergencies and life threatening interest, it is difficult to keep prices down through competition. This is why I don't have a problem with health vouchers and saving accounts that are meant for this purpose.
There are no solutions, only tradeoffs, when it comes to most complicated problems. But overall, even in the industry you chose as an example (which I think is a topic usually *far* too influenced by knee jerk emotional reactions to have a proper discussion on, though we seem to be doing fine) I see more advantages to a (mostly) private system than I do in complete nationalization.
I hope this remains the same, as I have a great respect for my friend @Aristillius and others with whom I disagree here.
About the one... ahem... touchy topic with @Anduin and @CaloNord ... I wouldn't wave the Union Jack (or in my case Ole' Glory) quite as, um, aggressively as Anduin, but I do disagree that there is a debt owed. As a fellow history major, I agree with Anduin about the fact that the Soviets needed the rest of the Allies just as much as the allies needed the Russians.
The Russians were in bad shape and could barely feed their own population in PEACETIME (hey... a nationalized agricultural system!), never mind during total war. They simply would have lost the resource battle alone, and like the mummy stated, they had more soldiers than guns... yet that didn't stop them from marching those poor boys into battle.
There was no way they could have lasted through a concentrated German invasion. If the Brits and the Americans (and Canadians and Aussies that are oft overlooked!) had not stormed Normandy, Hitler would have taken Russia before winter even came
Oh no I agree they would have been pretty much screwed without the rest of the allied powers threatening other fronts and the fronts opened in Africa. Italy and later in Normandy. However, around 90% of German casualties suffered between the invasion of Russia with Barbarossa and 1944 Normandy invasion were suffered on the Eastern front. It was a MASSIVE meat grinder for the Wehrmacht manpower and resources. Not to mention the Luftwaffe, forced to divert huge numbers of aircraft from France to support the operation. If the Germans hadn't broken the NAP with Stalin then 4 million German soldiers 600 000 trucks and tanks would have been free to fight in Africa, Italy and Normandy... We needed them as much as they needed us. Yes the Soviets did waste A LOT of men, Soviet casualties number over 20 million and yes they were utterly wasteful with how they employed their men but still. It was really was an alliance of necessity that was really unrealistic to expect it would last longer then the wars end but still. America was fiercely anti-communist and really didn't make ANY effort to maintain the peace after the war. Granted there is nothing we can do about it now, long in the past and most people involved are long dead but I find it a fascinating topic none the less!
Just took a semester off from med school to open a new office with my dad, but starting again in September (which unfortunately means I will post here *very* sporadically
I am actually very into education policy, but that's a whole other issue lol
I like that idea much better.
We should really have a fort-nightly debate thread...
While we are on education we might as well continue on this line. In the modern economy most educational fields are becoming less and less useful, but college is at an all time high in tuitions. Mark Cuban, a successful businessman and the owner of the Dallas Mavericks recently made some interesting comments on it.
http://www.mlive.com/lansing-news/index.ssf/2014/06/student_loan_bubble_will_burst.html
I know my girlfriend is in massive debt, and we are worried about paying it off. She is also a med student, and we will be able to pay off her debt.
But what about an art student? Will they be able to pay of their debts? Will their art degree give them that much of a competitive advantage in such a creative field?
Most importantly: would they have felt the need to go to school for that area of focus if they were not given such a massive loan when they were 17-18 years old? Its kind of a problem when federal loans are thrust on kids who have yet to make a major financial decision.
I decided to pay for my own medical school (I'm very lucky in that my parents took care of the rest of my college tuition after my scholarships) since I felt the need to take responsibility for my life. It was my own decision and I made it as a 23 year old who had work experience and savings.
I don't know if I'd like it if I had to repay someone for a three figure loan that I decided to take when I was still a teenager without so much experience.
Not to mention that it has helped drive up prices well beyond the rate of inflation. If people can now afford to go to expensive private schools to study pottery and fields that do not help them find employment with loans that will be paid off "in the future" of course schools will jack up their prices. This makes it more expensive for the poor souls who really need an education to make their lot in life and succeed in their field. Very complicated situation.
I began my undergraduate education in 2006. The tuition was 38k per year then. Now it is up to 45 thousand. And we have 17 year olds going to school with "undecided" as their major?
Can doctors be trusted. Whats the feel in your country?
Well, I met one who said he was a giant space hamster, then grabbed an axe to begin the operation...
Awesome @booinyoureyes !
However I do see your point, is an arts degree worth anything? I could see if you were going to work in something like graphic design or conceptual design for example it might be helpful but your talking a relatively small field compared to something like a medical based degree for example.
Hahahaha! I'd be game to do a thread maybe once or twice a fortnight about a different topic everytime? Something that is bound to cause debate and thought. I love getting other peoples opinions, a lot of the time they help broaden and enlighten my own view
I just don't want to spam the off-topic with endless threads that don't go anywhere
Unfortunately I have some bad news. After taking your vital signs, I have noticed a slight problem (very slight)
You don't have any.
Do not despair though. Your blood pressure is quite low, and you don't appear to be breathing heavily. A little dry skins perhaps, but nothing a little moisturizer or embalming fluid couldn't help with.
Overall, despite your lack of life signs you appear to be in tip top shape!
What I was referring to was the policy that most schools here have about classes you need to take while attending the university. They are called "General Education" and are subjects unrelated to your major.
This is all fun and some people might find them useful to their development, or they may use them to find a new passion if they are undecided. However, for someone with a clear plan in mind it could be at best a very *expensive* detour or at worst a complete roadblock in the way of what you want to accomplish. Yet for many schools it is also an excuse to raise tuition every other year.
Where I went they did not have such requirements. You had complete academic freedom. As you can probably tell from my political positions, I place a lot of value on liberty and choice
I see what you mean though, why force students to study a subject completely unrelated to what they want to do? Ohhh money. Always comes down to money.
@Squire I sit on the fence a little here. I agree with both of you to be honest. Privatization can be amazing for business but you're exactly right only in areas where there is healthy competition. Otherwise you've just released the only control you had over it and given a business out to make a profit a total monopoly over a certain thing. Public transport is a prime example, here it's privatized and expensive and slow. It's cheaper and faster for me to catch a taxi then use a train and bus. In Western Australia it's owned and operated by Transperth, a government business. It's cheap, efficient and widely used. It uses a smart rider, a card you can tag on when you get onto a bus or train and tag off when you get off it. Nice and easy. Works like a prepaid card.
As soon as a customer is faced with choosing between products they must have, there is potential for abuse. In the UK you legally must have Car Insurance if you intend to drive. There have long been concerns about increasing and disproportionate insurance premiums and warnings about price fixing. Similarly with gas and power suppliers there are current investigations about price-fixing ongoing in the UK. These companies are only truly competing against the consumer, not each other, and consumers are only have a choice between a bunch of crooks.
A number of private corporate organisations aim to "Maximise Shareholder Value", ahead even of making profits. This can lead to short-termism, aiming for rapid gains in share price at the expense of long term growth and stability. In no small part this contributed to the 2008 financial crisis.
One CEO claimed last year that using a maze of off-shore accounts and holding companies to avoid corporation tax was his "fiduciary duty". This undermines any social responsibility credibility his company ever had. A company avoiding taxation and then having more representation than voters because of their financial power is morally indefensible (and yet very common).
I'm not saying public ownership is the answer. I regularly deal with less-than-competence or beaurocratic waste in the public sector, and I work there. As part of a recent job application I had to send a full 500 grams of documents (approx 1 lb) to an organisation I'd worked for less than two years ago. Certain types of service do lend themselves to public ownership though - anything that consumers do not have a choice over, and anything that improves the effectiveness of the nation without necessarily being profitable.
TL;DR - Private companies can be bad, but Public ownership is not always good.
Perhaps like a protangonist faced with a terrible choice we need to take a third option. If only we could work out what that is.
That I find is the biggest issue. I don't always like the way things are but I'm damned if I can come up with a better way that will work in the modern world. It's just really bloody hard to get people to go for radical change, even though I have NO idea what that radical change is yet.
- Ray Davies, an English rock musician
Hahahaha Apparently there isn't going to be one. I shall start a controversial debate thread once a week or so. Just to see what everyone has to say and let everyone have a chat! Hopefully it will stay fairly civil. I like that this forum is a bastion of calm in a sea of chaos.
I think the next one shall be... RELIGION. DUN DUN DAH... :O
But no, I love hearing from everyone so if you guys want to keep posting I'm certainly game to keep reading and researching! Knowledge and self enlightenment is what life should be about. Not bloody money and material crap.
There are legitimate complaints about just about every government, economic system and politico-socio-economic state. As you rightly say, the $64,000 question is: how do we do better?
Independent Oversight and Transparency are aspects that can be improved in most things. Transparency makes people less likely to do or say stupid or risky things, and Independent Oversight means that mistakes can't be covered up and forgotten as easily. Often Oversight and Transparency are lacking at high levels in powerful organisations though - think Investment Banking and the Security Services over the past few years. Sadly a number of senior Intelligence figures recently refused to give evidence to the UK Home Affairs Select Committee, which is part of their oversight arrangements.
Lies and outright crime in the banking and investments sector has led to some amazing financial disaster here in the past. Especially if you happened to be one of the folk who invested in something through a company that it turns out had in fact been pocketing your money in Cayman's account and fudging the books...
I can tell you right now, Intelligence agencies, defence research agencies and the military itself have a lot more power then they rightly should. There is also an alarming lack of oversight for pretty much everything they do. I can tell you that from experience. For the most part, they get their budget, what they do with it is up to them. But I've seen a few VERY expensive hammers before...
Sorry, gonna be a bit busy today to respond to these, but I just want to say a couple things.
I generally agree with most of what @Corvino said. And like what @Squire said when it comes to transportation there is a clear lack of competition for consumers.
Corvino made a very good point about car insurance, and it is one of the main issues I have with the system recently passed in the states called the Affordable Care Act (colloquially referred to as Obamacare). It is often misrepresented by both sides as a socialized healthcare system, but it is far more akin to the private-public partnerships that Corvino referred. These are always anti-competition and corrupt the pricing system... while also serve as easy targets for corruption. Franklin Roosevelt set up many similar type systems in the States that didn't work out well for this purpose (he ended up actively destroying food while Americans were actually starving in order to deal with priced distortion in the agricultural industry!)
I also agree with Corvino about oversight and transparency in government (big fan of Snowden... now that I have admitted that I'm probably the first hamster on the NSA's list). When you DON'T have a choice to go to another company, you better make sure that the government is as open as possible. If you see the number of dollars that are unaccounted for in the annual budget of the United States (well, we don't even do budgets anymore since our politicians are so useless) you will be astounded.
I do think that there are areas in which transparency is not desirable, usually involving national security, but oftentimes these concerns are used as excuses for overreach. The hardest part about government services is that it is hard to hold people accountable and fix the issues that arise. After a slew of recent controversies and scandals, the president of the United States has claimed to have first heard about them on television. After the NSA revelations, literally nothing has changed a year later. The disturbing part about democracy is that half of the voting population condemns him while having supported similar acts by his predecessor while the other half of the population is falling over eachother trying to come up with excuses for their beloved leader. Ah... democracy. Maybe Churchill is right about it being the best so far, but man do I wish some of its problems could be fixed.
Yes. I'm a fan of public education.
*runs away*
@OneAngryMushroom They never apologize. They just keep lying and blaming it on the other party. :P
Hoping the general public don't really care enough to pull them up on it. For the most part, it works. Unless it DIRECTLY affects them in a bad way most people will just go "Aww thats unfortunate" and move on.
@Nonnahswriter Oh hell yes! Schools! So am I! Despite us apparently having a "Debt and deficit disaster" as the government calls it, they have set aside something like 900 million to put Chaplains in public schools and replace the proper councilors... Because Abbott's a Catholic and thinks they can do a better job. If I wanted a religious education/influence I'd put my kids in a private christian school.
Separation of church and state.