Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

[Anastasis 23719]

27 minutes ago, hayden_horn said:

sure, this chart is dated, but i'm in a hurry. medicare part d passed in 2003. ACA passed in 2010. that's about as linear of a rate of growth as one could see. 

per the googles, the cost for a family of four annually now? >$28k.

costs are increasing, and it's not because government.

Post a chart of gross to net drug pricing before and after part D. I’d search for one but on mobile at the moment.  After that, we can drill down to how much of that spread is passed back to the government by the administrators of part d and managed Medicare plans.

The American experience with government involvement in healthcare consistently shows the creation of perverse incentives and often unintended consequences that increase costs and generally worsen outcomes. Part D examples abound. What healthcare needs is greater market forces and a system that provides for catastrophic backstopping. There is a good role that government could and probably should play in such a system. But our political system and the interests that revolve around the issue aren’t likely to take us from here to there. 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

The problem is the health insurance and pharmaceutical companies are the ones writing the laws. 

[David Dennison 19542]

10 minutes ago, Incredulity said:

No, I am sure there is massive waste and inefficiency in the system.

Just like every system, public or private.

[HRSchenker 2341]

I'll give her credit in that she wants to completely overhaul the health care system rather than this whole "repeal the ACA but keep protections for preexisting conditions". If you want prices under the ACA to go down then preexisting condition coverage has got to go. But that stance isn't going to win votes.

[Brisketexan 106899]

6 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

I'd love to see whether all the free market champions here would still fly commercial if we just did away with the FAA and airline safety regulations.

Or the open courts in which they would sue if Airline X flew them into a mountain because of a drunk pilot.

Or the local taxes and fees that funded the nice airport that they flew out of.

Or the local roads they drove on to leave their house and get to the airport.

Or the federal security apparatus that kept a bomb from getting aboard the plane (from the FBI busting up the plot before it got anywhere, to the TSA bomb-sniffing dog that caught it before it made it on board).

Or the FDA regs that made sure that the prepared sammich you grabbed from the kiosk wasn't loaded with salmonella.

And we could go on, and on, and on.  People have no clue the jillion mundane things government does.  And those things don't just benefit you directly.  They create a framework of the rule of law, whereby people and businesses generally operate both in compliance and reliance on that system.  Hell, the reason your turkey sammich only cost the airport price of $12 instead of $20 is because both the seller and buyer of that turkey can rely on their arm's length contract being enforceable, which leads to fair pricing on both ends.  

It's easy and lazy to say "government fucks everything up."  That just means that you have no idea what all government really does, and the massive secondary and tertiary benefits that it provides.  And seriously, I am NOT a fan of shitty bureaucracy, I've always been a "the government should be as lean and mean as it can be, where it can be" kind of guy.  It feels out of place for me to be defending the government, but here I am.  Geez.

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

Just now, Hugo Stiglitz said:

The problem is the health insurance and pharmaceutical companies are the ones writing the laws. 

 Thanks Obama...... 

[David Dennison 19542]

Just now, Onboard 2.0 said:

 Thanks Obama...... Joe Lieberman

 

 

[Guest]

5 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Private industry is good at creating food that kills us and putting it in packages that kids like. It's good at convincing us we need things we don't actually need and then selling that stuff to us.

It's good at making new cars every year that are functionally identical to cars made 40 years ago and convincing us that marginal improvements in ride quality and cabin noise actually matter.

This post makes me feel like how my posts must make you feel...why even waste the time to have an honest discussion with ole Malvina Reynolds here when your beliefs and biases are so extreme and strong as to be fully encompassing and leaving no room for any ability to entertain an idea that you haven't already convinced yourself is a universal truth.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

Just now, Onboard 2.0 said:

 Thanks Obama...... 

The ACA was based on a Republican plan. 

[Incredulity 11876]

2 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

The ACA was based on a Republican plan. 

Fuck you.

Talk about intellectual dishonesty.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

What? It was Romney’s blueprint 

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts passed a health care reform law in 2006 with the aim of providing health insurance to nearly all of its residents. The law mandated that nearly every resident of Massachusetts obtain a minimum level of insurance coverage, provided free health care insurance for residents earning less than 150% of the federal poverty level (FPL)^[1] and mandated employers with more than 10 "full-time" employees to provide healthcare insurance. The law was amended significantly in 2008 and twice in 2010 to make it consistent with the federal Affordable Care Act. Major revisions related to health care industry price controls were passed in August 2012, and the employer mandate was repealed in 2013 in favor of the federal mandate (even though enforcement of the federal mandate was delayed until January 2015).^[2]Because Mitt Romney was the governor of Massachusetts at the time, the law has colloquially been called Romneycare, a reference to the nicknaming of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act as "Obamacare".^[3]

Edited November 15, 2018 by Hugo Stiglitz

[sheeeit 129]

7 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

I'd love to see whether all the free market champions here would still fly commercial if we just did away with the FAA and airline safety regulations.

Perfectly stupid post that misses the point by a mile.  Having the govt act as oversight on an industry to impose safety regulations and practices is exactly what the govt should be doing.

Imagine the govt being the only entity that could build and operate planes.  How much do you think it would cost to build with no competition?  How efficient would the operations be with no competition?  How much would tickets cost with no competition?  How innovative would airline travel be with no competition?  

As this relates to healthcare, the health insurance industry is one of the, if not the most, govt regulated industry in the country.  Health insurers have to justify every rate increase they get and have to justify when they deny a claim.  BCBS, Aetna, Cigna, Unites etc, they all compete for business based on price.  They have built in incentives to keep costs down so that they can charge less than the competition and get more business.

And like the FAA, if an insurer denies a claim that should have been covered, the govt can and does fine them and restrict their ability to write more coverage.  Which is a good thing.

The govt oversees their financial balance sheet to make sure they always have enough money reserved to pay potential claims.  Another good thing.

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

Gov't goooooood.  Private industry baaaaaaaaaaaad.   Glad we could clear THAT up.....

 

[David Dennison 19542]

3 minutes ago, sheeeit said:

Perfectly stupid post that misses the point by a mile.  Having the govt act as oversight on an industry to impose safety regulations and practices is exactly what the govt should be doing.

Thank you. That's what the left has been saying since the 19th century.

Edited November 15, 2018 by David Dennison

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

Just now, David Dennison said:

Thank you. That's what the left has been saying since the 19th century.

And since about 25-30 years ago the left has been saying gov't can do everything better.  What's your point ?

[sheeeit 129]

11 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

The problem is the health insurance and pharmaceutical companies are the ones writing the laws. 

First, that is not really the truth but lets just agree that it is.

Obviously you think that the health and pharmaceutical companies are writing laws that benefit them over the general good of the country and that our elected officials are enacting those laws even though they know they are not in the best interest of the country.  Why do you think that is?  Think it might have to do with money from those industries PACs that pour in to their reelection campaigns?  

Serious question, do you think a majority of politicians would vote for legislation that they know is not in the best interest of the country if they, the pols, had absolutely zero personal incentive in the outcome? 

[David Dennison 19542]

1 minute ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

And since about 25-30 years ago the left has been saying gov't can do everything better.  What's your point ?

That is incorrect.

[hayden_horn 11402]

3 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

Gov't goooooood.  Private industry baaaaaaaaaaaad.   Glad we could clear THAT up.....

 

actually, despite your oversimplification here, the government is actually good at some things. private industry is actually good at some things. the problem comes in the motive of profit. some of yall think that the government is in the business of making a profit, like private industry.

no.

the government is in the business of spending tax dollars where they are most needed.

we can argue all day about tax rates, and the buckets into which those tax dollars fall.

but first we need to realize that the government is there to do the things private industry cannot do. sometimes that means the post office. sometimes that means building roads. sometimes that means schools. yes, sometimes that means grants for the arts, even if you don't like the arts produced.

more than anyone, i wish we at least made an attempt to balance the budget. because the government is baaaaaad at managing what it takes in. maybe that means it should take in more. maybe that means we should cut spending here and maybe there.

but let's not get stuck in this false dichotomy.

government is there to invest in things that have no money in them. private industry is there to invest in things and maximize profit. these are two vastly different roles, but both equally important to a functioning society.

[hobbes2702 13477]

12 minutes ago, Incredulity said:

Fuck you.

Talk about intellectual dishonesty.

Talk about uninformed 

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

2 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

That is incorrect.

Yes, it is incorrect that gov't can do every thing better than private industry, but that hasn't stopped the left from trying to make gov't everything to everyone. 

[hobbes2702 13477]

Aren’t sweeping generalizations fun

[David Dennison 19542]

I'm waiting to hear the free market conservative take on how the private health insurance market would accommodate Americans over the age of 65.

Anyone want to take a crack at that one?

[David Dennison 19542]

5 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

Yes, it is incorrect that gov't can do every thing better than private industry, but that hasn't stopped the left from trying to make gov't everything to everyone. 

That is incorrect and wildly dishonest.

Edited November 15, 2018 by David Dennison

[hayden_horn 11402]

4 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

Yes, it is incorrect that gov't can do every thing better than private industry, but that hasn't stopped the left from trying to make gov't everything to everyone. 

dude. even for you this is fucking absurd.

[Continental Op 3934]

I'd love to see whether all the free market champions here would still fly commercial if we just did away with the FAA and airline safety regulations.

Of course. American Airlines loves me and would never do anything as goulish and cynical as working the math on balancing payouts for civil suits and saving money by cutting corners on maintenance no longer required by FAA regulations.

[sheeeit 129]

21 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Or the open courts in which they would sue if Airline X flew them into a mountain because of a drunk pilot.

Or the local taxes and fees that funded the nice airport that they flew out of.

Or the local roads they drove on to leave their house and get to the airport.

Or the federal security apparatus that kept a bomb from getting aboard the plane (from the FBI busting up the plot before it got anywhere, to the TSA bomb-sniffing dog that caught it before it made it on board).

Or the FDA regs that made sure that the prepared sammich you grabbed from the kiosk wasn't loaded with salmonella.

And we could go on, and on, and on.  People have no clue the jillion mundane things government does.  And those things don't just benefit you directly.  They create a framework of the rule of law, whereby people and businesses generally operate both in compliance and reliance on that system.  Hell, the reason your turkey sammich only cost the airport price of $12 instead of $20 is because both the seller and buyer of that turkey can rely on their arm's length contract being enforceable, which leads to fair pricing on both ends.  

It's easy and lazy to say "government fucks everything up."  That just means that you have no idea what all government really does, and the massive secondary and tertiary benefits that it provides.  And seriously, I am NOT a fan of shitty bureaucracy, I've always been a "the government should be as lean and mean as it can be, where it can be" kind of guy.  It feels out of place for me to be defending the government, but here I am.  Geez.

 

4 minutes ago, hayden_horn said:

actually, despite your oversimplification here, the government is actually good at some things. private industry is actually good at some things. the problem comes in the motive of profit. some of yall think that the government is in the business of making a profit, like private industry.

no.

the government is in the business of spending tax dollars where they are most needed.

we can argue all day about tax rates, and the buckets into which those tax dollars fall.

but first we need to realize that the government is there to do the things private industry cannot do. sometimes that means the post office. sometimes that means building roads. sometimes that means schools. yes, sometimes that means grants for the arts, even if you don't like the arts produced.

more than anyone, i wish we at least made an attempt to balance the budget. because the government is baaaaaad at managing what it takes in. maybe that means it should take in more. maybe that means we should cut spending here and maybe there.

but let's not get stuck in this false dichotomy.

government is there to invest in things that have no money in them. private industry is there to invest in things and maximize profit. these are two vastly different roles, but both equally important to a functioning society.

These are good points but only to a certain point.  It is disingenuous to list things that the govt does that, by law, the private sector is not allowed to do.   

Everyone forgets the basic premise that the "govt" is only allowed to do what the people want it to do.  The courts only exist because the people in the community decided that it was in the best interest of the community to have a place where disputes can be resolved.  The people have given rights/duties to police to enforce the rules that the people want enforced for the good of the community.  The people could decide to eliminate the police dept and fire dept and let private companies bid to do those services for a fee.  

Virtually every thing you guys posted could, in theory, be done privately.  Now we, as a community, have decided to let the govt provide those services.  But we have absolutely no way of knowing if they are being done as efficiently and as least expensive as possible precisely because there is no competition from outside entities to provide those services.

Now I am not at all advocating to privatize most of those things.  But I am arguing that in a debate about the efficiency and quality and cost of certain services/industries, that it is ridiculous to suggest that robust competition for those services would not create more efficient and less expensive outcomes.

[wildcat09 29579]

42 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

Hell no, That's part of what gov't does well. They aren't motivated by profit they're doing what gov't is supposed to do.  

You just spent the last page saying that the profit motive is why private industry is superior to the government.

[bad_teammate 13524]

3 minutes ago, sheeeit said:

Everyone forgets the basic premise that the "govt" is only allowed to do what the people want it to do.  The courts only exist because the people in the community decided that it was in the best interest of the community to have a place where disputes can be resolved.  The people have given rights/duties to police to enforce the rules that the people want enforced for the good of the community.  The people could decide to eliminate the police dept and fire dept and let private companies bid to do those services for a fee.   

You are a rich man with a private militia and I am a peasant worker with a family in a little hut in the woods. You come and rape my daughter.

What do my daughter and I do?

[wildcat09 29579]

Just now, bad_teammate said:

You are a rich man with a private militia and I am a peasant worker with a family in a little hut in the woods. You come and rape my daughter.

What do my daughter and I do?

What's more important in that scenario is that sheeeit pays 0 taxes.

[Dirk X West 772]

3 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

You are a rich man with a private militia and I am a peasant worker with a family in a little hut in the woods. You come and rape my daughter.

What do my daughter and I do?

Work harder and get a better job, obviously.

[sheeeit 129]

15 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

I'm waiting to hear the free market conservative take on how the private health insurance market would accommodate Americans over the age of 65.

Anyone want to take a crack at that one?

I am breaking a personal rule by responding to you but sometimes your stupidity and lack of macro thinking skills is just too much.

The answer is the same way they provide coverage now.  

Health insurers would be absolutely delighted at the prospect of providing lifetime health insurance.  Surely you know that people already buy health insurance to supplement what is covered by medicare.  Health insurers would salivate over the $700B+ spent currently.  

I think the private health insurers would cut 30% from the total.  I am fine with the "govt" paying the premiums.  Let the carriers compete on benefits and price and service.   

I actually have a total overhaul plan for health insurance that would solve virtually every problem, from a cost standpoint, that we have now.

[David Dennison 19542]

What's lost in all of this is the fact that our government exists to protect wealth and the wealthy.

[SubliminalHorn 7009]

33 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

That is incorrect and wildly dishonest.

You think he cares about that?

[bad_teammate 13524]

11 minutes ago, sheeeit said:

I actually have a total overhaul plan for health insurance that would solve virtually every problem, from a cost standpoint, that we have now.

I'd like for you to answer my question about fee-based policing, but this is even more intriguing!

[sheeeit 129]

8 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

You are a rich man with a private militia and I am a peasant worker with a family in a little hut in the woods. You come and rape my daughter.

What do my daughter and I do?

 

5 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

What's more important in that scenario is that sheeeit pays 0 taxes.

Super.  Completely unrealistic hypothetical partnered with astounding stupidity. 

But I am stuck at an airport.

The simple answer is that you send in whatever entity your community has decided collectively to hire to deal with crimes.  No one even suggested that it would be free.  The community would fund the entity in whatever manner they want and agree to.  Just like we do now with taxes.  That entity signed on for the job to enforce the laws of the community.  They will just have to do whatever they have to do.  Bring in more people temporarily.  Get help from surrounding communities force.  If they fail or wont do it, then fire them and hire someone who will.   

And if you and your daughter happen to live in this hypothetical American community where there is a rich criminal marauding man that the local law enforcement can not protect you from, then I would suggest you move.  

[bad_teammate 13524]

1 minute ago, sheeeit said:

Super.  Completely unrealistic hypothetical partnered with astounding stupidity. 

A rich man raping a poor man's daughter is a "completely unrealistic hypothetical"? This is what you're going with?

Quote

The simple answer is that you send in whatever entity your community has decided collectively to hire to deal with crimes.  No one even suggested that it would be free.  The community would fund the entity in whatever manner they want and agree to.  Just like we do now with taxes.  That entity signed on for the job to enforce the laws of the community.  They will just have to do whatever they have to do.  Bring in more people temporarily.  Get help from surrounding communities force.  If they fail or wont do it, then fire them and hire someone who will.   

This reminds me of Lyft innovating the concept of a ... bus.

Libertopia: We are just like the evil government we left, except our taxes are called "fees" so it's different!

 

[David Dennison 19542]

21 minutes ago, sheeeit said:

I am breaking a personal rule by responding to you but sometimes your stupidity and lack of macro thinking skills is just too much.

The answer is the same way they provide coverage now.  

Health insurers would be absolutely delighted at the prospect of providing lifetime health insurance.  Surely you know that people already buy health insurance to supplement what is covered by medicare.  Health insurers would salivate over the $700B+ spent currently.  

I think the private health insurers would cut 30% from the total.  I am fine with the "govt" paying the premiums.  Let the carriers compete on benefits and price and service.   

I actually have a total overhaul plan for health insurance that would solve virtually every problem, from a cost standpoint, that we have now.

I'd love to know how you think the vast majority of people over 65 would actually pay for market based premiums for private health insurance. Then go back and read up on why Medicare exists in the first place.

 

[sheeeit 129]

1 minute ago, David Dennison said:

I'd love to know how you think the vast majority of people over 65 would actually pay for market based premiums for private health insurance. Then go back and read up on why Medicare exists in the first place.

 

Precisely why one should never break personal rules.  I put it right in the post.  

[David Dennison 19542]

3 minutes ago, sheeeit said:

Precisely why one should never break personal rules.  I put it right in the post.  

No, you didn't. You didn't say one thing about how senior citizens would be able to afford it other than saying "govt."

That sounds a lot like Medicare.

My original question was explaining how you insure senior citizens without government influence on the market.

Edited November 15, 2018 by David Dennison

[sheeeit 129]

5 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

A rich man raping a poor man's daughter is a "completely unrealistic hypothetical"? This is what you're going with?

Another perfect example of why I should not break personal rules.  You and Dennison and Wildcat and others are just the perfect example of what debate is like with people that have absolutely zero personal shame or accountability.

I mean what sane person could think there is a difference between these 2 posts:

A rich man raping a poor man's daughter  

You are a rich man with a private militia and I am a peasant worker with a family in a little hut in the woods. You come and rape my daughter.

 

[David Dennison 19542]

2 minutes ago, sheeeit said:

Another perfect example of why I should not break personal rules.  You and Dennison and Wildcat and others are just the perfect example of what debate is like with people that have absolutely zero personal shame or accountability.

I mean what sane person could think there is a difference between these 2 posts:

A rich man raping a poor man's daughter  

You are a rich man with a private militia and I am a peasant worker with a family in a little hut in the woods. You come and rape my daughter.

 

So you don't know how to insure senior citizens without government involvement?

Well, no shit.

Free markets for everyone!

Edited November 15, 2018 by David Dennison

[RomaVicta 30590]

1 hour ago, Continental Op said:

1 hour ago, wildcat09 said:

I'd love to see whether all the free market champions here would still fly commercial if we just did away with the FAA and airline safety regulations.

Of course. American Airlines loves me and would never do anything as goulish and cynical as working the math on balancing payouts for civil suits and saving money by cutting corners on maintenance no longer required by FAA regulations.

The Ford Pinto. Ford could have made a cheap fix, but made the exact calculation that you describe.

The corporations aren't looking out for anybody. The Ford Pinto/Lee Iacocca story.

Quote

Remember the Pinto? It was one of the industry's hottest-selling subcompacts during the 1970s. Its success enhanced the reputation of Lee Iacocca - until an estimated 500 deaths and hundreds of injuries were linked to a faulty design that made the gasoline tank vulnerable to explosion after rear-end collisions.

On June 9, 1978, Ford agreed to recall 1.5 million Ford Pinto and 30,000 Mercury Bobcat sedan and hatchback models. Iacocca was fired the following month.

 

[Bat Guano 363]

1 hour ago, hayden_horn said:

actually, despite your oversimplification here, the government is actually good at some things. private industry is actually good at some things. the problem comes in the motive of profit. some of yall think that the government is in the business of making a profit, like private industry.

no.

the government is in the business of spending tax dollars where they are most needed.

we can argue all day about tax rates, and the buckets into which those tax dollars fall.

but first we need to realize that the government is there to do the things private industry cannot do. sometimes that means the post office. sometimes that means building roads. sometimes that means schools. yes, sometimes that means grants for the arts, even if you don't like the arts produced.

more than anyone, i wish we at least made an attempt to balance the budget. because the government is baaaaaad at managing what it takes in. maybe that means it should take in more. maybe that means we should cut spending here and maybe there.

but let's not get stuck in this false dichotomy.

government is there to invest in things that have no money in them. private industry is there to invest in things and maximize profit. these are two vastly different roles, but both equally important to a functioning society.

Good post, but it's looking at the thing the wrong way around. The bolded is exactly wrong: the need for services comes first, and then the taxation to pay for them. Government steps in - or, more accurately, is created to address - when there is a need to be met.

Most of the government functions listed these last few pages are pre-capitalist; the judicial system evolved from the need for someone dispensing justice - in most cases the headman of the tribe, originally,  or the feudal lord later on, which evolved into a formalized legal system as communities grew bigger and more complex, and to include police and judges and the whole mess. The same goes for the post office, fire departments, armies for defense, and so on: there was a need, and people got together and created a government to fill the need. There literally was not a private entity with the ability to provide those services; any private entity with the scale to provide police or mail delivery for an entire country is a relatively recent development.

How does this relate to health care? There has been a growing sense over the last several decades that the private solution is not working; it's been getting progressively more expensive, inefficient, topheavy, and is simply failing to provide basic service to all. Yes, government regulations have played a role; that was clearly not the intent, but unintended consequences do happen. The default answer to a universal need that is not being met is a government service. Medicare and Medicaid may have distorted the private market, but the undeniable fact is, they work, and they work much more efficiently than their private counterparts. People will eventually come around to the idea that it may not be such a bad thing to have a system that works, cheaply and efficiently, despite however much propaganda the ones who benefit from the current system (insurance, pharma, private hospitals, etc.) generate.

[RomaVicta 30590]

54 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

You are a rich man with a private militia and I am a peasant worker with a family in a little hut in the woods. You come and rape my daughter.

What do my daughter and I do?

 

32 minutes ago, sheeeit said:

 

Super.  Completely unrealistic hypothetical partnered with astounding stupidity. 

But I am stuck at an airport.

The simple answer is that you send in whatever entity your community has decided collectively to hire to deal with crimes.  No one even suggested that it would be free.  The community would fund the entity in whatever manner they want and agree to.  Just like we do now with taxes.  That entity signed on for the job to enforce the laws of the community.  They will just have to do whatever they have to do.  Bring in more people temporarily.  Get help from surrounding communities force.  If they fail or wont do it, then fire them and hire someone who will.   

And if you and your daughter happen to live in this hypothetical American community where there is a rich criminal marauding man that the local law enforcement can not protect you from, then I would suggest you move.  

This all sounds like old school Libertarianism. The stout homeowner protecting his property maybe in a friendly union with other citizens. 

It's just so quaint and romantic to think that all of these parties will act with the best intentions for all. That view of human nature is why communism doesn't work. 

What kind of people will want the private police jobs? What kind of people will want to control (bribe) them? The world is full of examples right this minute that make your vision of the world laughable. Charming but laughable.

I'd prefer the world you see, but it ain't happening.

[bad_teammate 13524]

17 minutes ago, sheeeit said:

I mean what sane person could think there is a difference between these 2 posts:

(A) A rich man raping a poor man's daughter  

(B) You are a rich man with a private militia and I am a peasant worker with a family in a little hut in the woods. You come and rape my daughter.

(A) is presented conceptually.

(B) is presented as a hypothetical.

Is it the use of personal pronouns that triggered you? Because as far as I can see, the content is exactly the same.

[sheeeit 129]

13 minutes ago, RomaVicta said:

 

This all sounds like old school Libertarianism. The stout homeowner protecting his property maybe in a friendly union with other citizens. 

It's just so quaint and romantic to think that all of these parties will act with the best intentions for all. That view of human nature is why communism doesn't work. 

What kind of people will want the private police jobs? What kind of people will want to control (bribe) them? The world is full of examples right this minute that make your vision of the world laughable. Charming but laughable.

I'd prefer the world you see, but it ain't happening.

As mentioned, I am not championing that we privatize the vast majority of these things.  My point has been that it is impossible to truly tell if an entity is efficient when there does not exist any competition within the industry- meaning there is not another entity to compare it to.

If you go to your bank and they tell you that they have great service and prices and their fees are really low, how do you know if it is true unless there is another bank to compare them to.  How do we know if the post office is well run or not?  It very well may be.  We just do not know because no one else is allowed to do it.  We do know that the USPS had an absolute monopoly on all things mail/delivery for a long time and had built in infrastructure and abilities (largely through military aircraft) to dominate the market forever.  Yet, multiple start up delivery services have come into the space and have dominated the marketplace.  Start ups with no infrastructure and massive up front costs.  And those companies are now worth billions of dollars and the USPS is broke.  If the US decided to let those companies bid on providing the exact same services currently provided by the USPS, I would bet they could do it for less money than we currently spend but I have no way of knowing.

As for your examples, I would assume the same people would apply and work those police jobs that are working them now?  What possible difference would it make if they were being paid by a private company or the govt.  You seem to assume that bribery can only exist in the private sector which is curious.  

It is just really stupid for people to argue that govt is equally as efficient at something as the private sector when the private sector is not given the opportunity to compete.  

[Cheeseweasel 26439]

1 hour ago, David Dennison said:

I'd love to know how you think the vast majority of people over 65 would actually pay for market based premiums for private health insurance. Then go back and read up on why Medicare exists in the first place.

 

You've hit on an important point here and why Obamacare is flawed. Those who need heathcare (Olds, sick) are going to buy it while those that don't (young) aren't. 

How do we have a system where everyone pays the same without absolutely fucking a generation of young people?

[jimmyjazz 47202]

2 hours ago, Anastasis said:

Post a chart of gross to net drug pricing before and after part D. I’d search for one but on mobile at the moment.  After that, we can drill down to how much of that spread is passed back to the government by the administrators of part d and managed Medicare plans.

The American experience with government involvement in healthcare consistently shows the creation of perverse incentives and often unintended consequences that increase costs and generally worsen outcomes. Part D examples abound. What healthcare needs is greater market forces and a system that provides for catastrophic backstopping. There is a good role that government could and probably should play in such a system. But our political system and the interests that revolve around the issue aren’t likely to take us from here to there. 

So we've created a grotesque system that leads to grotesque outputs, and we have no hope of approaching the meaningful results seen elsewhere, because the horses have left the barn?

Man, that sounds a WHOLE lot like the arguments over gun control.  Different words, but equally stupid.

[Anastasis 23719]

9 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

So we've created a grotesque system that leads to grotesque outputs, and we have no hope of approaching the meaningful results seen elsewhere, because the horses have left the barn?

There never was a barn. And I have no faith that our politicians and political environment is capable of building a barn. They may try to put one up, but it more likely that it will end up looking a lot like a glue factory. 

[jimmyjazz 47202]

1 minute ago, Anastasis said:

There never was a barn. And I have no faith that our politicians and political environment is capable of building a barn. They may try to put one up, but it more likely that it will end up looking a lot like a glue factory. 

However you want to couch it, you are saying the US has no hope of solving problems that have been solved many times over, with great satisfaction among their electorates, by smaller countries with far lower GDP.

I'm not ready to throw up my hands.

It would take an educated public demanding far more of our elected officials, which is of course absurd at face value, but in the end, a vote is a vote (until it isn't).