From the comments:
"but [the goverment's] incentives are more closely aligned with peoples needs than private companies"
How are they more closely aligned? If a private company fucks up, or provides poor service, you can take your business elsewhere. You can refuse to pay for service you don't need or want. You can sue them if they do something criminal. If a private company screws up often enough, long enough, they eventually go bankrupt and disappear. (Unless they're protected from competition or bailed out by the government.)
By contrast, what happens to government bureaucrats who fuck up or provide poor service? You can't fire them. You can't stop paying them. You can't switch to a better provider. They neither gain nor lose anything if you live or die. You typically can't sue them for criminal behavior committed in the course of doing their duties ("qualified immunity"). They can kill you or put you in cage if you don't do what they say or refuse to pay up.
Why would you expect such a government monopoly to provide any better service? Why wouldn't it provide just as shitty a service as other state-enforced monopolies, such as Comcast?
"im advocating for having both socialized and private health care markets like every other western country."
How is that different from the US now? The US government already pays for more than 2/3rds of all healthcare spending in the US. It already spends more per capita than all but a few countries (circa 2010, only Norway, Netherlands, and Luxemberg spent more).
If the US's current mixed market / socialist system provides crappy, expensive service now when they control more than 60% of healthcare spending, at what percentage should we expect them to perform better?
[Note: I'm not crediting the commentator because she indicated she didn't want to participate in the conversation any more. If she wants credit, she should feel free to get in touch.]
#socialism
#socialized_medicine
"but [the goverment's] incentives are more closely aligned with peoples needs than private companies"
How are they more closely aligned? If a private company fucks up, or provides poor service, you can take your business elsewhere. You can refuse to pay for service you don't need or want. You can sue them if they do something criminal. If a private company screws up often enough, long enough, they eventually go bankrupt and disappear. (Unless they're protected from competition or bailed out by the government.)
By contrast, what happens to government bureaucrats who fuck up or provide poor service? You can't fire them. You can't stop paying them. You can't switch to a better provider. They neither gain nor lose anything if you live or die. You typically can't sue them for criminal behavior committed in the course of doing their duties ("qualified immunity"). They can kill you or put you in cage if you don't do what they say or refuse to pay up.
Why would you expect such a government monopoly to provide any better service? Why wouldn't it provide just as shitty a service as other state-enforced monopolies, such as Comcast?
"im advocating for having both socialized and private health care markets like every other western country."
How is that different from the US now? The US government already pays for more than 2/3rds of all healthcare spending in the US. It already spends more per capita than all but a few countries (circa 2010, only Norway, Netherlands, and Luxemberg spent more).
If the US's current mixed market / socialist system provides crappy, expensive service now when they control more than 60% of healthcare spending, at what percentage should we expect them to perform better?
[Note: I'm not crediting the commentator because she indicated she didn't want to participate in the conversation any more. If she wants credit, she should feel free to get in touch.]
#socialism
#socialized_medicine