3 ms·

Bernie's real expectation is that things will get better if people get off their butts and take action. I doubt he believes that government programs will be ma

Bernie's real expectation is that things will get better if people get off their butts and take action. I doubt he believes that government programs will be magically efficient and effective without the right people to make them that way. Government jobs are available. You can't really complain about something being "managed so poorly" unless you're one of the people in that organization trying to make it better. Currently the U.S. has a system where doctors' offices need SEVERAL full time staff just to deal with insurance companies, which is insane and nothing like what I have seen elsewhere.

bsbechtel 11y ago
>>Bernie's real expectation is that things will get better if people get off their butts and take action. I doubt he believes that government programs will be magically efficient and effective without the right people to make them that way. The problem is, with a government program, we're all forced to pay into it, no matter how good or bad the program actually is. When you are forced to pay for services from an organization, you have every right to complain about how poor those services are if you suffer because of them. If you expect that a government program will be great because Bernie hires the right people, what about the next President, and the President after that? The capabilities of individuals is government statistically by a bell curve and normal distribution. Even if you can select the very best person to manage that program for 4 years, the law of regression to the mean dictates that some future hire will be less capable. So how to we prevent mediocre people from eventually filling these positions, and thus wasting the money we are forced to pay in taxes to fund them?
- makecheck 11y ago
  Well one thing to consider is that a great many countries have managed to do it so we aren't exactly charting scary new territory. We've essentially been told that this has succeeded so the real question is why haven’t we at least tried our own version of it? Every single job or project has the risk of eventually being taken over by less competent people (or at least, people who didn't understand the entire original vision). Every taxpayer has to live with the fact that he or she won't agree with everything the government does with money. I would have personally loved to have contributed no tax money at all on the military wastes of the last decade, for example. Taxpayers don't really get to choose at a low granularity, otherwise everyone would find some way to cherry-pick to the point that nothing big could get done. The way to fix it is to put skin in the game personally. Quit your job and apply to work for the government; or, write to a congressman and really press on them that you consider this important; or better yet, tell 50 of your friends and get some network effects; or join some larger group that petitions for change (as so many other groups do).
  - bsbechtel 11y ago
    Your points are not completely unreasonable, but there is more to consider. I agree with you about wasting tax dollars on military affairs in foreign countries, but at least those expenditures are (theoretically) temporary. Consider that many other countries, mainly in Europe, have managed to put in place a single-payer healthcare system over the last 20-30 years. In the time span of governments and the legal system, this is the blink of an eye. Again, consider statistically that eventually someone incompetent is going to be put in place running one of these systems. This happens in government, and it happens in the private sector (how many firms are in the S&P 500 from 20 years ago?). The difference in the private sector is, when failure happens, individuals are free to choose a competing option, and are not forced to continue to pay for the failing one. I'm sure you've heard the lines about how competition in free markets (truly free, not highly regulated insurance) drive down prices too. Consider also that no benefit system has lasted longer than a generation and been successfully managed by a federal-level government. The closest we have is Social Security, which is well on it's way to bankruptcy here in the U.S. Furthermore, the great majority of what are considered good single-payer healthcare systems have been implemented in countries with Parliamentary Style Governments. What this means is when the party in power is no longer doing it's job, the citizens or opposing party can vote them out, more or less ASAP. The difference with this and our Constitutional Style Government is that if we elect the wrong person, or they put the wrong person in charge of our healthcare, we have very little power to change the situation for 4 years. In this sense, those Parliamentary Style Governments operate closer to what an actual free-market operates, giving their Citizens much more power over who runs and manages their single-payer healthcare system than we could. The reason we haven't tried our own version of it is, because once it is implemented, it is very, very hard to change or roll back. Furthermore, as is with all the data coming out about Obamacare, it is very hard to actually judge whether such a program is actually successful.

bsbechtel 11y ago

>>Bernie's real expectation is that things will get better if people get off their butts and take action. I doubt he believes that government programs will be magically efficient and effective without the right people to make them that way. The problem is, with a government program, we're all forced to pay into it, no matter how good or bad the program actually is. When you are forced to pay for services from an organization, you have every right to complain about how poor those services are if you suffer because of them. If you expect that a government program will be great because Bernie hires the right people, what about the next President, and the President after that? The capabilities of individuals is government statistically by a bell curve and normal distribution. Even if you can select the very best person to manage that program for 4 years, the law of regression to the mean dictates that some future hire will be less capable. So how to we prevent mediocre people from eventually filling these positions, and thus wasting the money we are forced to pay in taxes to fund them?

makecheck 11y ago
Well one thing to consider is that a great many countries have managed to do it so we aren't exactly charting scary new territory. We've essentially been told that this has succeeded so the real question is why haven’t we at least tried our own version of it? Every single job or project has the risk of eventually being taken over by less competent people (or at least, people who didn't understand the entire original vision). Every taxpayer has to live with the fact that he or she won't agree with everything the government does with money. I would have personally loved to have contributed no tax money at all on the military wastes of the last decade, for example. Taxpayers don't really get to choose at a low granularity, otherwise everyone would find some way to cherry-pick to the point that nothing big could get done. The way to fix it is to put skin in the game personally. Quit your job and apply to work for the government; or, write to a congressman and really press on them that you consider this important; or better yet, tell 50 of your friends and get some network effects; or join some larger group that petitions for change (as so many other groups do).
- bsbechtel 11y ago
  Your points are not completely unreasonable, but there is more to consider. I agree with you about wasting tax dollars on military affairs in foreign countries, but at least those expenditures are (theoretically) temporary. Consider that many other countries, mainly in Europe, have managed to put in place a single-payer healthcare system over the last 20-30 years. In the time span of governments and the legal system, this is the blink of an eye. Again, consider statistically that eventually someone incompetent is going to be put in place running one of these systems. This happens in government, and it happens in the private sector (how many firms are in the S&P 500 from 20 years ago?). The difference in the private sector is, when failure happens, individuals are free to choose a competing option, and are not forced to continue to pay for the failing one. I'm sure you've heard the lines about how competition in free markets (truly free, not highly regulated insurance) drive down prices too. Consider also that no benefit system has lasted longer than a generation and been successfully managed by a federal-level government. The closest we have is Social Security, which is well on it's way to bankruptcy here in the U.S. Furthermore, the great majority of what are considered good single-payer healthcare systems have been implemented in countries with Parliamentary Style Governments. What this means is when the party in power is no longer doing it's job, the citizens or opposing party can vote them out, more or less ASAP. The difference with this and our Constitutional Style Government is that if we elect the wrong person, or they put the wrong person in charge of our healthcare, we have very little power to change the situation for 4 years. In this sense, those Parliamentary Style Governments operate closer to what an actual free-market operates, giving their Citizens much more power over who runs and manages their single-payer healthcare system than we could. The reason we haven't tried our own version of it is, because once it is implemented, it is very, very hard to change or roll back. Furthermore, as is with all the data coming out about Obamacare, it is very hard to actually judge whether such a program is actually successful.