7 ms·

Or one could accept that for essential things it is a very bad idea to hope that the market will provide and instead the state could provide them itself, which

by sgift 10y ago

Or one could accept that for essential things it is a very bad idea to hope that the market will provide and instead the state could provide them itself, which could guarantee a steady supply.

MaulingMonkey 10y ago
How does shifting the burden from a profit-motivated company to a hell-if-I-know-by-what-motivated government bureaucracy guarantee anything?
- sgift 10y ago
  > hell-if-I-know-by-what-motivated government bureaucracy If I have to decide between a company which is guaranteed to not be motivated by my well-being and a government which is at least partially motivated by that (unfornately only partially due to issues[1]) I know what to choose. [1] Mainly lobbyism and greed. Where people are there is greed, where there's greed there's potential for misbehaviour.
  - MaulingMonkey 10y ago
    > If I have to decide between a company which is guaranteed to not be motivated by my well-being False premise. The dead can't buy their products, and the so much as merely pissed off will be motivated to take their business to the competition. Both of these hurt profit. > and a government which is at least partially motivated by that What do you base this on? The warm fuzzy feelings by bureaucrats? Employees are people too, with their own fuzzy warm feelings. What makes government employees special?
    - azernik 10y ago
      The fact that their job security is dependent on who we elect to public office.
  - danjayh 10y ago
    Politicians are motivated by power, not by your needs. We have had repeated examples of just how bad states truly are at providing for people's basic needs. Every time it's been tried, it's resulted in chronic shortages, often to the point of starvation. The USSR, Cuba, North Korea, China (before they went capitalist). I'm going to take a wager and say that the days when the USSR was still a major world power were before your time, and if I'm right, I strongly encourage you to do some reading on what it was like for the people who lived in it.
    - sgift 10y ago
      And yet we still have states, and they still provide basic services (e.g. roads, water, waste disposal). Why is that? If they were as useless as you think they are we would have removed them a long time ago. Maybe there's still something useful in them? Regarding your point of reading up on USSR etc.: I've talked with people who lived in these countries at that time, thanks. They don't see it as black and white as you do. Which kind of makes my point.
    - hackuser 10y ago
      Government provides many basic needs in the U.S., from roads to airports to sanitation to education to security (police, fire, and military); to food, water, shelter and healthcare for the needy; to justice, to much more. These services generally function relatively well in the U.S. and other wealthy countries.
- leohutson 10y ago
  Because countries with public health care spend less on health care. Its fine if you have a moral disagreement with having a public sector, but the facts don't lie, the health insurance bureaucracy, misleading pharmaceutical marketing/sales etc, is way more inefficient than even the shittiest implementation of a public healthcare system.
Buge 10y ago
Interestingly this is somewhat similar to what the US is doing for some food items. For example farmers are being paid to milk cows then dump in on the ground. This makes sure we have higher milk production capacity than necessary. Then if a disaster strikes or war that could reduce production, we have some extra production capabilities to help.
- Symbiote 10y ago
  This is one of the main reasons for the European Union's Common Agricultural Policy, which has existed since the 1960s and covers a lot of food types. The excess food is stored, and if it's not needed is sold (or sometimes given) to other countries. This is criticised as farmers in those countries might be left unable to compete.
  - hackuser 10y ago
    > one of the main reasons for the European Union's Common Agricultural Policy Hmmm ... based on what I've read, that might be the main rationalization. The reason is that the agricultural industry demands subsidies and has the political power to obtain them (as in many countries).
    - Symbiote 10y ago
      Europe had just finished a period of food shortage caused by World War II, which lasted years after the war in some countries. Governments were keen to prevent future shortages.
danjayh 10y ago
Three words for interesting (relevant) google food: toilet paper USSR. State production does not guarantee a steady supply of essentials.
- thescriptkiddie 10y ago
  The USSR suffered from mismanagement, poor treatment of workers, rampant corruption, a lack of natural resources, and crippling trade embargoes, and they nationalized virtually their entire economy. There are plenty of other examples of nationalizing critical industries going well, case in point Britain's NHS.
  - danjayh 10y ago
    (copied from another comment that I posted this in originally by accident) You consider NHS to be an example of a well run nationalized system, and yet the NHS deals with chronic rationing [0] [1], has queues for many things (and actually lets you pay to jump place in line) [2]. I'd hardly call that efficient or well run - instead, I'd call it symptomatic of central planning. During the 90s and 00s I thought that perhaps China's simultaneous transition from poverty and shortage to (relative) wealth and abundance (which was driven by their transition from state control to capitalism) would have finally put this 'the state could eliminate shortages and give everybody everything' nonsense to rest, but it seems that people have very short memories indeed (or just weren't born yet when the major experiments in nationalization were underway). To give you a preview of the links, this quote is particularly poignant: "Rationing is nothing new, of course. When waiting lists stretched to many months and even years, treatment was often rationed simply by the patient dying before they reach the operating table." [0] http://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/dec/08/nhs-rationing-denying-patients-care-cash-crisis-survery-doctors http://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/dec/08/nhs-rationing... [1] http://www.theguardian.com/healthcare-network/2015/apr/24/rationing-care-fact-of-life-nhs http://www.theguardian.com/healthcare-network/2015/apr/24/ra... [2] http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-3104106/NHS-charges-patients-14-000-jump-queue-crucial-ops-Hospitals-letting-need-knee-hip-replacement-surgery-pay-skip-queue.html http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-3104106/NHS-charge...
grahamburger 10y ago
Is the government incentivized and managed well enough to take big risks on new drugs and have a good chance at making them work? Sometimes I wonder how much the rest of the world benefits from the US's capitalist-ish healthcare policies. How much do drug companies rely on their ability to charge US customers insane amounts of money to help recover their costs of developing new treatments?
- stephentmcm 10y ago
  No is the answer to your second question, other first world nation's governments pay for the drugs and bear the cost burden.
  - grahamburger 10y ago
    But do they pay as much as US citizens do? Note that I'm not suggesting that it's bad if they don't. It seems like part of the purpose of single payer insurance is that you can negotiate much better rates with pharmaceutical companies. So either other first world nations aren't negotiating really good rates, or they are negotiating good rates and they're paying less than US citizens are. (I would hope it's the latter.) Let me sum up my thoughts this way - if single payer insurance saves money overall, that money is coming from somewhere. As it's been explained to me, that money is most likely coming out of the pockets of pharmaceutical companies and private insurance providers. Obviously saving money is great for everyone - except the pharmaceutical companies and private insurance companies. If that money dries up, is it possible that will stifle innovation? I don't know the answer, and I'm not using this as an argument directly against single payer insurance. I see the value of single payer insurance. I'm just curious about side effects. EDIT: Just to be totally clear, I'm not crying any tears for drug and insurance companies losing money. If we can get people the treatments they need at a lower cost I'm all for it. I'm just mildly curious about the macro effects of these types of changes.
    - true_religion 10y ago
      > If that money dries up, is it possible that will stifle innovation? I think its a complicated question. Most of the money spent by drug companies is on advertising and not R&D. If they are in an environment where profits are guaranteed via government contracts, and advertisements are banned, then where else can they spend their money except admin and R&D. Will people invest as much into drug companies if they aren't seen as volitile anymore? R&D costs are primarily because of having to navigate the legal structure of drug trials. If the government is more involved in the industry, how will this change? If for instance, the government foots the bill then costs go down, and the only downside is that time-to-market is increased due to government bottlenecking and inefficiencies.
tsmffh 10y ago
If you truly believe that -- move to Venezuela.
- sgift 10y ago
  Or maybe I stay where I am, in a country with a healthy mix of government provided services and market provided services. Shocking idea, isn't it?

by sgift 10y ago

Or one could accept that for essential things it is a very bad idea to hope that the market will provide and instead the state could provide them itself, which could guarantee a steady supply.

MaulingMonkey 10y ago

How does shifting the burden from a profit-motivated company to a hell-if-I-know-by-what-motivated government bureaucracy guarantee anything?

sgift 10y ago
> hell-if-I-know-by-what-motivated government bureaucracy If I have to decide between a company which is guaranteed to not be motivated by my well-being and a government which is at least partially motivated by that (unfornately only partially due to issues[1]) I know what to choose. [1] Mainly lobbyism and greed. Where people are there is greed, where there's greed there's potential for misbehaviour.
- MaulingMonkey 10y ago
  > If I have to decide between a company which is guaranteed to not be motivated by my well-being False premise. The dead can't buy their products, and the so much as merely pissed off will be motivated to take their business to the competition. Both of these hurt profit. > and a government which is at least partially motivated by that What do you base this on? The warm fuzzy feelings by bureaucrats? Employees are people too, with their own fuzzy warm feelings. What makes government employees special?
  - azernik 10y ago
    The fact that their job security is dependent on who we elect to public office.
- danjayh 10y ago
  Politicians are motivated by power, not by your needs. We have had repeated examples of just how bad states truly are at providing for people's basic needs. Every time it's been tried, it's resulted in chronic shortages, often to the point of starvation. The USSR, Cuba, North Korea, China (before they went capitalist). I'm going to take a wager and say that the days when the USSR was still a major world power were before your time, and if I'm right, I strongly encourage you to do some reading on what it was like for the people who lived in it.
  - sgift 10y ago
    And yet we still have states, and they still provide basic services (e.g. roads, water, waste disposal). Why is that? If they were as useless as you think they are we would have removed them a long time ago. Maybe there's still something useful in them? Regarding your point of reading up on USSR etc.: I've talked with people who lived in these countries at that time, thanks. They don't see it as black and white as you do. Which kind of makes my point.
  - hackuser 10y ago
    Government provides many basic needs in the U.S., from roads to airports to sanitation to education to security (police, fire, and military); to food, water, shelter and healthcare for the needy; to justice, to much more. These services generally function relatively well in the U.S. and other wealthy countries.
leohutson 10y ago
Because countries with public health care spend less on health care. Its fine if you have a moral disagreement with having a public sector, but the facts don't lie, the health insurance bureaucracy, misleading pharmaceutical marketing/sales etc, is way more inefficient than even the shittiest implementation of a public healthcare system.

Buge 10y ago

Interestingly this is somewhat similar to what the US is doing for some food items. For example farmers are being paid to milk cows then dump in on the ground. This makes sure we have higher milk production capacity than necessary. Then if a disaster strikes or war that could reduce production, we have some extra production capabilities to help.

Symbiote 10y ago
This is one of the main reasons for the European Union's Common Agricultural Policy, which has existed since the 1960s and covers a lot of food types. The excess food is stored, and if it's not needed is sold (or sometimes given) to other countries. This is criticised as farmers in those countries might be left unable to compete.
- hackuser 10y ago
  > one of the main reasons for the European Union's Common Agricultural Policy Hmmm ... based on what I've read, that might be the main rationalization. The reason is that the agricultural industry demands subsidies and has the political power to obtain them (as in many countries).
  - Symbiote 10y ago
    Europe had just finished a period of food shortage caused by World War II, which lasted years after the war in some countries. Governments were keen to prevent future shortages.

danjayh 10y ago

Three words for interesting (relevant) google food: toilet paper USSR. State production does not guarantee a steady supply of essentials.

thescriptkiddie 10y ago
The USSR suffered from mismanagement, poor treatment of workers, rampant corruption, a lack of natural resources, and crippling trade embargoes, and they nationalized virtually their entire economy. There are plenty of other examples of nationalizing critical industries going well, case in point Britain's NHS.
- danjayh 10y ago
  (copied from another comment that I posted this in originally by accident) You consider NHS to be an example of a well run nationalized system, and yet the NHS deals with chronic rationing [0] [1], has queues for many things (and actually lets you pay to jump place in line) [2]. I'd hardly call that efficient or well run - instead, I'd call it symptomatic of central planning. During the 90s and 00s I thought that perhaps China's simultaneous transition from poverty and shortage to (relative) wealth and abundance (which was driven by their transition from state control to capitalism) would have finally put this 'the state could eliminate shortages and give everybody everything' nonsense to rest, but it seems that people have very short memories indeed (or just weren't born yet when the major experiments in nationalization were underway). To give you a preview of the links, this quote is particularly poignant: "Rationing is nothing new, of course. When waiting lists stretched to many months and even years, treatment was often rationed simply by the patient dying before they reach the operating table." [0] http://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/dec/08/nhs-rationing-denying-patients-care-cash-crisis-survery-doctors http://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/dec/08/nhs-rationing... [1] http://www.theguardian.com/healthcare-network/2015/apr/24/rationing-care-fact-of-life-nhs http://www.theguardian.com/healthcare-network/2015/apr/24/ra... [2] http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-3104106/NHS-charges-patients-14-000-jump-queue-crucial-ops-Hospitals-letting-need-knee-hip-replacement-surgery-pay-skip-queue.html http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-3104106/NHS-charge...

grahamburger 10y ago

Is the government incentivized and managed well enough to take big risks on new drugs and have a good chance at making them work? Sometimes I wonder how much the rest of the world benefits from the US's capitalist-ish healthcare policies. How much do drug companies rely on their ability to charge US customers insane amounts of money to help recover their costs of developing new treatments?

stephentmcm 10y ago
No is the answer to your second question, other first world nation's governments pay for the drugs and bear the cost burden.
- grahamburger 10y ago
  But do they pay as much as US citizens do? Note that I'm not suggesting that it's bad if they don't. It seems like part of the purpose of single payer insurance is that you can negotiate much better rates with pharmaceutical companies. So either other first world nations aren't negotiating really good rates, or they are negotiating good rates and they're paying less than US citizens are. (I would hope it's the latter.) Let me sum up my thoughts this way - if single payer insurance saves money overall, that money is coming from somewhere. As it's been explained to me, that money is most likely coming out of the pockets of pharmaceutical companies and private insurance providers. Obviously saving money is great for everyone - except the pharmaceutical companies and private insurance companies. If that money dries up, is it possible that will stifle innovation? I don't know the answer, and I'm not using this as an argument directly against single payer insurance. I see the value of single payer insurance. I'm just curious about side effects. EDIT: Just to be totally clear, I'm not crying any tears for drug and insurance companies losing money. If we can get people the treatments they need at a lower cost I'm all for it. I'm just mildly curious about the macro effects of these types of changes.
  - true_religion 10y ago
    > If that money dries up, is it possible that will stifle innovation? I think its a complicated question. Most of the money spent by drug companies is on advertising and not R&D. If they are in an environment where profits are guaranteed via government contracts, and advertisements are banned, then where else can they spend their money except admin and R&D. Will people invest as much into drug companies if they aren't seen as volitile anymore? R&D costs are primarily because of having to navigate the legal structure of drug trials. If the government is more involved in the industry, how will this change? If for instance, the government foots the bill then costs go down, and the only downside is that time-to-market is increased due to government bottlenecking and inefficiencies.

tsmffh 10y ago

If you truly believe that -- move to Venezuela.

sgift 10y ago
Or maybe I stay where I am, in a country with a healthy mix of government provided services and market provided services. Shocking idea, isn't it?