6 ms·

The purpose of government is not to require the most efficient option. Government isn't capable of it anyway. Government is force - nothing more. The purpose of

The purpose of government is not to require the most efficient option. Government isn't capable of it anyway. Government is force - nothing more. The purpose of government is to protect our rights. "Single payer" (a euphemism for socialized medicine) by definition violates rights by forcing people to do things against their will. For example, in Canada (until recently) people were prohibited from using private health care even if they want to. The health systems in Europe are not radically different from the US system. The efficiencies of each are difficult to quantify without context. For example, the US invents most of the drugs and medical technology used by the world. Would this still happen if there was more invasive regulation? We can't know. Besides all of this, think of every other area of the market where the government insinuates itself. Are public schools better than private schools? Almost never. Is the US postal system better than FedEx? Of course not. The government is not a commercial entity. The incentives and influences on it are not conducive to producing quality products at good prices.

loteck 10y ago
For example, in Canada (until recently) Until recently. This means that all people can obtain health care regardless of their ability to pay, and that the system is flexible enough to continue to experiment with the ideal implementation. Are public schools better than private schools? Public schools are exactly 100% better than private schools for students who can't afford to attend private schools. Is the US postal system better than FedEx? They are if you want to get a letter delivered anywhere in the world cheaply. You have made a lot of good arguments for socializing care here.
- Randgalt 10y ago
  1. Try getting an MRI in Canada. Canada rations care via wait lists. 2. Your argument implies that there wouldn't be low cost schools in the absence of public schools. The evidence is overwhelming that the opposite is true. 3. I live in Panama. When I need something mailed here I use FedEx or DHL. The USPS is unreliable and takes far too long. If there weren't laws against private first class mail in the US they'd be undercut in that market as well.
  - forgetsusername 10y ago
    >Try getting an MRI in Canada. Canada rations care via wait lists. Exactly. Health care in Canada is a crap shoot. If you're in a major centre and are able to get a family physician I'm sure you think the system is great. Try being sick somewhere where the only option is an over-worked ER staffed by locums.
  - parasubvert 10y ago
    Canadian here. Firstly, diagnostic care is often privately managed throughout the provinces, so if you don't want to wait, you can often pay to expedite. It's about $900 for a joint MRI. Secondly, if you really need an MRI for a critical diagnosis, as I once did in 2012 as a hospital inpatient, I got it within 2 days. Canada's health system is a point of national pride.
    - Randgalt 10y ago
      It depends where you live. I know many Canadians who've had different experiences. This points to a major problem with socialized products - how they perform depend not on merit or ability to pay, but where you live, how good your representative is, etc. That is much worse.
      - parasubvert 10y ago
        I really don't agree. I've lived in three Canadian provinces, and four U.S. states, from towns of 1000 people, small cities of 10k, medium cities of 100k, to large cities of 1m+. Having lived through the Ontario cuts in health care in the 90s ("the Harris common sense revolution"), I don't really think political reps Federally or Provincially had any say on quality of care or what hospitals we got, it was all redesigned top down (not all that different from an HMO really, in my experience). Did care access and waits times suffer at the time? Yes. Still wouldn't trade it for a private system. The difference in access and amount of supply between a rural market and a city in Canada is not too different than in the US. There's a lot of land mass to cover in either country if you're not in a major population centre. The Canadian system blows away the US system by an order of magnitude, IMO, in terms of what really matters - access and outcomes. Obamacare made the US a bit better, but that's not a tall order.
blocktuw 10y ago
I believe your examples of public services being worse than their private counterparts is a specious argument. Most private schools are paid for by rich people. The cost to attend is higher than public school so it would reason that the quality is better. Same for USPS vs FedEx. The shipping rates for USPS are much cheaper. Some people are price sensitive. Cheaper is all they can manage to afford and are willing to accept less quality in return. As a healthy person I'd rather take a two percent annual increase in insurance premiums for lower quality of care since I do not have much need for services.
- Randgalt 10y ago
  Where's your evidence that most private school is paid for by rich people? Anecdotally, the people that I know that use private schools are middle class. Also, if there weren't public schools there would be more varieties of private schools. "As a healthy person I'd rather take a two percent annual increase in insurance premiums for lower quality of care since I do not have much need for services." -- And I wouldn't. Why do your views trump others who disagree?
  - monocasa 10y ago
    Define "middle class".
gnaritas 10y ago
The purpose of government is about whatever the governed of the current day decide that purpose is. Your view of government is just that, your opinion, not a fact. Liberals in particular tend to see the purpose of government as providing options for those who don't have any other options because the market fails many people. As such social programs have existed for decades, it's factually self evident that the purpose of government as decided by the majority of the population, far exceeds protecting rights. > Are public schools better than private schools? Yes, they are far better than private school, for those who can't afford private schools. > Is the US postal system better than FedEx? Yes, it's far better than FedEx for those who live in place FedEx wouldn't and couldn't operate profitably because the postal system's aim isn't efficiency, it's coverage to "everyone" everywhere, something no market solution will offer because that's not a profitable mission. So it sounds to me like you don't understand the purpose of government and don't understand why government is necessary in such situations, because you can't think outside of your own self and realize that markets don't serve everyone.
- Randgalt 10y ago
  "The purpose of government is about whatever the governed of the current day decide that purpose is" - I believe you can see that the logical conclusion of that point of view is not a world you'd want to live in. In the US, at least, we have a Constitution that prevents the worst uses of government (though not as much as it used to).
  - gnaritas 10y ago
    Wrong, it's exactly the world I want to live in and the Constitution happens to agree, which is why we've amended it many a time, because the governed decided it was outdated. The notion that we should still be living by the dictates of men long dead is simply absurd, every generation has a right to decide for itself how its government works as it should, and as we have done.
    - Randgalt 10y ago
      So, if the majority votes to take away the rights of, oh I don't know, Japanese citizens -- that's a world you want to live in? You're not thinking clearly about the issue.
ashark 10y ago
> Government is force - nothing more. The purpose of government is to protect our rights. "Single payer" (a euphemism for socialized medicine) by definition violates rights by forcing people to do things against their will. "Rights" are basically just freedoms we've decided we like a whole lot and want the government to guarantee, so that's not exactly a static category. So on the one hand we can just decide whichever rights are being violated are—at least conditionally—not rights. Boom, done. On the other hand, is there any such thing as a government that does not force people to do things they wouldn't voluntarily do? I'm pretty sure if you take that away what's left has lost the single most important trait of a government, and what's left is... I don't know, a non-profit begging for money on TV and utterly incapable of fulfilling any of the usual roles of a government? In that case, the fact that single-payer would force people to do things doesn't per se remove it from the realm of legitimate government activity. As for the utility of the term "single payer", I believe it's distinct enough from the much broader "socialized medicine", which could include things like seizing hospitals and making doctors exclusively state employees, to make it substantially more than just a euphemism.
- Randgalt 10y ago
  "'Rights' are basically just freedoms we've decided we like a whole lot and want the government to guarantee" - as I said below, the logical conclusion of that argument is not a world you'd want to live in. -- "is there any such thing as a government that does not force people to do things they wouldn't voluntarily do?" - no there isn't. That's why it should be limited to protecting other people's rights.
  - ashark 10y ago
    > "'Rights' are basically just freedoms we've decided we like a whole lot and want the government to guarantee" - as I said below, the logical conclusion of that argument is not a world you'd want to live in. How is that not the world we live in? What is the alternative? At some point someone's deciding what's a right and what isn't. Other people may disagree. Rights aren't a law of nature, they're a fuzzy category, subject to conditions and caveats and shifting over time. > "is there any such thing as a government that does not force people to do things they wouldn't voluntarily do?" - no there isn't. That's why it should be limited to protecting other people's rights. But a lot of the things government does that don't fall within that narrow limit really, really appear to make my life and the lives of the people I care about much better, at relatively little cost (for a broad definition of cost). Few or none of the OECD states seem too bad, to put it mildly. None are unqualified disasters, or even close. Meanwhile a "drown it in a bathtub" government coexisting with an advanced economy (correct me if I'm wrong) remains hypothetical—indeed, I think it's fair to call mainstream the view among experts that governments' special ability to overcome coordination problems and take action to nurture markets is vital to an advanced economy—as do the effects of such a system. So it's definitely going to be an uphill battle convincing me that our government "should be limited to protecting other people's rights", without some other state practicing that and full of citizens telling me "no, really, it's pretty great".
larrik 10y ago
I don't know, I think USPS is better than FedEx. Also, here in Connecticut (the place where the rich historically sent their kids to school), there are plenty of public schools that are at least as good or better than at least some nearby private schools. When you get into preschool, for instance, the public schools are a HUGE improvement over all but the top-tier private ones. Likewise, the "magnet" program schools are a public option that is as good or better than most private schools nearby (they are special, well-funded by the state, and use a lottery to get in, though). This is coming from someone who agrees with you in principle, too. Reality is nuanced, though.
lutorm 10y ago
Government is force - nothing more. People state this as if it's some obvious truth, and it makes no sense to me. My statement would be: Government is a mechanism which we, as a group, have decided should handle certain functions of society. It's the logical extension of a group of people in the jungle deciding "you know what, it would be awesome if we got together and built a trail between all our huts so we can visit each other." Part of that agreement might be "hey, when these barbarians show up we should all protect each other", but to arbitrarily say that the only purpose of government is those kinds of agreements I think speaks to a very warped sense of community.

loteck 10y ago

For example, in Canada (until recently) Until recently. This means that all people can obtain health care regardless of their ability to pay, and that the system is flexible enough to continue to experiment with the ideal implementation. Are public schools better than private schools? Public schools are exactly 100% better than private schools for students who can't afford to attend private schools. Is the US postal system better than FedEx? They are if you want to get a letter delivered anywhere in the world cheaply. You have made a lot of good arguments for socializing care here.

Randgalt 10y ago
1. Try getting an MRI in Canada. Canada rations care via wait lists. 2. Your argument implies that there wouldn't be low cost schools in the absence of public schools. The evidence is overwhelming that the opposite is true. 3. I live in Panama. When I need something mailed here I use FedEx or DHL. The USPS is unreliable and takes far too long. If there weren't laws against private first class mail in the US they'd be undercut in that market as well.
- forgetsusername 10y ago
  >Try getting an MRI in Canada. Canada rations care via wait lists. Exactly. Health care in Canada is a crap shoot. If you're in a major centre and are able to get a family physician I'm sure you think the system is great. Try being sick somewhere where the only option is an over-worked ER staffed by locums.
- parasubvert 10y ago
  Canadian here. Firstly, diagnostic care is often privately managed throughout the provinces, so if you don't want to wait, you can often pay to expedite. It's about $900 for a joint MRI. Secondly, if you really need an MRI for a critical diagnosis, as I once did in 2012 as a hospital inpatient, I got it within 2 days. Canada's health system is a point of national pride.
  - Randgalt 10y ago
    It depends where you live. I know many Canadians who've had different experiences. This points to a major problem with socialized products - how they perform depend not on merit or ability to pay, but where you live, how good your representative is, etc. That is much worse.
    - parasubvert 10y ago
      I really don't agree. I've lived in three Canadian provinces, and four U.S. states, from towns of 1000 people, small cities of 10k, medium cities of 100k, to large cities of 1m+. Having lived through the Ontario cuts in health care in the 90s ("the Harris common sense revolution"), I don't really think political reps Federally or Provincially had any say on quality of care or what hospitals we got, it was all redesigned top down (not all that different from an HMO really, in my experience). Did care access and waits times suffer at the time? Yes. Still wouldn't trade it for a private system. The difference in access and amount of supply between a rural market and a city in Canada is not too different than in the US. There's a lot of land mass to cover in either country if you're not in a major population centre. The Canadian system blows away the US system by an order of magnitude, IMO, in terms of what really matters - access and outcomes. Obamacare made the US a bit better, but that's not a tall order.

blocktuw 10y ago

I believe your examples of public services being worse than their private counterparts is a specious argument. Most private schools are paid for by rich people. The cost to attend is higher than public school so it would reason that the quality is better. Same for USPS vs FedEx. The shipping rates for USPS are much cheaper. Some people are price sensitive. Cheaper is all they can manage to afford and are willing to accept less quality in return. As a healthy person I'd rather take a two percent annual increase in insurance premiums for lower quality of care since I do not have much need for services.

Randgalt 10y ago
Where's your evidence that most private school is paid for by rich people? Anecdotally, the people that I know that use private schools are middle class. Also, if there weren't public schools there would be more varieties of private schools. "As a healthy person I'd rather take a two percent annual increase in insurance premiums for lower quality of care since I do not have much need for services." -- And I wouldn't. Why do your views trump others who disagree?
- monocasa 10y ago
  Define "middle class".

gnaritas 10y ago

The purpose of government is about whatever the governed of the current day decide that purpose is. Your view of government is just that, your opinion, not a fact. Liberals in particular tend to see the purpose of government as providing options for those who don't have any other options because the market fails many people. As such social programs have existed for decades, it's factually self evident that the purpose of government as decided by the majority of the population, far exceeds protecting rights. > Are public schools better than private schools? Yes, they are far better than private school, for those who can't afford private schools. > Is the US postal system better than FedEx? Yes, it's far better than FedEx for those who live in place FedEx wouldn't and couldn't operate profitably because the postal system's aim isn't efficiency, it's coverage to "everyone" everywhere, something no market solution will offer because that's not a profitable mission. So it sounds to me like you don't understand the purpose of government and don't understand why government is necessary in such situations, because you can't think outside of your own self and realize that markets don't serve everyone.

Randgalt 10y ago
"The purpose of government is about whatever the governed of the current day decide that purpose is" - I believe you can see that the logical conclusion of that point of view is not a world you'd want to live in. In the US, at least, we have a Constitution that prevents the worst uses of government (though not as much as it used to).
- gnaritas 10y ago
  Wrong, it's exactly the world I want to live in and the Constitution happens to agree, which is why we've amended it many a time, because the governed decided it was outdated. The notion that we should still be living by the dictates of men long dead is simply absurd, every generation has a right to decide for itself how its government works as it should, and as we have done.
  - Randgalt 10y ago
    So, if the majority votes to take away the rights of, oh I don't know, Japanese citizens -- that's a world you want to live in? You're not thinking clearly about the issue.

ashark 10y ago

> Government is force - nothing more. The purpose of government is to protect our rights. "Single payer" (a euphemism for socialized medicine) by definition violates rights by forcing people to do things against their will. "Rights" are basically just freedoms we've decided we like a whole lot and want the government to guarantee, so that's not exactly a static category. So on the one hand we can just decide whichever rights are being violated are—at least conditionally—not rights. Boom, done. On the other hand, is there any such thing as a government that does not force people to do things they wouldn't voluntarily do? I'm pretty sure if you take that away what's left has lost the single most important trait of a government, and what's left is... I don't know, a non-profit begging for money on TV and utterly incapable of fulfilling any of the usual roles of a government? In that case, the fact that single-payer would force people to do things doesn't per se remove it from the realm of legitimate government activity. As for the utility of the term "single payer", I believe it's distinct enough from the much broader "socialized medicine", which could include things like seizing hospitals and making doctors exclusively state employees, to make it substantially more than just a euphemism.

Randgalt 10y ago
"'Rights' are basically just freedoms we've decided we like a whole lot and want the government to guarantee" - as I said below, the logical conclusion of that argument is not a world you'd want to live in. -- "is there any such thing as a government that does not force people to do things they wouldn't voluntarily do?" - no there isn't. That's why it should be limited to protecting other people's rights.
- ashark 10y ago
  > "'Rights' are basically just freedoms we've decided we like a whole lot and want the government to guarantee" - as I said below, the logical conclusion of that argument is not a world you'd want to live in. How is that not the world we live in? What is the alternative? At some point someone's deciding what's a right and what isn't. Other people may disagree. Rights aren't a law of nature, they're a fuzzy category, subject to conditions and caveats and shifting over time. > "is there any such thing as a government that does not force people to do things they wouldn't voluntarily do?" - no there isn't. That's why it should be limited to protecting other people's rights. But a lot of the things government does that don't fall within that narrow limit really, really appear to make my life and the lives of the people I care about much better, at relatively little cost (for a broad definition of cost). Few or none of the OECD states seem too bad, to put it mildly. None are unqualified disasters, or even close. Meanwhile a "drown it in a bathtub" government coexisting with an advanced economy (correct me if I'm wrong) remains hypothetical—indeed, I think it's fair to call mainstream the view among experts that governments' special ability to overcome coordination problems and take action to nurture markets is vital to an advanced economy—as do the effects of such a system. So it's definitely going to be an uphill battle convincing me that our government "should be limited to protecting other people's rights", without some other state practicing that and full of citizens telling me "no, really, it's pretty great".

larrik 10y ago

I don't know, I think USPS is better than FedEx. Also, here in Connecticut (the place where the rich historically sent their kids to school), there are plenty of public schools that are at least as good or better than at least some nearby private schools. When you get into preschool, for instance, the public schools are a HUGE improvement over all but the top-tier private ones. Likewise, the "magnet" program schools are a public option that is as good or better than most private schools nearby (they are special, well-funded by the state, and use a lottery to get in, though). This is coming from someone who agrees with you in principle, too. Reality is nuanced, though.

lutorm 10y ago

Government is force - nothing more. People state this as if it's some obvious truth, and it makes no sense to me. My statement would be: Government is a mechanism which we, as a group, have decided should handle certain functions of society. It's the logical extension of a group of people in the jungle deciding "you know what, it would be awesome if we got together and built a trail between all our huts so we can visit each other." Part of that agreement might be "hey, when these barbarians show up we should all protect each other", but to arbitrarily say that the only purpose of government is those kinds of agreements I think speaks to a very warped sense of community.