5 ms·

"I trust the market more because the government has proved to be far more corruptible." Proved? Has the U.S. government actually been proven to be more corrup

by Frondo 10y ago

"I trust the market more because the government has proved to be far more corruptible." Proved? Has the U.S. government actually been proven to be more corruptible than private industry? I realize you might have been using a bit of overly-strong language, and not actually meant that in a literal way. Still, frankly speaking, I trust the government a heck of a lot more than private businesses like Comcast or the health insurers. Your statement, all the same, leaves me wondering if somehow I've missed out on some news stories or something, that shows how the government is corrupt while BCBS or UnitedHealth act with integrity.

colechristensen 10y ago
There's no way to say "proved" about anything but mathematics that meets with it's usage in that context. It's not overly strong language, just used in a different context therefore with different meaning. I trust an insurance company and healthcare provider because they are adversaries. Insurance vs insurance, insurance vs provider, provider vs provider. They're being driven with competition and ultimately greed. If one of them does a bad job, another that's doing better will replace it. They're all playing with their own money. A government bureaucrat tough doesn't really have any skin in the game. They might be driven by good natured ideals, but I think that's far too vulnerable to compromise. From politicians being bought by lobbyists to a revolving door between industry and bureaucracies personal greed leads only to healthcare providers and government colluding for their own individual benefits to the detriment of the citizen who has no option but to pay taxes and get the services of the single healthcare system. In theory a benevolent dictator is the ideal form of government, but in reality the people with power just aren't angels. You can use competition and greed for the greater good if you do it properly, you just have to recognize what you're doing and how to manipulate human behavior for the best outcome.
- csydas 10y ago
  >I trust an insurance company and healthcare provider because they are adversaries. Insurance vs insurance, insurance vs provider, provider vs provider. They're being driven with competition and ultimately greed. If one of them does a bad job, another that's doing better will replace it. They're all playing with their own money. I mean, alternatively, doesn't the ultimate utilization of what the market can bear mean "no aggression pacts" between companies? As far as I've observed change in local options and markets in recent years hasnt been from innovation or disruptive new comers in many healthcare fields but instead buyouts and mergers consolidating the power until you're left with giants that just sort of leave one another alone. This doesn't breed competition, it breeds complacaency and a market with extremely few choices. I don't know the answer but this idea that corporations will fight for our dollar doesn't sit well with me, as the current state of healthcare options shows this to not be the case. The barrier of entry just on cost (equip, doctors, medicine) excluding regulatory issues is prohibitive, and doubly so for insurers. Disruptive forces that would provoke competition or a change in pricing just seems too difficult to get off the ground.
  - colechristensen 10y ago
    There are plenty of markets where competition drives the margins to near zero. I'm not saying medicine can or should be one of them, but something along that trend is wholly possible. The government _does_ have a role in this. They need to be there to foster the healthy competition environment with appropriate legislation and regulation. Part of that healthy regulation is punishing highly illegal "no aggression pacts" and enforcing antitrust laws to prevent mergers that would suck out the competition.
- SamReidHughes 10y ago
  Not to mention incompetence and understaffing. One guy retires and now another is responsible for overseeing spending in two areas. And at least sometimes the bureaucrats aren't aware of the relevant laws.
- zajd 10y ago
  Meanwhile, the rest of the developed world has had this figured out for the past too many decades to count because it would be embarrassing.
  - colechristensen 10y ago
    Small states. And there _are_ problems with them, painting them all as perfect doesn't help anyone. Not to mention that the US pays for much of the defense costs for NATO (on purpose with good reason) which further distorts what one country could actually afford and why you couldn't just force a different model on the US and expect success.
    - kalleboo 10y ago
      > Small states Then why aren't US states building medical systems? They're on par with EU states for size and economy.
      - colechristensen 10y ago
        There have been many efforts to build state single-payer systems and they've all failed. Vermont got closest but couldn't find the money. It's a big shift to the economy. Taking what's now a benefit for a huge chunk of workers and turning it into a tax of both businesses and individuals. It's not an easy thing to do, you have to adjust people's compensations to make up for it and lots of people will be unhappy with the change.
- Frondo 10y ago
  So, to clarify, when you say it's proven that government is more corruptible than business, you don't mean it's proven. Look, knock government all you want, but unambiguous and strongly-phrased claims like that need something better than "this is so because I trust that this is so". Otherwise, we're just in truthiness territory. "A government bureaucrat tough doesn't really have any skin in the game." Neither does a contract specialist in an insurance company, of course. Both are just showing up for a job. Only one of them has a specific profit motive in mind, though. And it seems to be the exclusive domain of private industry to reward middle managers for short-term results, no matter what long-term problems those short-term gains create for the organization. Man, the more we go over this, the more I trust the government to manage something as life-altering as health care. They're responsive to all citizens, we get to conduct regular changes of power, there's no profit motive, and we've got a wonderful model in a ton of other countries for how well it could work. "In theory a benevolent dictator is the ideal form of government ..." Whoa! What?? Where on earth did you get that? For someone who likes markets as much as you seem to, I'm really surprised you wouldn't endorse something that reflected, you know, the will of the people.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]

by Frondo 10y ago

colechristensen 10y ago

There's no way to say "proved" about anything but mathematics that meets with it's usage in that context. It's not overly strong language, just used in a different context therefore with different meaning. I trust an insurance company and healthcare provider because they are adversaries. Insurance vs insurance, insurance vs provider, provider vs provider. They're being driven with competition and ultimately greed. If one of them does a bad job, another that's doing better will replace it. They're all playing with their own money. A government bureaucrat tough doesn't really have any skin in the game. They might be driven by good natured ideals, but I think that's far too vulnerable to compromise. From politicians being bought by lobbyists to a revolving door between industry and bureaucracies personal greed leads only to healthcare providers and government colluding for their own individual benefits to the detriment of the citizen who has no option but to pay taxes and get the services of the single healthcare system. In theory a benevolent dictator is the ideal form of government, but in reality the people with power just aren't angels. You can use competition and greed for the greater good if you do it properly, you just have to recognize what you're doing and how to manipulate human behavior for the best outcome.

csydas 10y ago
>I trust an insurance company and healthcare provider because they are adversaries. Insurance vs insurance, insurance vs provider, provider vs provider. They're being driven with competition and ultimately greed. If one of them does a bad job, another that's doing better will replace it. They're all playing with their own money. I mean, alternatively, doesn't the ultimate utilization of what the market can bear mean "no aggression pacts" between companies? As far as I've observed change in local options and markets in recent years hasnt been from innovation or disruptive new comers in many healthcare fields but instead buyouts and mergers consolidating the power until you're left with giants that just sort of leave one another alone. This doesn't breed competition, it breeds complacaency and a market with extremely few choices. I don't know the answer but this idea that corporations will fight for our dollar doesn't sit well with me, as the current state of healthcare options shows this to not be the case. The barrier of entry just on cost (equip, doctors, medicine) excluding regulatory issues is prohibitive, and doubly so for insurers. Disruptive forces that would provoke competition or a change in pricing just seems too difficult to get off the ground.
- colechristensen 10y ago
  There are plenty of markets where competition drives the margins to near zero. I'm not saying medicine can or should be one of them, but something along that trend is wholly possible. The government _does_ have a role in this. They need to be there to foster the healthy competition environment with appropriate legislation and regulation. Part of that healthy regulation is punishing highly illegal "no aggression pacts" and enforcing antitrust laws to prevent mergers that would suck out the competition.
SamReidHughes 10y ago
Not to mention incompetence and understaffing. One guy retires and now another is responsible for overseeing spending in two areas. And at least sometimes the bureaucrats aren't aware of the relevant laws.
zajd 10y ago
Meanwhile, the rest of the developed world has had this figured out for the past too many decades to count because it would be embarrassing.
- colechristensen 10y ago
  Small states. And there _are_ problems with them, painting them all as perfect doesn't help anyone. Not to mention that the US pays for much of the defense costs for NATO (on purpose with good reason) which further distorts what one country could actually afford and why you couldn't just force a different model on the US and expect success.
  - kalleboo 10y ago
    > Small states Then why aren't US states building medical systems? They're on par with EU states for size and economy.
    - colechristensen 10y ago
      There have been many efforts to build state single-payer systems and they've all failed. Vermont got closest but couldn't find the money. It's a big shift to the economy. Taking what's now a benefit for a huge chunk of workers and turning it into a tax of both businesses and individuals. It's not an easy thing to do, you have to adjust people's compensations to make up for it and lots of people will be unhappy with the change.
Frondo 10y ago
So, to clarify, when you say it's proven that government is more corruptible than business, you don't mean it's proven. Look, knock government all you want, but unambiguous and strongly-phrased claims like that need something better than "this is so because I trust that this is so". Otherwise, we're just in truthiness territory. "A government bureaucrat tough doesn't really have any skin in the game." Neither does a contract specialist in an insurance company, of course. Both are just showing up for a job. Only one of them has a specific profit motive in mind, though. And it seems to be the exclusive domain of private industry to reward middle managers for short-term results, no matter what long-term problems those short-term gains create for the organization. Man, the more we go over this, the more I trust the government to manage something as life-altering as health care. They're responsive to all citizens, we get to conduct regular changes of power, there's no profit motive, and we've got a wonderful model in a ton of other countries for how well it could work. "In theory a benevolent dictator is the ideal form of government ..." Whoa! What?? Where on earth did you get that? For someone who likes markets as much as you seem to, I'm really surprised you wouldn't endorse something that reflected, you know, the will of the people.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]