3 ms·

But who determines need? There's the rub. I would much rather write a check to a charity like the Red Cross than the massive bureaucracy that is DHHS, because (

But who determines need? There's the rub. I would much rather write a check to a charity like the Red Cross than the massive bureaucracy that is DHHS, because (a) there is just a lot less overhead and because (b) the Red Cross' definition of "need" is a lot less likely to shift in the political winds. For example, in a couple of years DHHS may be back to persecuting stem cell researchers.

Retric 16y ago
Red Cross is a high overhead orginisation: An American Red Cross statement was issued saying that 91 cents of every dollar donated specifically for the Hurricane Katrina disaster will go directly to disaster relief. This overhead of only 9% is quite low for such a large organization. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Red_Cross http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Red_Cross Social Security is impressive because "the dministrative costs of the U.S. Social Security system are very low--less than one percent of revenues." She claims this compares favorably with the overhead costs of the partly privatized Chilean system, which she says are "in the neighborhood of 15 percent of revenues." http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-19085869.html http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-19085869.html
- ramanujan 16y ago
 :) 1. DHHS != Social Security 2. The core point is choice. I prefer donating to a neighborhood charity that I can confirm is spending money responsibly. If you believe the government generally provides healthcare with lower overhead and more efficiency than a private nonprofit, one might politely point out that same government has spent several hundreds of billions has been spent blowing people up in Iraq. I don't think even the Red Cross spends its 9% on that...
dedward 16y ago
Well, in most cases where there is socialized medicine, doctors decide on need, and groups of doctors decide on standards. politicians play no role.

Retric 16y ago

Red Cross is a high overhead orginisation: An American Red Cross statement was issued saying that 91 cents of every dollar donated specifically for the Hurricane Katrina disaster will go directly to disaster relief. This overhead of only 9% is quite low for such a large organization. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Red_Cross http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Red_Cross Social Security is impressive because "the dministrative costs of the U.S. Social Security system are very low--less than one percent of revenues." She claims this compares favorably with the overhead costs of the partly privatized Chilean system, which she says are "in the neighborhood of 15 percent of revenues." http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-19085869.html http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-19085869.html

ramanujan 16y ago
:) 1. DHHS != Social Security 2. The core point is choice. I prefer donating to a neighborhood charity that I can confirm is spending money responsibly. If you believe the government generally provides healthcare with lower overhead and more efficiency than a private nonprofit, one might politely point out that same government has spent several hundreds of billions has been spent blowing people up in Iraq. I don't think even the Red Cross spends its 9% on that...

dedward 16y ago

Well, in most cases where there is socialized medicine, doctors decide on need, and groups of doctors decide on standards. politicians play no role.