3 ms·

But in some cases the public can be well-served by having a public option available for "essential" products / services (however we choose to define that), alo

But in some cases the public can be well-served by having a public option available for "essential" products / services (however we choose to define that), alongside private sources. See, e.g.: + deliveries - you have your choice of the (public) Postal Service, FedEx, UPS, etc. + police protection - many companies use private security-guard services in addition to the (public) police. + schools - there's always the public-school option in addition to the myriad private schools available for those who can afford it. + local transportation -- private taxis and ride-sharing services operate alongside public bus service. It's not axiomatic that essential pharmaceuticals shouldn't have a public option too. EDIT: You can argue that the public options listed above are inefficient compared to their private counterparts. But max efficiency isn't necessarily the primary goal; some folks are faced with the choice between a comparatively-inefficient option and none at all. (Or: Perfect is the enemy of Good Enough.)

dsfyu404ed 7y ago
In every example the public option is considered the lesser one. People ship UPS/Fedex unless the object is heavy and fits in a flat rate box. Private security is not known for doing ethically questionable things to maximize revenue and excessive force like public police are. The only time people want "real cops" is when the extra violence can work to your advantage (which is why many large events where alcohol is served tend to use police for security). People who can afford it often opt to send their kids to private school, particularly if local schools are not "good". People who can afford it generally take a taxi (uber/lyft in this day and age) instead of public transit. Heck, it's worth getting an AAA membership just so you don't have to go to the DMV for certain transactions. While it's essential to have a government provided backstop for all these services I wouldn't say the public is "well" served by any of them.
- dctoedt 7y ago
  > In every example the public option is considered the lesser one. And for some people, the lesser option is Good Enough, because their alternative is — nothing, because they can't afford one of the better options.
rayiner 7y ago
Having a public company be an "option" is tough. If you subsidize the public option, then you destroy the market because private companies can't compete on level ground with a subsidized competitor. And if you don't subsidize the public option then there really isn't a point. For services that are really "essential,” I’d probably argue that the best course is to have markets that are properly regulated for antitrust issues, and then pay low-income people to purchase the services they need.
- dctoedt 7y ago
  > If you subsidize the public option, then you destroy the market because private companies can't compete on level ground with a subsidized competitor. That assumes apples vs. apples; the examples I listed above aren't.

dsfyu404ed 7y ago

In every example the public option is considered the lesser one. People ship UPS/Fedex unless the object is heavy and fits in a flat rate box. Private security is not known for doing ethically questionable things to maximize revenue and excessive force like public police are. The only time people want "real cops" is when the extra violence can work to your advantage (which is why many large events where alcohol is served tend to use police for security). People who can afford it often opt to send their kids to private school, particularly if local schools are not "good". People who can afford it generally take a taxi (uber/lyft in this day and age) instead of public transit. Heck, it's worth getting an AAA membership just so you don't have to go to the DMV for certain transactions. While it's essential to have a government provided backstop for all these services I wouldn't say the public is "well" served by any of them.

dctoedt 7y ago
> In every example the public option is considered the lesser one. And for some people, the lesser option is Good Enough, because their alternative is — nothing, because they can't afford one of the better options.

rayiner 7y ago

Having a public company be an "option" is tough. If you subsidize the public option, then you destroy the market because private companies can't compete on level ground with a subsidized competitor. And if you don't subsidize the public option then there really isn't a point. For services that are really "essential,” I’d probably argue that the best course is to have markets that are properly regulated for antitrust issues, and then pay low-income people to purchase the services they need.

dctoedt 7y ago
> If you subsidize the public option, then you destroy the market because private companies can't compete on level ground with a subsidized competitor. That assumes apples vs. apples; the examples I listed above aren't.