4 ms·

When an individual creates an enterprise it's expected to fail in 2 years. It does not mean death of the individual, but often it makes 'em go broke. Only one c

by poilcn 7y ago

When an individual creates an enterprise it's expected to fail in 2 years. It does not mean death of the individual, but often it makes 'em go broke. Only one company in a hundred is successful. Other are doomed. Government-run projects do not live in alternative dimension. It is affected by the same things any private organization is affected. It is expected that a country would exist longer than an individual company. But want to bind the whole country to some huge bureaucratic organizations. Say, the one managing healthcare and the one managing pension founds. You won't stop at that, of course, but let's simplify to just that. There would be only two ways for them to survive in a long run. Bloating their budget, eating all other parts of the gov budget. After there is no where to "expand" (keeping the same quality of services), they would had to cut out some of their "clients". For a pension fund it would be to increase the age when people would be able to retire. For healthcare it would be to limit free services reject people who would be able to have certain services for free in certain cases, decrease quality of services. Then it would be inevitable death. As people are not immortal, organizations are not as well. If you had several private companies, the death of one of them would make others stronger. It would get rid of the weakest companies, keeping the strongest alive and in addition they would have opportunity to learn on errors of others. But you have one single company for each sector that manage the whole country. It results in country's collapse. There is no "mountain of evidence from other countries, showing the greatly reduced total costs and improved life expectancy as well as a lack of bankruptcy and financial ruin for those caught in an emergency". The idea of universal health care hasn't been tested by time yet (and in principal it will fail due to things I described above), so it's very reasonable that the US public rejects it.

beepboopbeep 7y ago
Wow. I hope you don't build models for a living.
jshowa3 7y ago
The idea of universal health care hasn't been tested by time yet (and in principal it will fail due to things I described above), so it's very reasonable that the US public rejects it. Uhhh... nearly every other country other than the US has had some form of national health service for decades and they spend less on healthcare per capita for comparable quality. What you're spouting is nonsense.
- poilcn 7y ago
  > for decades You are retelling what happens in a very short period of time, ignoring dynamics. Decades is nothing for a country. You could look at second-world countries which were pioneers in universal healthcare and universal pension funds. For most of them it didn't last long. Even though the "universality" was questionable. These systems won't survive 100 year run in countries with tens of millions. Then, private healthcare is not the reason why Americans pay for it that much. There are lots of factors that drastically worsen the situation. People in the US are the ones who finance medical R&D, results of which are used by other countries relatively for free as individual American companies are forced to negotiate their contracts with governments. Which could be mitigated if American government would enforce for these countries to pay for their share in R&D. Then, perhaps I am mistaken, but the US is the only place (or one of the few places) where doctors have to study twice to become doctors: first at regular colleges then in medical schools. It cuts out lots of people who could've been doctors, not to mention education costs. Other thing that affects the costs is the fact that medical debts of individuals could be reimbursed by the government (the same applies to education). It creates incentives to actually make people go broke as insurers have nothing to loose in this case, but gain much more from the government which play along.
stuaxo 7y ago
Government departments are turned over like businesses, with new administrations. If anything there is more changing, and stricter controls on (if you don't include departments like defense)
jher17 7y ago
Your already-flawed logic leaves out the fact that single-payer and other universal healthcare systems run by governments around the world work far better than the US system and don’t make the choice of who gets what care when to who has the most money like the US does but rather who has the most need given the resources available.
maximente 7y ago
- sovereign governments (which fund many government projects) can literally create money; individuals cannot - government projects often have multi-year funding commitments legally bound by legislation; virtually no private enterprises have such guaranteed runways - goals of government projects are often not "survive then maximize profit at all costs"; in fact, the idea behind infrastructure projects is for extreme long term payoffs, virtually impossible for from-scratch private projects due to lack of capital whereas .gov projects don't have the survival component - because of things like infrastructure and overhead, there is evidence that public utilities with monopoly-like properties make more sense than rampant theoretical capitalism (imagine 100 sewer companies with 100 sets of pipes, ...)
- poilcn 7y ago
  >sovereign governments (which fund many government projects) can literally create money; individuals cannot The only government that can "literally create money" is the American one. >government projects often have multi-year funding commitments legally bound by legislation That was my point. When it breaks, everyone would pay for it, and not in money. >goals of government projects are often not "survive then maximize profit at all costs"; in fact, the idea behind infrastructure projects is for extreme long term payoffs, virtually impossible for from-scratch private projects due to lack of capital whereas .gov projects don't have the survival component That what I meant when I said that governments don't live in alternative dimensions where they have unlimited resources. It just looks for an individual that omnipotent governments can do anything, but they have the same limitations as anyone of us. If there are X of something and government would print X*3 equivalent of paper to pay for it, it would denominate the value of the paper the government call money, but won't make more of X. What they can do (the same goes with corporations) is to expand their spending at expensive of individuals and business, present and future. You don't see it in static. But that what helps most government projects to survive. I already described what happens when they have no space to expand. >(imagine 100 sewer companies with 100 sets of pipes, ...) Sewers, pipes, wires and similar entities are physically bound. Pension funds and healthcare organizations do not provide anything that are bound to specific place. I am not preaching "rampant theoretical capitalism". I am telling that these things, "alternatives" are doomed from their start as governments exist in the same world as individuals and companies. There is no magic behind it. They are fine now and here, but that won't last forever.
ska 7y ago
This sounds very ideologically, rather than evidence based.

by poilcn 7y ago

beepboopbeep 7y ago

Wow. I hope you don't build models for a living.

jshowa3 7y ago

The idea of universal health care hasn't been tested by time yet (and in principal it will fail due to things I described above), so it's very reasonable that the US public rejects it. Uhhh... nearly every other country other than the US has had some form of national health service for decades and they spend less on healthcare per capita for comparable quality. What you're spouting is nonsense.

poilcn 7y ago
> for decades You are retelling what happens in a very short period of time, ignoring dynamics. Decades is nothing for a country. You could look at second-world countries which were pioneers in universal healthcare and universal pension funds. For most of them it didn't last long. Even though the "universality" was questionable. These systems won't survive 100 year run in countries with tens of millions. Then, private healthcare is not the reason why Americans pay for it that much. There are lots of factors that drastically worsen the situation. People in the US are the ones who finance medical R&D, results of which are used by other countries relatively for free as individual American companies are forced to negotiate their contracts with governments. Which could be mitigated if American government would enforce for these countries to pay for their share in R&D. Then, perhaps I am mistaken, but the US is the only place (or one of the few places) where doctors have to study twice to become doctors: first at regular colleges then in medical schools. It cuts out lots of people who could've been doctors, not to mention education costs. Other thing that affects the costs is the fact that medical debts of individuals could be reimbursed by the government (the same applies to education). It creates incentives to actually make people go broke as insurers have nothing to loose in this case, but gain much more from the government which play along.

stuaxo 7y ago

Government departments are turned over like businesses, with new administrations. If anything there is more changing, and stricter controls on (if you don't include departments like defense)

jher17 7y ago

Your already-flawed logic leaves out the fact that single-payer and other universal healthcare systems run by governments around the world work far better than the US system and don’t make the choice of who gets what care when to who has the most money like the US does but rather who has the most need given the resources available.

maximente 7y ago

- sovereign governments (which fund many government projects) can literally create money; individuals cannot - government projects often have multi-year funding commitments legally bound by legislation; virtually no private enterprises have such guaranteed runways - goals of government projects are often not "survive then maximize profit at all costs"; in fact, the idea behind infrastructure projects is for extreme long term payoffs, virtually impossible for from-scratch private projects due to lack of capital whereas .gov projects don't have the survival component - because of things like infrastructure and overhead, there is evidence that public utilities with monopoly-like properties make more sense than rampant theoretical capitalism (imagine 100 sewer companies with 100 sets of pipes, ...)

poilcn 7y ago
>sovereign governments (which fund many government projects) can literally create money; individuals cannot The only government that can "literally create money" is the American one. >government projects often have multi-year funding commitments legally bound by legislation That was my point. When it breaks, everyone would pay for it, and not in money. >goals of government projects are often not "survive then maximize profit at all costs"; in fact, the idea behind infrastructure projects is for extreme long term payoffs, virtually impossible for from-scratch private projects due to lack of capital whereas .gov projects don't have the survival component That what I meant when I said that governments don't live in alternative dimensions where they have unlimited resources. It just looks for an individual that omnipotent governments can do anything, but they have the same limitations as anyone of us. If there are X of something and government would print X*3 equivalent of paper to pay for it, it would denominate the value of the paper the government call money, but won't make more of X. What they can do (the same goes with corporations) is to expand their spending at expensive of individuals and business, present and future. You don't see it in static. But that what helps most government projects to survive. I already described what happens when they have no space to expand. >(imagine 100 sewer companies with 100 sets of pipes, ...) Sewers, pipes, wires and similar entities are physically bound. Pension funds and healthcare organizations do not provide anything that are bound to specific place. I am not preaching "rampant theoretical capitalism". I am telling that these things, "alternatives" are doomed from their start as governments exist in the same world as individuals and companies. There is no magic behind it. They are fine now and here, but that won't last forever.

ska 7y ago

This sounds very ideologically, rather than evidence based.