3 ms·
Cynical take: People in congress have wealthy contacts that want to buy and profit from this, and likely include the congress member as part of the profit shari
by 93po 3y ago
Cynical take: People in congress have wealthy contacts that want to buy and profit from this, and likely include the congress member as part of the profit sharing in some concealed manner
Generous take: congress recognizes government entities are inefficient and do a poor job at things like properly pricing and providing goods and services, which is explicitly outlined as a reason congress gave: selling it at market-driven prices
They give other reasons but there's basically zero reason to trust them. The truth is likely somewhere between the two takes above.
- parineum 3y agoActually, both need to be true, to an extent. Government being inefficient is required for private companies to have any interest in ownership because profit is the incentive to solve market inefficiency. If the government was doing an awesome job, the private sector wouldn't have any interest.
- bhickey 3y agoOr someone wants to exploit a natural monopoly.
- echelon 3y ago> If the government was doing an awesome job, the private sector wouldn't have any interest. Or, if the government was doing an awesome job, the private sector might want to get rid of public sector price ceilings. The private tax prep lobby wants to keep the government out of tax filing. Logistics companies want to kill the USPS.
- aylmao 3y agoI'm from a country where the government has several institutions to provide healthcare. It's not the absolute best, and depending on the institution one qualifies for it might not be quickest or cover all conditions. As administrations have come and gone, there's been a back and forth between officials who want to privatize health, claiming inefficiency, dilapidated facilities and that the system is a drag on public finances, and officials who want to save the system from what they claim is purposeful gross mismanagement by administrations who want excuses to privatize it. Overall, even if not as pristine or efficient as the private sector, this system of healthcare does means the private industry has to compete with "free". When I have a cold, I don't think I've spent more than $10-20 on a private doctor's appointment, out of pocket with no insurance. I had a rare eye condition called Keratoconus. In the USA, the specialized procedure to treat it seems to generally cost between $2,500 and $4,000 per eye [1]. I paid about $650 per eye on a private ophthalmology clinic, again, with no insurance. EDIT: To add an addendum, and in the topic of "efficiency", whenever I'm back home I tend to have more face-to-face time with my doctor. There isn't a team of nurses on every clinic to talk to and do the menial work. I even book appointments directly via WhatsApp with my gastroenterologist, and transfer money directly to their bank account, instead of going through a front-desk secretary, forms, and apps/paperwork. Without insurance "networks" I hear of a good doctor and just go, no problem. This also means I tend to go to the doctor when I'm home, rather than when I'm in the USA. I find very interesting how for me personally, the experience seems to be much better in a country with an overall lower purchasing power than the USA. [1]: https://www.nvisioncenters.com/corneal-cross-linking/costs-and-insurance/ https://www.nvisioncenters.com/corneal-cross-linking/costs-a...
- RodgerTheGreat 3y agoIf the government was doing a sustainably awesome job, the private sector could easily have interest in destroying it for short-term gain.
- velcrovan 3y agoThis is quite a rosy take. The private sector is always interested in capturing new customers, and lobbying to shut down public services is a great way to do that. It's pretty simple, first you strip the service or institution of funding, do other things to degrade operations, then you complain that it’s a huge problem that only the private sector can fix. Exhibit A, USPS. Exhibit B, US public schools. Exhibit C, the US VHA. Exhibit D, the UK’s NHS and Ontario Canada’s provincial healthcare system.
- kiicia 3y agoalso any privatized railroad network
- parineum 3y agoI can't help but notice you didn't give any actual examples of what you've said happens. All of those government programs still exist. Where's the example of the shut down public service? Helium party balloons exist because the government is pricing helium below market value which both causes wasted helium and prevents private competition. Notice how USPS, which is required to operate as a business would (paying its own bills, which it does) has competition in the market? There's definitely a role for the government in a lot of sectors but I can't for the life of me imagine why helium should be owned and operated as a government service.
- selimthegrim 3y agoLet a thousand HaaS startups bloom?
- 93po 3y agoThere were attempts to bankrupt the USPS in the past decade with dumb crap like forcing them to prefund retirement benefits to a ridiculous degree
- parineum 3y agoAttempts which failed.
- fragmede 3y agolol, the 90's called, they want their "government can't do anything erficiently" hot take back. I thought we'd collectively realized that "run the government like a business" was this ridiculous notion that the owning class sold us to raid public coffers to enrich their own, to our detriment.
- parineum 3y agoUSPS is run like a business and is one of the most successful and well liked arms of the government.
- 93po 3y agoIt really isn’t run like a business. 50 cents to send mail thousands of miles away to a mailbox that’s 3 hours from any major city? Show me any private mail carrier that would do this for less than 20x that cost
- Brian_K_White 3y agoThe market will efficiently squander it on party balloons.
- parineum 3y agoTo the contrary. If Helium is as rare, precious and limited as we're led to believe, the price caps would be removed and helium prices would skyrocket to what the market would bear. I guarantee hospitals are going to pay more for helium than party city. Helium prices are artificially low leading to it's irreverent use.
- Brian_K_White 3y agoThe market doesn't care why customers pay a lot for something, and doesn't care if something like health care costs more than it needs to and thus serves fewer humans that it could, or how those few lucky are selected. The market does things efficiently, they are only occasionally and incidentally desirable things. It more often does undesirable things efficiently. The market is a tool like any other tool. It's effective, but has no innate value positive or negative in what direction that effectiveness is applied. It is a saw that will equally effectively cut your lumber or your leg. When you apply that lack of value to a human, the term is sociopath, and is pretty much equated with evil outside of a clinical context. Not because the sociopath actively wants to harm, but merely because they are truely neutral and don't care one way or another. The market is sociopathic, and is unfit for deciding anything.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- jmount 3y agoIt isn't a cynical opinion if that turns out to be what is cynically being done.
- TheDudeMan 3y agoIt's cynical if it is presented without evidence.
- halJordan 3y agoTheres no need for giving random takes. Theres a reason thats been enumerated, it would be nice to just have that answer instead of cliche cynical clutter.