5 ms·
That paralleled my brief career in government. Managers are not promoted for efficient decision making—they are promoted for not having been associated with an
by cleaver 14y ago
That paralleled my brief career in government. Managers are not promoted for efficient decision making—they are promoted for not having been associated with an unsuccessful initiative.
- mathattack 14y agoIs it "not having been associated" or "not being blamed due to misfollowed procedures"?
- wpietri 14y agoMy impression was "associated".
- mathattack 14y agoGiven all the failed government projects, I feel like that people say, "As long as you can't prove it wasn't my fault" (as opposed to "my project") they won't get fired. After all nobody got fired from Big Government for following the rules... (Sarcasm intended)
- wpietri 14y agoFired isn't the problem. If you're smart and ambitious and believe in public service, you don't want to spend the rest of your life in a basement cubicle re-verifying the presence of the new cover sheet on the TPS reports.
- briandear 14y agoExactly why I fear government managed healthcare.
- wpietri 14y agoI think there's less reason to fear that. Some of the best parts of government are the science- and data-driven ones, and evidence-based medicine provides a lot of data. Plus, doctors are notoriously independent. Personally, I'd feel much better about government-run healthcare than for-profit-insurer-run healthcare. At least with the government option, everybody works for me, either directly or indirectly. Plus, a bureaucrat's natural fear works in my favor.
- MBCook 14y agoI really like single payer in theory, but I'm with briandear on this one. There is already enough monkeying with what Medicare should and shouldn't pay for. My fear is the more money is involved, the less science/data/evidence based the decisions will be. That's why I'm torn on the whole thing. I think for-profit should be able to do it better, but the current system clearly isn't structured in a way that encourages it. I have no idea whether the devil I know is better or not, and it's a big decision.
- redcap 14y agoIf (most of) the rest of the developed world can do "socialized" medicine reasonably well, then what's so special about the US that would prevent this? Just the size and scale for fuckups? There are occasional health system scandals in Australia and the UK, for example, but even with this everyone gets coverage. So why the US needs to drag its heels in this is beyond me. But if you do think the public service will make a dog's breakfast over the whole thing, I'm all ears.
- nateabele 14y agoOkay, to be clear though, exactly which segment(s) of the developed world are doing socialized medicine and not going bankrupt (or on the verge of going bankrupt) in spectacular fashion?
- wpietri 14y agoIf the US adopted any of the systems of other nations, we'd be paying a lot less, so we'd at least be going bankrupt a lot slower. We pay way more than anybody else for outcomes that are basically the same. Great data and analysis here: http://theincidentaleconomist.com/wordpress/what-makes-the-us-health-care-system-so-expensive-introduction/ http://theincidentaleconomist.com/wordpress/what-makes-the-u...
- nateabele 14y agowpietri: Yes, I read that series quite some time ago. I'm very familiar with the ridiculousness that is the US healthcare system. This, however, is totally irrelevant to my comment, which was regarding other developed countries that are going bankrupt over their entitlement programs.