3 ms·
It's not about efficiency, it's about need. These services need to stay at a basic level for everyone regardless of economic conditions. That's why you can't (f
by tybris 17y ago
It's not about efficiency, it's about need. These services need to stay at a basic level for everyone regardless of economic conditions. That's why you can't (fully) leave them to the market. However, hybrids between markets and governments can work very well. In the Dutch health insurance system, for example, the market is forced to provide basic health insurance to everyone, but is otherwise free to compete on price, service and additional products.
- anamax 17y ago> It's not about efficiency, it's about need. These services need to stay at a basic level for everyone regardless of economic conditions. It's always about efficiency. More to your point, the more important the need, the more important efficiency is. Do you really think that it's better to provide water for $100 than it is to provide it for $10? Remember - the claim was "Economies of scale make taxation efficient". Economies of scale aren't the only factor as taxation isn't necessarily efficient. In fact, it tends to be inefficient because it's folks spending other people's money on other people's behalf, which is the worst possible situation for efficiency. (Your money for your benefit is the best - you care about cost and quality. Your money for someone else's benefit, you care less about quality. SOmeone else's money for your benefit, you care less about cost.) I'm glad that the Dutch govt seems capable of doing certain things. However, that experience doesn't translate. (Current US govt healthcare isn't as good as govt healthcare advocates assert that US govt healthcare will be. In other words, we have an existence argument. Fix US govt healthcare, and their argument becomes credible.)