4 ms·

The argument that a publicly owned utility shouldn't be allowed to do it because it has a natural advantage is ridiculous -- that's precisely the point! Corpo

by lutorm 12y ago

The argument that a publicly owned utility shouldn't be allowed to do it because it has a natural advantage is ridiculous -- that's precisely the point! Corporations exist to provide a good to society, and if a public utility would do that job better, then we should obviously be free to choose that model. It's not my job as a citizen to subsidize for-profit enterprise for the sole reason that they are for-profit enterprise!

abraxasz 12y ago
That was exactly my thought when I read the comment. I would be very curious to know if I'm missing something here, but it seems obvious to me that if a publicly owned company can do something better and cheaper (cheaper not only just for these people but also for the taxpayer, I don't know if that's the case here) then how is that a bad thing?
tiatia 12y ago
"It's not my job as a citizen to subsidize for-profit enterprise for the sole reason that they are for-profit enterprise!" Unfortunately, it is. The numbers are so tremendously bend in favor of "socialized medicine" but it is basically communism and hence, the private model is better. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_life_expectancy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_life_expe... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_total_health_expenditure_(PPP)_per_capita https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_total_hea...
- Alupis 12y ago
  > The numbers are so tremendously bend in favor of "socialized medicine" There are also a lot of numbers against "socialized medicine".
  - SnacksOnAPlane 12y ago
    For example?
    - Alupis 12y ago
      Any argument I can make here in text would only serve to make me appear to be against individuals having access to healthcare... and that is not a winnable argument (nobody looks good when they make any stand against a social issue). The numbers I'm referring can be wide in scope. For example, the economics of providing such a socialized healthcare system are difficult to surmise, however there is a lot of data which may indicate it's not economical at a federal level (maybe at a state level, sure). Also the numbers of citizens with interest in such a program is low, to date only 8 million US citizens have signed up for the federal/state exchanges, out of around 360 million US citizens; about 2% of the country. Only 16 of 50 states have built local Exchanges, the rest deferring to the Federal Exchange for various reasons including but not limited to the economics behind building such a portal, maintainability of such a portal, and some flat-out refused out of political, moral, or economical principal. The current program provides almost none of the goals it set out to accomplish. With the current program, it is still very possible to get a horrible disease such as Cancer, and leave the hospital with $60K+ in bills. The current program made almost no changes to the Pharmaceutical industry, which charges in excess of $300 per pill for some treatments when the cost-to-manufacture is known to be significant multiples less. The current program does not "provide" healthcare to anyone, it merely made it illegal to not have healthcare (with fines imposed if you refuse). The current program provides a way to get access to healthcare (via the government) if you have no other access, however it's arguably not affordable at all (the current program is estimated to cost a family of 4 around $4,000 USD per year -- and it's likely a family of 4 without healthcare might not have it because they could not afford it, nor can afford an extra $4,000 a year... but now it's illegal to not afford it). I digress. This debate can easily turn into a flame war, and is off-topic for a thread discussing a city implementing municipal high-speed internet.
      - SnacksOnAPlane 12y ago
        I agree that the system we have today is very bad. But it isn't socialized healthcare. We're still for the most part paying a number of private companies for our health insurance, which pretty much no other nation does. Fully socialized health insurance makes a lot more sense than what we have now. I can't think of a single benefit of our "free market" system of insurance providers.
  - roma1n 12y ago
    Source? Also, "socialized medicine" does not entail getting rid of the private sector, just regulating it. For instance, my GP runs a private practice, the only limitation is that she cannot set the price of an appointment. And if she was a hard-core free-market proponent of some kind, she could set her own prices freely, the only snag being that insurances would not cover her visits. Also, there is an argument to be made that doctors are veblen goods and that free price levels would not be optimal.

by lutorm 12y ago

abraxasz 12y ago

That was exactly my thought when I read the comment. I would be very curious to know if I'm missing something here, but it seems obvious to me that if a publicly owned company can do something better and cheaper (cheaper not only just for these people but also for the taxpayer, I don't know if that's the case here) then how is that a bad thing?

tiatia 12y ago

"It's not my job as a citizen to subsidize for-profit enterprise for the sole reason that they are for-profit enterprise!" Unfortunately, it is. The numbers are so tremendously bend in favor of "socialized medicine" but it is basically communism and hence, the private model is better. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_life_expectancy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_life_expe... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_total_health_expenditure_(PPP)_per_capita https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_total_hea...

Alupis 12y ago
> The numbers are so tremendously bend in favor of "socialized medicine" There are also a lot of numbers against "socialized medicine".
- SnacksOnAPlane 12y ago
  For example?
  - Alupis 12y ago
    Any argument I can make here in text would only serve to make me appear to be against individuals having access to healthcare... and that is not a winnable argument (nobody looks good when they make any stand against a social issue). The numbers I'm referring can be wide in scope. For example, the economics of providing such a socialized healthcare system are difficult to surmise, however there is a lot of data which may indicate it's not economical at a federal level (maybe at a state level, sure). Also the numbers of citizens with interest in such a program is low, to date only 8 million US citizens have signed up for the federal/state exchanges, out of around 360 million US citizens; about 2% of the country. Only 16 of 50 states have built local Exchanges, the rest deferring to the Federal Exchange for various reasons including but not limited to the economics behind building such a portal, maintainability of such a portal, and some flat-out refused out of political, moral, or economical principal. The current program provides almost none of the goals it set out to accomplish. With the current program, it is still very possible to get a horrible disease such as Cancer, and leave the hospital with $60K+ in bills. The current program made almost no changes to the Pharmaceutical industry, which charges in excess of $300 per pill for some treatments when the cost-to-manufacture is known to be significant multiples less. The current program does not "provide" healthcare to anyone, it merely made it illegal to not have healthcare (with fines imposed if you refuse). The current program provides a way to get access to healthcare (via the government) if you have no other access, however it's arguably not affordable at all (the current program is estimated to cost a family of 4 around $4,000 USD per year -- and it's likely a family of 4 without healthcare might not have it because they could not afford it, nor can afford an extra $4,000 a year... but now it's illegal to not afford it). I digress. This debate can easily turn into a flame war, and is off-topic for a thread discussing a city implementing municipal high-speed internet.
    - SnacksOnAPlane 12y ago
      I agree that the system we have today is very bad. But it isn't socialized healthcare. We're still for the most part paying a number of private companies for our health insurance, which pretty much no other nation does. Fully socialized health insurance makes a lot more sense than what we have now. I can't think of a single benefit of our "free market" system of insurance providers.
- roma1n 12y ago
  Source? Also, "socialized medicine" does not entail getting rid of the private sector, just regulating it. For instance, my GP runs a private practice, the only limitation is that she cannot set the price of an appointment. And if she was a hard-core free-market proponent of some kind, she could set her own prices freely, the only snag being that insurances would not cover her visits. Also, there is an argument to be made that doctors are veblen goods and that free price levels would not be optimal.