``Public'' Services

[Slippery Jim 65]

Rob, I'd actually prefer to just play DA for now, but I will say that my gut instinct is always to favor lower taxes and personal responsibility.

[Slippery Jim 65]

MB, are you saying that someone who has, for example, paid into the national health scheme for 30 years shouldn't be eligible for non-emergency treatment under that program?

What about schools then? Would you means-test for admission to state-run schools and require everyone over a certain income level to send their children to private schools?

[RobBright 35]

Originally Posted By: Slippery Jim

Donuts & yakitori -- two of the major food groups, add alcohol & chocolate and you've got a perfectly balanced diet!

Don't forget Tempura vegetable as well.

I also hate paying taxes, but I know from growing up, that for those 22 years ( I took a long time ), other people were funding my education, my learning, and my healthcare. All you have to do, when you look at personal responsibility, is look at the US, and see how many people are struggling, the haves and have nots.

[Slippery Jim 65]

So, Rob, you're saying that people aren't struggling anywhere outside the U.S.? And that there are no gaps between haves and have-nots? Or do you mean that poor Americans have it worse than poor people in other countries? Or that the poor make up a larger percentage of the population in the U.S. than in other countries?

 

Vegetables? Already covered by the donuts food group.

[RobBright 35]

I chose the USA as the issues with personal responsibility rather than government funding are best exemplified.

[RobBright 35]

Not actually knowing how donuts are made, what vegetables go into them?

[Tubby Beaver 209]

I think that it could be argued that the have nots/poor in the US are worse off than the have nots/poor in other 1st world countries that have public healthcare. Even if they have similar low incomes, I think the fact that those in Socialised Healthcare programmes would mean that they are better off. I can't think of another factor that would be different between 2 countries that would have a significant effect (it is early though )

[mitchpee 10]

Originally Posted By: Tubby Beaver

I think that it could be argued that the have nots/poor in the US are worse off than the have nots/poor in other 1st world countries that have public healthcare. Even if they have similar low incomes, I think the fact that those in Socialised Healthcare programmes would mean that they are better off. I can't think of another factor that would be different between 2 countries that would have a significant effect (it is early though )

Literacy, education, life expectancy...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_Human_Development_Index

[NoFakie 45]

41 million Americans are on food stamps. One in seven. Tea Party followers etc. harp on about minimal government and economic nirvana, but one of Ayn Rand and von Mises's biggest followers has already held a position of power for over ten years. His name? Alan Greenspan.

[HelperElfMissy 42]

Originally Posted By: Slippery Jim

MB, are you saying that someone who has, for example, paid into the national health scheme for 30 years shouldn't be eligible for non-emergency treatment under that program?
What about schools then? Would you means-test for admission to state-run schools and require everyone over a certain income level to send their children to private schools?

No not exactly.
Way it works here in Australia is everyone pays the medicare levy with their taxes (well those that pay taxes do..) and that funding guarantee's public access to health care. Fabulous. However the dollar only stretches so far. In the beginning people took personal responsibility and recognized it as a safety net, a government priority to ensure that even the poorest of their citizens were able to access reasonable health services, and those that could afford continued with their private health cover.

However there was a big push - I might be recalling this incorrectly but I THINK it was Labor PM Bob Hawke who professed only to use the Medicare System - showcasing how fabulous it was. People left their private insurers in droves and got on the 'we have already paid for it in our taxes' bandwagon and also got in the medicare queue. Oh oh...the queue grew. And grew. Now today if you do not have private health insurance (rich bastards) then you may languish on the waiting list for heart bypass for two or three years (whoops sorry, your dead now), and the protests go up from all at how inequitable and discriminatory the health care system is.

Now ... if the populace wanted the public health care system to work as efficiently as the private health care system does (no tangible waiting lists) it needs more money. And the contribution per taxpayer will be WAY more than the cost of private health insurance because it also has to take into account those not paying tax.

The reality is that the state funded health care systems are basic, and will run more efficiently and provide the service to those who desperately need it IF there were less people trying to access it. If those who can afford to pay for private health insurance do so, and use it, then we look after the less fortunate in our communities better.

And as reward for taking this personal responsibility we get to choose our own doctor, not have big waiting lists, stay in nice hospital surroundings and eat delicious restaurant quality meals when the fasting label comes down.

Education - later.
Got a party to prepare for.

Edited to Add:
Our most recent hospital use, when BFG broke his leg we were in a state hospital - there is only one children's hospital in WA. We were admitted as a private patient. We got nothing different to any other patient, except that due to friend connections and having the Private Insurance we had the surgeon of our choice (head of department). However our stay was billed to my insurer rather than the government - that meant more funds were available for someone who needed it.

[mitchpee 10]

Originally Posted By: Mr Wiggles

41 million Americans are on food stamps. One in seven. Tea Party followers etc. harp on about minimal government and economic nirvana, but one of Ayn Rand and von Mises's biggest followers has already held a position of power for over ten years. His name? Alan Greenspan.

Atlas Shrugged is one of the worst books I have ever read. Cannot believe so many people took that seriously, especially the head of the FED. Ridiculous.

[Slippery Jim 65]

Rob, I'm not sure what you're getting at, other than a vague statement that things aren't perfect in the U.S. (which I would wholeheartedly agree on).

But to take the example of an economy where personal responsibility was essentially eliminated for a bit more than half a century in favor of state funding, do you have any data that would indicate Russia's poor are materially better off than those in the U.S.?

(btw, donuts are a vegetable all to themselves, and they're deep-fried just like tempura!)

 

Tubby, there may be an argument there to be had, but I'm not sure it would be winnable -- not dismissing it, just saying that I don't have any data on it, and I'm not sure what data might most accurately be used to make a call.

 

Mitch, data please.

 

Wiggles, 41 million. Yes, and I see the mayor of NY wants to ban them from buying soda with those food stamps. Think about that: you're in such economic straits that you need to queue up for vouchers to feed your family and what do you do when you get them? Stock up on soda!

Ayn Rand? Terrible stylist & one-trick pony

 

MB, to take the other tack, what's wrong with people using services they've paid for? And why should a rich old man be able to pay to jump the queue and get a heart transplant ahead of some impoverished but brilliant 19-year-old? Who may grow up to be the next Einstein, or Cervantes (or Idi Amin, but that's a whole'nother story).

 

I do want to thank everyone who joined in on this impromptu sidetrack, which I rather irresponsibly started just as I'm about to head off for two-plus weeks of carousing with family and friends. I'll try to drop by from time to time, and I hope some of you at least will keep the ball rolling. Perhaps someone wants to take on the devil's advocate role and argue against (not against anything specific, just against!).

[Tubby Beaver 209]

Jim, I don't think its fair to compare US poor to Russia poor, there are far too many differences in the poltical system (or there were) for the data to be fair. Thats why I suggested comparing the US to another 1st world country, a democratic country that is similar in most ways to the US but has a public healthcare system....obvious one for me is the UK but Scandanavian country such as Sweden would work well as well.

 

Mtch, yeah these are all indicators of how affluent a populace is, I was really running on the assumption all those life indicators would be generally the same for most 1st world countries. There would be ups and downs but the medians would probably be equal(ish) for 1st world countries and so the comparison could be made in terms of Publc Healthcare and No Public Healthcare. Obviously I could have made a giant mistake with that assumption!!

 

Actually, I wouldn't be confident of the US coming out of those comparisons too favourably either. Although I couldn't quote any actual data, I seem to remember that the US has one of the highest rates of child mortality and illiteracy in the western world

[NoFakie 45]

Jim, you're right. Unfortunatly if NYC tried to limit food stamps to non-branded bulk purchases of staple foods, say beans, grains, potatoes, canned tomatoes, etc., you can bet that Coca-Cola, Pepsico, Kelloggs, Nestle, and every fast food chain and large food processor would lobby to stop it as unconstitutional. Arguably it would be. It would certainly be a form of social engineering, which naturally goes against the idea that the government should not make peoples' decisions for them.

 

If poverty is back to stay, maybe more emphasis should be placed on home economics in schools. Again though, I think the last thing most sellers of goods and services want are thrifty and savvy people. They just want gullible consumers, which is what the current school system seems to produce in abundance.

[Slippery Jim 65]

Tubby, doesn't that rather beg the question of WHY the U.S. is a first world nation and Russia isn't?

Just tried to find some comparative data on US vs USSR/Russia economic growth but no luck and I'm too busy to keep looking (It's out there somewhere, Scully).

Comparing health care for the poor in US vs UK, I wonder if you'd really find all that much difference. I expect the WASTE factor would be far higher in the US because of the legal system (that's an opinion, not data) but poor people are treated. I think it would be very nice if everyone got all the health care they need, but realistically there is a limit, and richer people are always going to get better care.

When you get past the noise and overwrought drumming on both sides in the US, it's more a question of who pays than the actual treatment.

Also, from personal experience, the red tape is insane. everyone who sees you sends a separate bill! I can only imagine what it's like to then have to deal with the insurers

[Tubby Beaver 209]

Russia was a communist country for the best part of 90 years, so the economic model was set up in total contrast to the free market economy of the US (and the west n general)

 

I don't know any figures, but in the UK if you are sick, you go to the doctor/hosptal and you get treated. No faffing about filling in forms, asking f you have your insurance details, just rock up and get seen. Yes there are waiting lists and if you need a procedure that isn't life threatening then you will be put onto a waiting list, however if you need the operation quick smart, then you get it.

[Slippery Jim 65]

Mr W, I certainly cannot argue with that!

 

If I've got any point at all to make, it's that life is all a question of trade-offs, cost (whether in money, time, effort) vs reward.

I'm sure my free-market bias stands naked before you all (no, that's not a nickname) but I think there's far too little recognition that the pie isn't infinitely large and sooner or later there's not enough for everyone to have as much as they want.

Some of the recent discussion here and in other topics have yielded very interesting comments on this -- the experiences of GN and MB in real estate, for one very good example.

 

Anyway, again thanks to everyone who jumped in, and if I can manage a sober hour or two in the next 20 days I'll stop by.

[Thundercat 60]

Originally Posted By: Slippery Jim

Black Mountain, in response: Much of what you say is true, but is there no line between those services that support the whole of a society and those that (to be nasty about it) milk the public tit for the benefit of a small group of enthusiasts?

All of the services I mentioned do support the whole of society just not in direct ways... you need to make a bit of a mental leap to understand how it works.

Having access to gyms make people healthier. Healthier people lower burdens on health care. Healthier people are also much more productive than unhealthy people. Every year the government releases stats on how much sickness has effected the economy.

Parks and green spaces are places where people who are stuck in cities can go to escape mentally. To the same arguments I made above also apply.

Cultural events are important for a sense of national pride and togetherness that are much more productive than chest thumping nationalism. We can define ourselves in terms of who we are instead of in terms of what we are not. Having a strong sense of national character helps nations avoid the folly of war (among other things)

Education programs and retraining for unemployed people helps everyone to become productive members of society. Pretty clear positive results there.

Libraries give access to information for all people, rich or poor. An educated public also has pretty clear positive results.

Again, just because you choose not to take advantage of these things doesn't mean a small group of enthusiasts are milking the public tit. I don't think there is one single point I made that doesn't have a clear impact of the whole of society.

[HelperElfMissy 42]

Originally Posted By: Slippery Jim

MB, to take the other tack, what's wrong with people using services they've paid for? And why should a rich old man be able to pay to jump the queue and get a heart transplant ahead of some impoverished but brilliant 19-year-old? Who may grow up to be the next Einstein, or Cervantes (or Idi Amin, but that's a whole'nother story).

If someone had paid for the service sure!
However what has really happened here is not a payment for a service, it is a taxation by government on all of those citizens earning over a certain wage specifically for the provision of state funded health care - the safety net if you will. The understanding when accessing such a limited resources is that allcomers will be served, however the resources are limited and they may have to wait. Life threatening situations are usually fast tracked if possible.

The rich old man will not be able to queue jump the 19yr old - because those type of operations are done on urgency, need and list position. Rich or poor the donor waiting list is the same. However if the person with Kidney failure had private health insurance and a kindly relative or friend who wished to donate one of their kidneys they can leave the queue (not queue jump but actually LEAVE the list and allow the person behind them one step closer) and have the procedure done immediately.

Win win win - you benefit from HAVING private health insurance (and a nice hearted rello with a spare kidney)....the battlers on the list win because you left the queue making their wait one less person long. And the system WORKS.

Originally Posted By: Slippery Jim

I think it would be very nice if everyone got all the health care they need, but realistically there is a limit, and richer people are always going to get better care.

But the disparity can be lessened if the public health system is not used by all and sundry as the free ride it is sometimes made out to be - if you can go private and leave that service for the battler down the street everyone wins.


BTW: Enjoy your time away

[NoFakie 45]

Originally Posted By: Slippery Jim

I'm sure my free-market bias stands naked before you all (no, that's not a nickname) but I think there's far too little recognition that the pie isn't infinitely large and sooner or later there's not enough for everyone to have as much as they want.

Do people make those assumptions though?