Ownership?

[Ike_Lee]

This is factually untrue. Of their students, public schools graduate more, and have similar knowledge attainment statistics. Kids whose parents can spent more start out higher than average, and private schools tend to exclude students with disabilities, which raises their scoring.

You may be correct, but as far as I am aware (https://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/pubs/studies/2006461.asp) the standardized grading system for the country shows a "statistically significant" difference in private vs public schooling, private schooling scoring higher. This could be because they do not typically take students with disabilities, or it could be due to one of the other differences between schooling styles, difficult to say.

But just to be clear, I agree there should be a social program for education, just private schools seem to do better on the metrics it is tested.

...Because we have made them 'not that great'. We get the system that we, collectively, voted for. Social security doesn't drop any workers, so it pulls more out of poverty than any private system.

Exactly. We have made them not great. But it is difficult to find a party to vote for that you agree with on everything. I disagree with both parties on different things, you just have to choose what is important and move forward. This is why the private sector is superior since I can have choice with investing,more choices are always better! Specialization improves goods services and the government is doing the opposite of specialization.

Again, a social network is important (since some people are limited in choice) but I still say the private sector does it better.

No private fire fighting system has better results than public ones. No private medical system prevents disease like a public system. Private water systems cost ten times on average what public ones do. Private road systems are intensely terrible... and have to be protected from public road competition.

Completely agree on infrastructure, fire, and public water systems along with police and national defense among others. I disagree on the medical system as I mentioned in my previous reply to jerhenderson.

As a recent example my father had his medicare reviewed and changed to a private system the government must contract out or something (I don't know the details) giving him better and more services while saving him about $150 dollars a month in prescription medication (making his cost for prescriptions $0). Better coverage for less.

Sorry for the long post, but I do enjoy intelligent discussions, they seem harder and harder to come across lately. Thank you!

Advertisement

 

[Crissa]

I love talking about policy and trying to figure out the big problems ^-^

You may be correct, but as far as I am aware ...

Your source notes the differences in the sample data https://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/pubs/studies/2006461.asp#section4
Further studies have shown that attainment is not very different for kids from similar backgrounds. Basically, nearly the entire difference can be shown to the sampling bias of private schools: They don't teach everyone, and they don't score those who will drag their scores down.

It makes comparing them together really difficult, because you have to noodle around. People who are more interested in their child's education - or can be - just get better results. Which makes sense, right?

This is why the private sector is superior since I can have choice with investing,more choices are always better!

No. More choices is not always better. And it's perpendicular to whether something works or not. A private investment is managed for the benefit of its managers, not its customers. A democratic government is beholden to its customers, the voters.

I disagree on the medical system as I mentioned in my previous reply to jerhenderson.

You can disagree all you want, but your position is straight up wrong. Health care as a good is one that is only better the more people that receive it. Everything from emergency care to flue shots to rare diseases all get better treatment the more people have access to the treatment.

For many diseases, the fact of the matter is, the more education from health care providers there is, the less the diseases can rage through the populace. No private industry has ever destroyed a disease, but public healthcare has eliminated several. From smallpox to pellagra, public healthcare has the biggest wins.

And beyond the simple fact that you want people around you to have been given vaccinations, have infections treated, so those diseases don't reach you: Medical professionals only get better the more times they treat something. So even physical injuries, you're better off if you're the nth thousandth or millionth patient than the nth dozen. The ability to diagnose and treat ailments only gets better with more patients to treat.

Lastly, speed and availability. Health care is expensive to build out. Especially if it's not being utilized. But the faster that people get treatment, the more locally, the better results are. If there's a rural hospital, your rich ass with a broken leg gets treated better than if the rural hospital dries up for lack of patients to treat.

it's really hard to wrap one's mind about, sometimes, that doing more of something actually makes it cheaper and better. But it makes sense: You want the Cybertruck after they have the kinks out of it, not the Cybertruck that's been bodged together.

As a recent example my father had his medicare reviewed and changed to a private system

Literally this is because Republicans let Medicare pay out more to Advantage accounts than standard ones. Health care providers get paid more from the government, for the same procedures.
https://www.motherjones.com/kevin-d...ally-decide-which-health-care-plan-to-choose/

Anyhow, there's loads we can agree upon here, clearly ^-^ I wouldn't want government choosing my dinner. I ate more than enough government cheese when I was a kid! But it did its job, keeping people from starving while keeping dairies from going belly up with seasonal and cylical demands.

-Crissa

 

[showmemo]

" No. More choices is not always better. And it's perpendicular to whether something works or not. A private investment is managed for the benefit of its managers, not its customers. A democratic government is beholden to its customers, the voters. "

Couldn't disagree more. As a business owner, if I'm not satisfying customers, they can leave and go to my competition fairly easily and without the need of the 'majority'.... if the government doesn't satisfy a customer (voter) they can vote a different way, but if it isn't with the majority, they are stuck with the same.

 

[Crissa]

As a business owner, if I'm not satisfying customers, they can leave and go to my competition fairly easily ...

This is a myth.

There is a cost to even switching which company.

And a company that supplies my water? Roads? Even the wires to my house - I can't change these. I can't change how my neighbors have medical care, either.

Even something simple like my insurance company costs me money and time to change.

-Crissa

 

[showmemo]

This is a myth.

There is a cost to even switching which company.

And a company that supplies my water? Roads? Even the wires to my house - I can't change these. I can't change how my neighbors have medical care, either.

Even something simple like my insurance company costs me money and time to change.

-Crissa

I'd have to disagree again. It is no myth that I can switch gas stations, electronics suppliers, mobile carriers, grocery stores, etc. Roads and water suppliers (which are handled by government-like entities) is a straw-man argument.

If it costs you money to switch your insurance carrier, you are doing something wrong. I switched carriers on all vehicles, trailers, and ATV's recently after an increase and it saved me money. Yes, it took some time to find the new provider and make the switch.

Not sure how 'changing your neighbors medical care' works into this as part of the conversation. But, in fact, the ACA has caused the options for switching medical insurance providers to nearly evaporate. Before the government got involved, I had multiple choices for suppliers of coverage, all competing with each other... now, I have 1 option, with my rates close to 800% more than they were pre - ACA. In fact, my families total medical insurance costs now exceed my mortgage. It can reasonably be argued that not having any competition in this area is the fundamental reason for the price increases.

 

[Crissa]

I'd have to disagree again. It is no myth that I can switch gas stations, electronics suppliers, mobile carriers, grocery stores, etc. Roads and water suppliers (which are handled by government-like entities) is a straw-man argument.

Switching gas stations costs me more time and fuel to get to the next gas station.
Switching electronics suppliers results in costs in compatibility, time to resupply, need to have new catalogs and that might limit choices elsewhere.
Switching grocers means taking more time and fuel to get to the other, maybe losing access to items.
Mobile carriers have different areas they work in. It costs time and money to replace sim cards.

And your argument is straw, since we weren't talking about grocers. We were talking about social safety nets, medicine, ownership.

Even owning a house incurs more costs to switch homes than renting does! And if the reason you need to switch homes is the same as lots of other people... You might not even be to sell your old home.

-Crissa

 

[Ike_Lee]

Switching gas stations costs me more time and fuel to get to the next gas station.
Switching electronics suppliers results in costs in compatibility, time to resupply, need to have new catalogs and that might limit choices elsewhere.
Switching grocers means taking more time and fuel to get to the other, maybe losing access to items.
Mobile carriers have different areas they work in. It costs time and money to replace sim cards.

And your argument is straw, since we weren't talking about grocers. We were talking about social safety nets, medicine, ownership.

Even owning a house incurs more costs to switch homes than renting does! And if the reason you need to switch homes is the same as lots of other people... You might not even be to sell your old home.

-Crissa

Monopolization will cause socialized medicine to cost more, government oversight will cause it to be less efficient. I stick to the DMV to back up that example, as well as my experience with veteran care. There are other issues with socialized medicine that I would prefer not to get into but if you look at our northern neighbor, Canada, many Canadians come here for procedures. Steven Crowder did an interesting video on it (youtube search should find it). Also, if socializing healthcare was so efficient and inexpensive then how do the private healthcare companies compete? People pay more to private industry on top of paying the incredible tax rate required for social medicine because the private is better and faster.

Switching suppliers is just part of the job, there is cost upfront but the point is to save cost or get better service in the long run. It is typically worth it and it is going to happen no matter what as the rate of improvement in electronics is incredible. You have to change or become obsolete (I am very familiar with this and feel your pain if you have to deal with it as well)!

When you are dealing with a free market, like gas stations, the more choices then the closer the stations will be, people will stop going to the one that was more expensive and they will either close or figure out how to make there operation less expensive. I am pretty sure even Elon Musk is a strong advocate of free markets. I think he even said the best thing the government can do is get out of the way of entrepreneurs.

I can say with certainty that owning something (and having a high utilization) is cheaper than renting. It is absolutely not more expensive to move from a place you own vs a place you rent. When renting you are paying somebody else to do all the things that need to be done and paid for (property tax, maintenance, etc). When you move you get back the down payment if the place is in good enough condition, with no interest, and that's it. If you own a house you get back any portion of the ownership you sunk into it, which can be a lot if you lived their for a long time.

Also when you own the payments on the house don't increase, they typically are locked in. All the other costs between moving still remain as far as I can tell. Also with a house there is no lease that has to be paid for if you leave early. What am I missing about costs incurred between changing rented locations and changing ownership locations?

Cars though are a different breed then a house due to the limited utilization. But those of us who want self reliance like to own their cars just because then nobody can take them away or change the cost of operation on a whim. Obviously I am all about choice so I think there will be (and it will be very economical for people in large urban areas) a choice to rent the use of them, just like their currently is. In smaller urban or rural areas this makes far less sense, and lots of owners will be using their trucks as a tool. Plus hauling manure in rented vehicles is just rude to everyone else who uses them...

 

[Crissa]

Monopolization will cause socialized medicine to cost more,

This has happened nowhere in the world, ever.

Why should I read anything else you have to say if the first thing you state is so false? Every one of your statements is based upon this one falsehood.

-Crissa

 

[Luke42]

Monopolization will cause socialized medicine to cost more, government oversight will cause it to be less efficient.

I used to think the same way, but then learned more about economics.

A simple comparison of the US healthcare system to other systems the world shows that healthcare in the US is far more expensive per capita here, despite our market-driven system. So, why does the real world fail to conform to the predictions of introductory microeconomic theory? What gives?!?

I'm an armchair economist and a former Libertarian, so I'll explain why.

The idea of the market you're describing is a Microeconomics 101 idea that's called a "perfect market". This is the economics equivalent of the "imagine a perfect sphere resting on a frictionless plane" kind of thinking that physicists use to teach fundamental concepts. It doesn't happen in the real world.

The closest thing to a perfect market is the agricultural commodities market that the farmers out here in the corn states use to sell their crops. This market has a number of properties:

• Symmetric information: buyers and sellers both understand corn and the calendar.
• Negligible switching costs: Kellogg can buy from Farmer Smith one day and Farmer Jones the next day. Kellogg doesn't care. Smith and Jones don't really care either, just so long as they sell at an acceptable price.
• A large number of buyers and sellers, and minimal barriers to entry. Anyone with a ton of corn to buy or sell can join this market.
• This isn't a Common Good, or any other special case.

Now, the core insight here is that a perfect market is a special case! Looking at the discussion so far, you've been asserting that all markets are perfect markets. But that's simply not what we see in the real world, and most markets are imperfect in some way or another.

One of the big things that makes markets imperfect is information asymmetries. This is a situation where the people involved in the market know different things. A familiar example of this is the used car market: the seller knows a lot about the car's condition, and the buyer does not. This distorts the market, and the market is less of a "perfect market" as a result.

So, where does the healthcare fit into these models?

• The Healthcare market is pretty extreme example of a market with information asymmetries. Patients typically don't know what services they need, and may not even be conscious. Patients cannot shop around.
• Patients are not actually the customer, their insurance company is the customer. Their insurance company is not allowed to make decisions about patient care, they just pay the bill. This leads to all kinds of incentives which work against an efficient market. This is known as a principle-agent problem.
• The patient's need for healthcare services is (often) inversely proportional to their ability to pay. Many people, myself included, find allocating healthcare resources to the people who need them least to be morally objectionable.
• It's impossible to shop during a crisis. This is why we have socialized fire protection. Sitting down to call several firefighting companies while your house is on fire is ridiculous. The same is true for medical emergencies.
• Healthcare is a Common Good. As we've seen during COVID-19, my health depends on the health of my neighbors -- due to the contagious nature of some diseases. Like building a lighthouse, we all benefit if the people who get sick get care before they spread a contagious disease to others in the community.

These observations all undermine the perfect market hypothesis with respect to the health care market. The perfect market hypothesis fails to explain what's actually happening in this market.

The perfect market hypothesis is a great way to understand the agricultural commodities market! But, it's not particularly helpful in understanding the monopolistic/oligopolistic ISP markets. And, of course, the healthcare market is an extreme counterexample of a market that can be understood this way.

I once made the arguments you are now making. But then I learned enough about economics to realize that dogmatic approaches to economics aren't sufficient to describe real-world market behavior. So, now I try to observe first and then formulate my opinions based on what I see.

Faith-based economics doesn't solve problems, because it doesn't acknowledge the problems we see in real-world markets.

 

[ldjessee]

I became more open to universal health care after visiting several countries with it. Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Iceland...

 

[showmemo]

I became more open to universal health care after visiting several countries with it. Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Iceland...

I guess the question might be what does it cost? A worker in my office has a sister that moved to Denmark to complete her masters. It's at no cost to her. Now that she's finishing up, I asked if she was coming home or staying in Denmark with her boyfriend... the answer was that she likes it there, but that the tax rate is 70% and gas is $10/gal... so the cost to live there was too high. When I google the tax rate in Denmark, it shows 55.8%, so I'm not sure the exact rate, except to say this person lives there now and reported that it was 70%.

If the cost of universal health care would cause Americans to pay 70% tax rates, I think most wouldn't consider it 'free' anymore.

Sweden's avg tax rate is 57%. Still 20 points higher than the US. I already pay a hefty amount for health insurance, but for another 20% of my income, I could pay for 'Congress' level coverage

 

[ajdelange]

That's the big problem with socialism. All that free stuff you get from the government costs a lot. As the wise man said many years ago "As government does nothing well the best government is the least government".

 

[Crissa]

The income tax is higher there, but...

...if you added all the state and local taxes you do pay, all the fees to do basic living, the more we spend on travel (our cheap gas hides that we spend more on travel/commute per year) and health care... how much of your income is that?

-Crissa

PS, studies show that the median Texan pays about the same taxes as a Californian. (Within the error bars) https://www.motherjones.com/kevin-d...surprisingly-similar-in-texas-and-california/

 

[showmemo]

The income tax is higher there, but...

...if you added all the state and local taxes you do pay, all the fees to do basic living, the more we spend on travel (our cheap has hides that we spend more on travel/commute per year) and health care... how much of your income is that?

-Crissa

PS, studies show that the median Texan pays about the same taxes as a Californian. (Within the error bars) https://www.motherjones.com/kevin-d...surprisingly-similar-in-texas-and-california/

That's a great question and one that I believe should be studied. There was a study not long ago that indicated Americans pay more than 50% of there income in some sort of tax - income tax, death tax, sales tax, property tax, etc... I'm not sure if those same things apply in those countries.

Then, of course, we'd have to determine if the taxes are that high because it's needed or if the government agencies are not efficient and waste more than private corporations would.

 

[ajdelange]

... if the government agencies are not efficient and waste more than private corporations would.

This IS a joke, right?