[besson3c]

I'm wondering if this passionate dislike that some of you have for government programs based on the argument that they are destined to remain woefully inefficient for eternity is shaped by your own personal experiences? I'd like to understand this better, because my experiences are actually quite different.

I'm okay with the post office, with my BMV, with the services provided by my local government (we were even married by local government), with police, fire, etc. Contrast that to my experiences with some private companies: Duke Energy, Verizon, Ameritech, some web hosting companies, probably many more I've tried to put out of mind, and I've been through my share of bureaucratic hell. I used to work at a very large state university and while it was inefficiently run, it was so because the VPs and other high level management were a bunch of ass hats. Most of the people who had there been there long enough acknowledged that things used to be much better. I experienced enough there for a long enough time to know that it wasn't the state's problem, it was the people that were involved and the bad decisions they were making. Admittedly, some (such as an outsourcing spree) were fueled by the state government, so there is an affect there, but most were just local mismanagement issues.

I have absolutely no doubt that there are some government programs that are appallingly inefficient and frustrating, I know that you guys no doubt have some real doozies of stories to share, I do not question that - no need to share your stories unless you want to. I realize that it is sort of unfair comparing the nightmares of private business to public sector stuff, because there is much more of the stuff within the private sphere. However, what I have a hard time sorting out is how these bureaucracies are worlds apart? What they seem to have in common is that leadership is lacking, bad decisions have been made, there is too much red tape, etc. I have a hard time understanding how this is fundamentally exclusive domain of one or the other.

The one sort of wildcard variable I'm not sure of us litigation. Is it easier to sue the government than it is a private business? That's not a leading question, I honestly don't know, but I'd imagine not, in which case wouldn't at least the potential for less red tape and bureaucracy exist compared to a business held back by these sorts of liabilities?

As best I understand it, there are two arguments here: one, just as I said, government programs are inefficient, and the other that the government is in no business to be providing these sorts of services in the first place. Regarding the latter, let's leave that out of the picture now, I already understand that philosophy fairly well. I wonder though, if the two sort of overlap and conflate, because no doubt this thread will get very emotional. I would tend to think that it is the philosophical stuff that fuels this? Do the two overlap, or do some of you feel very strongly about one argument, and not so much the other?

Returning to the main topic, just how are the bureaucracies of private and public business fundamentally worlds apart? Sorry for the leading question, but how is this not simply a matter of the people that are involved? After all, a pay check is a pay check, right? As a hypothetical employee, why would who pays my paycheck prevent me from doing a good job as a hypothetically competent and skilled dude? Either you care about what you do or you don't. Either you are held back by bad management or a bad work environment or you aren't. This can happen anywhere.

Another question, how often are government programs inefficient because of a lack of resources? Take salary, for instance... Do you think that people are bad and unskilled because the pay may be lower than a similar job in the private sector? What about jobs that have no private sector counterpart, such as planning road construction and stuff like that? Are these infrastructures with no competition still woefully inefficient because they are run by the government? What government programs do we have that compete with the private sector? Doctors just bill Medicare instead of the patient, right - same medical service, just that Medicare "competes" with the insurance companies... This is the only one that comes to mind right off the top of my head, are there others? If not, how can government programs be pronounced woefully inefficient if we have nothing to compare them to?

Let's start off small, please be precise, patient, kind, and as civil as you can in explaining exactly why government programs are destined to be woefully inefficient. I promise I will try to understand as best as I can. I'm honestly more interested in understanding than debating this at this point, because I honestly believe that there is simply something I do not get in terms of how some of you feel about this. I'd like to understand your perspective better.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I'm okay with the post office, with my BMV, with the services provided by my local government

Besson, you are right that those government entities do provide adequate services (not always, but often).

However, what you forget to factor in is AT WHAT COST.

The post office has been racking in losses for ages, so does Amtrak and other government run "businesses". But what's even worse: once the government runs it, there is no need to run it profitably, because the tax payer will foot the bill.

To state it simply: it's just an illusion to think the government could run everything as cost-inefficiently as it currently does run a few things, w/o cutting the service. You simply couldn't finance it by raising taxes to the level necessary to come up for he shortfall.

Health Care is so huge (cost wise) compared to Amtrak or the Postal Service. There is no way the government could keep it running at the same adequate service level for the money it will take.

-t

[Chuckit]

It's not just that government-run bureaucracies are bad, per se. Bureaucracy is bad in general. A government-run program is vastly more likely to be bureaucratic because that's essentially all the government is — a giant bureaucracy — in a large nation like the US.

Also, it's pretty well-established that competition is a vital component of the market. The government is inherently a monopoly.

[besson3c]

turtle: thanks for acknowledging some legitimacy to what I'm saying. I don't mean that in a passive aggressive way, I mean that just as it stands, we (including I) don't acknowledge each other's viewpoints enough around here as a whole...

I'm not sure I understand your argument completely though, so let me seek clarification with a preface... To me every business, private or public always has to stretch a dollar and do so as much as they can with the minimal amount of expense/financing. If a government program or any program is not properly accounted for and there is wasteful spending, this is an accountability problem. This accountability problem would exist in either a public or private service - it's a problem anywhere.

In my experience, every government worker that I know has always had to really be creative in stretching their dollars. I will say that one problem with some of the government jobs I know of is that it is difficult to get yourself fired for a host of legal reasons, but I've yet to come across or hear about a program that was just flush with surplus cash, save very top level management salaries, which is apparent anywhere.

To me, again, whether you are talking public or private, one can only stretch a dollar up to a point. When you pass that point, things break. The service is no longer effective, it just stops to work. Yes, there are always ways to be creative and find new ways to stretch a dollar, ways to find additional excess, but I hope you'll agree that this only works up to a point, right?

So, is your experience counter to mine, that government run programs flush with cash being wasted every which way is the norm? Or, is an accountability problem more common? If so, would this problem cease to be one if leadership cared about finding excess?

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

So, is your experience counter to mine, that government run programs flush with cash being wasted every which way is the norm? Or, is an accountability problem more common? If so, would this problem cease to be one if leadership cared about finding excess?

It's both.

The issue with government funding is that yes, a dollar is still scarce, but by far not as scarce as in private companies.

This year, I have taken pay and benefit cuts of 20%, so my company could survive and not go bankrupt due to cash flow issues (the company *IS* profitable - in case you didn't know: companies can go bankrupt while making a profit). Many colleagues of mine lost their jobs.

So, what do you think this company would have done if it was government run ?
Would you have seen massive layoffs ? I doubt it. I haven't heard of massive layoffs in government run entities; quite the contrary the government is hiring like never before.
Would you have seen 20% pay cuts in government entities ? Very doubtful.

Do you understand what I mean when I say that the pressure on the government to make every dollar count is BY FAR not as big as in private companies ?
The reason is simple: the government can't just go bankrupt. It can always raise taxes or print money.

Therefore, the government does NOT fall under the same mechanism as private companies. Bad business behavior does NOT lead to bankruptcy and dissolved entities. Bad management does NOT lead to close of business. Money will keep flowing, no matter what.

-t

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

It's not just that government-run bureaucracies are bad, per se. Bureaucracy is bad in general. A government-run program is vastly more likely to be bureaucratic because that's essentially all the government is — a giant bureaucracy — in a large nation like the US.

Also, it's pretty well-established that competition is a vital component of the market. The government is inherently a monopoly.

Now we're getting somewhere...

I'm glad you agree that bureaucracy in general is bad. I'm just not sure I would go as far as to say that it is vastly more likely in one area or another - maybe, but there are many other variables. There are many monopolies or near monopolies in my day-to-day. Blue Cross, Duke Energy, the telcos, Walmart, Comcast, etc. etc. I agree that the strength of the market is competition, but don't we also do most of our business with very large private bureaucracies?

Also, size is not necessarily a benchmark of bureaucracy. A large company that has split up into smaller components and actually gives their local branches autonomy is usually much less bureaucratic than even a smaller company that is carefully micromanaged and where their customer service is in a different country and they have no clue what is going on. Again, all of this seems to come back to the people, the decisions that have been made, the autonomy that is provided, the corporate infrastructure, etc. A local or state government is a subset of the federal government. Yet in some areas they are given autonomy and can operate very efficiently without having to work through the state or federal government to grant a building permit so that your neighbor can build an extension to his house.

So, I might agree with the general tendency here as you have stated it, but I don't think that this is necessarily inherent. Do you agree?

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

There are many monopolies or near monopolies in my day-to-day. Blue Cross, Duke Energy, the telcos, Walmart, Comcast, etc. etc.

I'm sorry, but to call Walmart, Blue Cross or Comcast a (near) monopoly is plain wrong.

A monopoly id defined as "specific individual or an enterprise has sufficient control over a particular product or service to determine significantly the terms on which other individuals shall have access to it. Monopolies are thus characterized by a lack of economic competition for the good or service that they provide and a lack of viable substitute goods." (Wiki)

There is plenty of competition for Walmart (Target, Krogers, Dollar Store, Costco etc...)
There are plenty of other health care providers besides Blue Cross.
There are also alternatives to Comcast (e.g. satellite TV, satellite internet, DSL, cell phone providers).

-t

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

It's both.

The issue with government funding is that yes, a dollar is still scarce, but by far not as scarce as in private companies.

This year, I have taken pay and benefit cuts of 20%, so my company could survive and not go bankrupt due to cash flow issues (the company *IS* profitable - in case you didn't know: companies can go bankrupt while making a profit). Many colleagues of mine lost their jobs.

So, what do you think this company would have done if it was government run ?
Would you have seen massive layoffs ? I doubt it. I haven't heard of massive layoffs in government run entities; quite the contrary the government is hiring like never before.
Would you have seen 20% pay cuts in government entities ? Very doubtful.

Do you understand what I mean when I say that the pressure on the government to make every dollar count is BY FAR not as big as in private companies ?
The reason is simple: the government can't just go bankrupt. It can always raise taxes or print money.

Therefore, the government does NOT fall under the same mechanism as private companies. Bad business behavior does NOT lead to bankruptcy and dissolved entities. Bad management does NOT lead to close of business. Money will keep flowing, no matter what.

-t

Okay, I agree with this. It is less likely for a government to make drastic cuts and lay people off like crazy. In theory funding can be yanked, but since it is usually a part of a larger budget this gets muddled. Before we go any further, you must understand that I really dislike any bureaucracy. I'm not blindly defending the government, I'm just trying to address these specific differences to be fair.

However, I will add some additional fodder for discussion here...

While I'll agree that it is less likely for the government to cut back aggressively, the reverse of this is true too. It is more common for big private companies to have all sorts of waste at the top. It is more likely that your VPs simply didn't want to take a pay cut from their already substantial salary as opposed to just seeking cash from the lower ranks via layoffs.

I'm not suggesting that CEOs should not make substantial salaries, that is a whole other argument, but there is also no accountability there aside from the company's board of directors and stockholders, whichever applies (the former which may be benefiting from these same sorts of excessive salaries). When I worked at my university it was law to post all salaries where the public could access them. I could pull up salaries for everybody from the entry level staff all the way up to the president.

So, I'm just saying there are tradeoffs here.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

I'm sorry, but to call Walmart, Blue Cross or Comcast a (near) monopoly is plain wrong.

A monopoly id defined as "specific individual or an enterprise has sufficient control over a particular product or service to determine significantly the terms on which other individuals shall have access to it. Monopolies are thus characterized by a lack of economic competition for the good or service that they provide and a lack of viable substitute goods." (Wiki)

There is plenty of competition for Walmart (Target, Krogers, Dollar Store, Costco etc...)
There are plenty of other health care providers besides Blue Cross.
There are also alternatives to Comcast (e.g. satellite TV, satellite internet, DSL, cell phone providers).

-t

True, I shouldn't have used the word monopoly. I should have said very large corporate entity with their own bureaucratic structures. With size generally comes bureaucracy, and my point was that most of our business in the private sector is with some sort of bureaucracy.

Around here Blue Cross is pretty much a monopoly though, they are the only in network provider that our hospitals will accept, which is a real shame. Sorry, that was a tangent.

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Around here Blue Cross is pretty much a monopoly though, they are the only in network provider that our hospitals will accept, which is a real shame. Sorry, that was a tangent.

You're still in Indiana right? If you are, then you are incorrect. I have a health care insurance provider that is not Blue Cross and I get 100% coverage at all hospitals in Indiana.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

True, I shouldn't have used the word monopoly. I should have said very large corporate entity with their own bureaucratic structures. With size generally comes bureaucracy, and my point was that most of our business in the private sector is with some sort of bureaucracy.

As long as those companies can finance the bureaucracy, why not ? It's their (or their shareholder's) choice. If they take it to an extreme, their business model will suffer, and they will go out of business.

( Side note / soap box: going out of business and bankruptcies are a healthy thing. They need to happen. They cleanse the market form fat, lazy, inefficient companies and waste of resources. )

I just disagree with funding government bureaucracy, because unlike private enterprise bureaucracy, *I* pay for all the government crap.

-t

[iMOTOR]

I think it is fair to say that for many government offices, there is an element of inefficiency when compared to their private counterparts. But obviously, you can go to many of the massive corporations in this country and witness the same kind of waste you see in our government. The special interests, fraud, payola, lobbying, astro-turfing, etc. are very similar.

But, the fundamental difference at the end of the day is choice. For what it’s worth, I could buy property in the forrest, build a house and live self sustainably, completely independent of any corporation. But I would still have to pay taxes, and I would still go jail if I didn’t.

When profitability at a corporation drops and problems reach critical mass, the corporation collapses and from their ashes rise opportunity for other businesses (GM excluded obviously). The problems of our government have reached critical mass and there is nothing we can do short of impeaching our elected officials or moving to some other country.

Inefficiency alone is not why I am fundamentally opposed to expansion of government. History has shown us so many times that when individuals delegate power to the collective, there is always a loss of freedom.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

As long as those companies can finance the bureaucracy, why not ? It's their (or their shareholder's) choice. If they take it to an extreme, their business model will suffer, and they will go out of business.

( Side note / soap box: going out of business and bankruptcies are a healthy thing. They need to happen. They cleanse the market form fat, lazy, inefficient companies and waste of resources. )

I just disagree with funding government bureaucracy, because unlike private enterprise bureaucracy, *I* pay for all the government crap.

-t

Fair enough, but I'm looking at this from a problem solving perspective. If we decide that we want to do something (be it pave roads, make health care available, police, public schools, whatever), we first have to define who "we" is, but we also have to find the most effective and cheapest way to do it. The way I look at it: the best tool for the job. There are some things that government would be horrible at providing, there are some things that the private sector would be horrible at providing. The main disagreement is where this line is drawn, and deciding what we actually want government to do in terms of what is practical, and what is compatible with our ideals.

As far as problem solving goes, I just have a hard time understanding the passion behind much of what the right rallies for/against. You've made some worthwhile points and I thank you for that, it does help me understand things a little better, I just don't always understand how we get from the crux of the argument as I have characterized it above to all of the strange places that we often end up in our collective national debates: misdirected energy, strawman arguments, unwarranted fears, constitutional arguments that Joe Sixpack couldn't begin to really comprehend, flinging the word "socialism" around, projecting stuff, clinging to cliches about what America means and who the good working people are, and greatly exaggerating the differences between government and corporate bureaucracies.

Turtle, I know you feel passionate about this stuff, but have you ever felt that some of the rhetoric we are exposed to on both sides is a little overblown? Would you agree that the differences between government and corpororate bureaucracies are definitely important and apparent, but a little more subtle than the rhetoric?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by iMOTOR 

Inefficiency alone is not why I am fundamentally opposed to expansion of government. History has shown us so many times that when individuals delegate power to the collective, there is always a loss of freedom.

With all due respect, and I don't mean to put you on the offensive but I'm simply using this fairly common sentiment as a means to make a point, I think this is truly disconnected from reality.

We *are* a collective, and while we may choose to not acknowledge this, this is not reality. We rely on each other to make our clothes, provide us with transportation, gather our food, etc. we are mammals, and this is not uncommon of our species. Yes there are some who could completely unplug themselves from the grid, but this would be excruciatingly difficult for most. Hell, most of us would probably die without electricity, let alone everything else.

Yes, there is a balance. We don't want to assign too much power to others, and some personal liberties exist. However, in our day and age you also have to look at it in the complete reverse of what you just said. Freedom is being able to lead the life we want to live *with* the collective. It is much harder to live the lives we want to live without access to some form of health care, for instance. Assigning enough power to the collective to provide us with access to doctors *enables* our liberty.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Turtle, I know you feel passionate about this stuff, but have you ever felt that some of the rhetoric we are exposed to on both sides is a little overblown? Would you agree that the differences between government and corpororate bureaucracies are definitely important and apparent, but a little more subtle than the rhetoric?

I don't disagree with that statement. And there are probably good government agencies (a few) that are less bureaucratic than some private or public companies.

However, the problem is when the government model is hailed as always and generally more efficient, and supposed to be bringing cost savings. That's just a lie, or very, very naive at best. Most things will be run into the ground if you let the government run it.

Just one of many arguments: once the government runs it, it's run by politicians. We all know how well versed those are in economics and business administration. *sigh*

For most things, a government bureaucracy is the worst model to run it.

-t

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

I don't disagree with that statement. And there are probably good government agencies (a few) that are less bureaucratic than some private or public companies.

However, the problem is when the government model is hailed as always and generally more efficient, and supposed to be bringing cost savings. That's just a lie, or very, very naive at best. Most things will be run into the ground if you let the government run it.

Just one of many arguments: once the government runs it, it's run by politicians. We all know how well versed those are in economics and business administration. *sigh*

For most things, a government bureaucracy is the worst model to run it.

-t

I agree with these tendencies, but I just don't agree with the conclusions you derive.

A program is as good as the people involved. A good health care program, for instance, would not be derived and managed by politicians, but by their appointees who would hopefully be highly qualified people with all of the business experience and knowledge necessary for the program to thrive.

What often happens is one of three things: you get appointees who are under qualified cronies like somebody like Michael Brown, you get non-partisan appointees who are simply not qualified to begin with (and yes, it can be hard to conduct a job interview when you as a politician don't know exactly what to look for, so the vetting process and who is involved with that is very important), or you get politicians who insist on meddling. In the case of the meddling, it's often out of the selfishness of the politician who wants to use an opportunity like this as a launchpad for their own career.

So, again, it is all about the people that are involved. You can say all of this same stuff for private companies too. I know of meddling VPs, I know of managers who don't know their asses from a whole in the ground, etc.

Where we disagree is that there is some inevitable outcome of government run programs sucking just because they are government run. They aren't inevitable, and I don't think you could even say likely without knowing exactly who is involved and what resources they have at their disposal. I think some point believe earnestly in this inevitability to the point where this is simply not an option to them. I think this is silly without knowing more. A moron could just as easily drive a private business into the ground too.

[besson3c]

Also Turtle, congrats, I think you just officially agreed with a moderate left point of view!

Don't get your defenses up, it is downright confusing really understanding the other person's argument when the reasonable population has to compete with the moon bat talking heads and make themselves understood in the midst of all of this. Not to speak for all of the moderate left, but I believe that what I've said so far is really the crux of what most would say: that the rhetoric is overblown, that we aren't worlds apart, and that what we disagree on is really much less radical than how our arguments are often characterized (i.e. that we are all of bunch of socialists with no shred of fiscal responsibility). We simply have different ideas as to where certain lines should be drawn and are willing to entertain different ways of solving problems. It's really fairly, or at least relatively subtle. Because of my own confusion of what the right thinks I created this thread. No offense, but many of your party talking heads are kind of all over the place on these issues, it can be hard sorting this out (I have no doubt you have a hard time working through all of the crazies on the left too). I thank you for this clarity.

See, this is how I'd love all PWL threads to be like. Otherwise, arguments are mischaracterized and misunderstood and their outcomes are so painfully predictable. Take abortion, for example. The right has successfully coined the term "pro-abortion" and "pro-file" as if people on the other side are cavalier about killing babies and don't really feel that life has any value. Both sides just dig in and yell and nobody ever agrees. The real issue among the moderate left is one of sovereignty and whether or not the government should be making these sorts of decisions for us. The "when does life begin" question is a very tough one, I would say most are fairly agnostic on this point, it's the sovereignty issue which is really at the heart of this debate, at least as I percieve it.

Let's not get into that issue, but I brought that up because it is another good example as to how the rhetoric gets wildly overblown. Either that, or moon bats get stuck yelling at other moon bats and the rest of us just want to punch them both in the face.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

So, again, it is all about the people that are involved. You can say all of this same stuff for private companies too. I know of meddling VPs, I know of managers who don't know their asses from a whole in the ground, etc.

You are right.

I just feel more strongly about it when someone meddles with my tax dollars. That's all.

But the other issue is: once you go government, you never go back.
It's really a problem: a bad company goes bankrupt, and is gone.
A bad government program goes bankrupt, and tax money is thrown after if for the next eleventy billion years (see Medicare, Social Security etc...).

-t

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Hey, at least if the government does you wrong, you can always sue it...

Oh. Wait.

[iMOTOR]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

We *are* a collective, and while we may choose to not acknowledge this, this is not reality. We rely on each other to make our clothes, provide us with transportation, gather our food, etc. we are mammals,

Of course we *are* a collective society, I never said that *we* aren’t. I think you may have taken my post a little out of context.

Thousands of years ago, an individual may have (to borrow from my previous example) lived independently and self sustainably, free to make personal decisions in every detail of his life. If another individual aggressively attempted to revoke his freedom and subject him to dictatorship, the individual might surrender and lose his freedom. Or, the individual might answer the aggression with brute force, and if he was strong enough, he would retain his freedom.

Clearly, survival of the fittest is a factor. So good people who love freedom have decided collectively to protect it. Protect it from outside aggression by use of a military and protect it from inside aggression by use of law enforcement and a justice system.

Crazy as it sounds, I don’t have healthcare insurance, and as an adult, I don’t see a doctor regularly. I choose to spend that money on a healthy lifestyle. I eat what I can from my garden, the rest I get from Whole Foods. I eat only organic, non heavily processed food. I try to exercise regularly. I administer self exams and tests and try to maintain healthy bodily function.

You, beeson, may choose to excessively: smoke, drink alcohol, consume saturated fats, and not exercise. I wish you wouldn’t, but if you do, it would cause no harm to me, so it is none of my business.

See where I’m going with this?

Originally Posted by besson3c 

It is much harder to live the lives we want to live without access to some form of health care, for instance.

Not for me. Obviously some people need access to healthcare. But I think problem is that access costs way to much rather than the idea that access should be free. Nothing is truly free.

[besson3c]

imotor: I choose to live a healthy lifestyle too, and for years I didn't have insurance either. I'm self employed now, and my investment adviser suggested that one thing that a small business owner should do is have some sort of health insurance for himself to deal with some sort of freak medical emergency that ends up costing $20,000. This would severely cripple many businesses, especially new ones like mine.

So, after careful consideration I decided that he was right and got me one of those affordable packages with a $6000 deductible. This package offers very little, it's just enough to deal with that hypothetical $20,000 hospital bill. If you look at the contributors to those costs, you could make arguments about those infringing upon my civil liberties. What do you think? Do you think that the prospects of a $20,000 hospital bill prevent me from my pursuit of life, liberty, and happiness? This is not necessarily my argument, I'm just wondering what you think...

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

Hey, at least if the government does you wrong, you can always sue it...

Oh. Wait.

If you can't, doesn't all of the stuff you need in place as a private business to deal with litigation amount to more bureaucracy when this is inevitably passed on to the customer?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

You are right.

I just feel more strongly about it when someone meddles with my tax dollars. That's all.

But the other issue is: once you go government, you never go back.
It's really a problem: a bad company goes bankrupt, and is gone.
A bad government program goes bankrupt, and tax money is thrown after if for the next eleventy billion years (see Medicare, Social Security etc...).

-t

I agree that it does take longer to disband and make changes to government programs. Like I said before, both the public and private sectors have their strengths and weaknesses that make them fit or ill fit for certain services.

[iMOTOR]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Do you think that the prospects of a $20,000 hospital bill prevent me from my pursuit of life, liberty, and happiness?

Only you can answer that question. 20,000 is a lot of money by my standards and yet a simple hospital visit could quickly exceed that. A half hour of medical attention in an emergency room will be $1500 minimum. We could have a whole ‘nother thread on why healthcare costs so much.

From what I can see, the focus in this administration is not reducing the cost of private treatment to levels that are accessible. But rather distributing the cost burden more evenly. The prospects of that happening might have an effect on my life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.

[lpkmckenna]

I was gonna join this thread, but damn you guys are wordy.

Speaking of bureaucracy, I wonder how many health insurance companies there are in the US? Each with their own CEO. Their own IT department. Accounting and payroll. Marketing. Account managers. Lawyers. More marketing.

I wonder how the US could reduce some of that pointless, wasteful bureaucracy?

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

A good health care program, for instance, would not be derived and managed by politicians, but by their appointees who would hopefully be highly qualified people with all of the business experience and knowledge necessary for the program to thrive.

If your business model involves the word "hopefully," it's time to rethink a few things. As long as it's politicians doing the appointing, it ultimately comes down to politicians — they are a single point of failure. One of the biggest challenges in business (at least in the businesses I've seen) is hiring somebody to do something you know nothing about. And that's without politics piled on top. Maybe politicians suddenly will become competent not only in their own field, but in all the relevant fields they touch as well. Hopefully. But I wouldn't stake my money on it.

[raf66]

I'm not sure if the OP's question about suing the state vs. suing a private entity has been answered so I'll add a little bit.

*Typically* states cannot be sued unless they've given an individual a right to sue in the state's code or constitution. No such restriction exists as to private industry. That's a HUGE benefit to the state because, as one could imagine, they don't enact too many statutes giving an individual that right. How big of a benefit is it? Well, take a look at the current farce of health care "reform" that's being championed by our president-select: as it's being touted there will be no individual right to sue the government for providing improper health care, even in instances of gross negligence or intentional misconduct in a decision to provide/pay for (or rather not provide/pay for) a particular procedure to a patient. The pres says that if it's between a red pill and a blue pill and the blue pill is less expensive, that's what the government will pay for. It's no wonder the current proposal exempts federal government employees and unions from participating in the "plan".

Oh, and by the way, the new "plan" also mandates that a person will be visited by your friendly federal government employee (probably one of the many "czars" that have been/will be appointed) once they turn 65 to discuss "end of life care" plans. And then that visit will continue every 5 years until death.

Wow, the government thinks it's too intrusive to require 70 yr. old drivers to have to retake the driving test but not to strong arm that same 70 yr. old into adopting a government "suggestion" as to their end of life care. I don't know about you but I give a "yay" vote on the old person driving test. I've seen far too many piss-poor drivers with diminished skills and coordination at an advanced age.

Ok, I've now outlined more of the "reform" proposal than 99% of the congressmen even know. It would seem that actually reading such a socialistic piece of legislation (or any piece of legislation for that matter) can actually come in handy.

I'm a little tired from being on my soapbox so I'm jumping down now.

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

I was gonna join this thread, but damn you guys are wordy.

Speaking of bureaucracy, I wonder how many health insurance companies there are in the US? Each with their own CEO. Their own IT department. Accounting and payroll. Marketing. Account managers. Lawyers. More marketing.

I wonder how the US could reduce some of that pointless, wasteful bureaucracy?

By your logic here, everything would be better with a monopoly in charge.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by raf66 

Oh, and by the way, the new "plan" also mandates that a person will be visited by your friendly federal government employee (probably one of the many "czars" that have been/will be appointed) once they turn 65 to discuss "end of life care" plans. And then that visit will continue every 5 years until death.

Can you post the source of this in the bill, or at least where it can be found? Because if true, that is mind-boggling.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

If you can't, doesn't all of the stuff you need in place as a private business to deal with litigation amount to more bureaucracy when this is inevitably passed on to the customer?

Wow. So now we've gotten to where cost-savings at ALL COST is the top priority?

No one I've ever met of any political persuasion is against having legal recourse against true negligence by a corporation. What people are often against is frivolous lawsuits for things that may well be just as much or more fault of the injured party, as the company that sold them whatever they were injured with. But clearly, -for example- if an automaker makes a car the blows up and kills people randomly, they should be held accountable. On the flipside, if the government has control over health decisions that end up costing people their lives, there will likely be no recourse.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

I was gonna join this thread, but damn you guys are wordy.

Speaking of bureaucracy, I wonder how many health insurance companies there are in the US? Each with their own CEO. Their own IT department. Accounting and payroll. Marketing. Account managers. Lawyers. More marketing.

I wonder how the US could reduce some of that pointless, wasteful bureaucracy?

This has already been addressed- all of those positions are in competition with the same positions of other companies. You market for example to attract business from another company. You hire managers at competitive salaries that would otherwise work for the competition. etc. etc. IF the corporate model is too bureaucratic to effectively compete, the business goes under and someone else that has survived fills the gap.

Where the argument comes from that a government monopoly bureaucracy is somehow obviously preferable to multiple private competitive bureaucracies, I'll never know, cause it doesn't make much sense.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

Speaking of bureaucracy, I wonder how many health insurance companies there are in the US? Each with their own CEO. Their own IT department. Accounting and payroll. Marketing. Account managers. Lawyers. More marketing.

I wonder how the US could reduce some of that pointless, wasteful bureaucracy?

That's a good point.

It comes down to "operational bureaucracy" of companies vs. the "inherent bureaucracy" of government run organizations.

What makes the former superior in my book is that they have much more need or pressure to adjust, since they are responsible to shareholders or owners that want to see a profit.

The government, OTOH, has no pressure to really cut costs or make things more efficiently.
Heck, they tout government employment as a stimulus, keeping people employed. Guess how concerned they are about efficiency, if the employment is seen as an act of keeping the economy going

-t

[Big Mac]

Bureaucracy in itself can be a positive thing. Bureaucracy establishes uniform rules for how an organization operates and delivers the services it provides. Bureaucracy can be a safeguard against inconsistent or undesirable results to a bureaucracy's clients. The problem is when bureaucracy becomes too large, complex, inefficient and wasteful. And that's what often happens in government, which does not have natural competition and therefore has little incentive to satisfy its clients (unless they're in positions of power).

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Bureaucracy in itself can be a positive thing. Bureaucracy establishes uniform rules for how an organization operates and delivers the services it provides. Bureaucracy can be a safeguard against inconsistent or undesirable results to a bureaucracy's clients. The problem is when bureaucracy becomes too large, complex, inefficient and wasteful. And that's what often happens in government, which does not have natural competition and therefore has little incentive to satisfy its clients (unless they're in positions of power).

To be honest, for me, bureaucracy has a throuroughly negative connotation.

When I talk about an organization's structure and processes, I would not refer to it as a "bureacucrazy", unless there are pathological inefficiencies present.

-t

[Big Mac]

I understand your view, turtle. I majored in Political Science, though, and took a course in civil service, so I go by the more textbook definition of the term.

[raf66]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

Can you post the source of this in the bill, or at least where it can be found? Because if true, that is mind-boggling.

Sorry for the delay but I'm on vacation on my family frowns on my dalliances to my favorite mac web sites.

Take a look at Sections 1233 subpars. E & F, pages 426-433 of the "plan" for some of the particulars on the 65 yr. old end-of-life services. Folks there really is no putting lipstick on this pig.

[dcmacdaddy]

EVERY large organisation has bureaucracy. It is endemic to the process of scaling larger. The issue with government bureaucracy is that once its gets bigger it is almost impossible to get it smaller again. Whereas Company X can layoff a bunch of folks when they are no longer needed the government can't do that, not easily anyway.

Having spent 12 years inside of a federal government agency I have seen my fair share of wasteful, redundant work done by people who could/should be fired. I have seen also more than my fair share of super-human effort on the part of individuals working to keep their office functioning and responsive when a budget impasse delays necessary spending or an agency-wide hiring freeze necessitates two people working 50+-hour-weeks as the norm because they can't replace the third person who left.

I don't think bureaucracy is in of itself a good or bad thing. I think the efficiency with which a bureaucracy accomplishes its tasks as being a better metric for judging the "value" of a bureaucracy to an organisation (in either the private sector or government sector). And as a reminder, the most efficient delivery of services is NOT necessarily the cheapest or the fastest method possible to deliver the service. Generally, there will be a trade-off between speed (hence cost) and quality. If you want high-quality service it cannot be done quickly for a low cost.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

I was gonna join this thread, but damn you guys are wordy.

Speaking of bureaucracy, I wonder how many health insurance companies there are in the US? Each with their own CEO. Their own IT department. Accounting and payroll. Marketing. Account managers. Lawyers. More marketing.

I wonder how the US could reduce some of that pointless, wasteful bureaucracy?

Originally Posted by Railroader 

By your logic here, everything would be better with a monopoly in charge.

By your logic here, pointing out that there is bureaucratic waste in the private insurance industry automatically means one is in favor of a monopoly in the insurance industry.


Bad Logic. Bad, bad Logic. Now go outside and sit under the tree until you remember what inductive reasoning is and how it functions.

[finboy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I'm wondering if this passionate dislike that some of you have for government programs based on the argument that they are destined to remain woefully inefficient for eternity is shaped by your own personal experiences? I'd like to understand this better, because my experiences are actually quite different.

I would conclude that your experiences may be limited. I would also conclude that your apparent expectation that government programs will improve over time, despite everything seen in human existence to this point, is due to the misty-eyed optimism of youth.

You're not alone - I see this all the time. Optimism is a wonderful thing, but I would rather not stake the future of our entire way of life on it.

Perhaps instead of defining liberal as a "conservative having yet to be mugged," we should define proponent of governmentization as "one having yet to rely on the government for anything." Deal with Medicare a few times, and your understanding of the real value of government improves quickly even while your esteem for government diminishes.

Most of the opinion difference here is purely maturity and experience. That's all. Some of us have had more experience than others.

As to the lawsuit thingy, it's impossible to sue the government. In most states, in fact, you have to get their permission to sue them. At the federal level, I'm pretty sure it's just impossible.

[el chupacabra]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I'm okay with the post office, with my BMV, with the services provided by my local government, with police, fire,

The post office? I remember when congress was going over a bill that would limit junk mail, and the PO protested because they said that was the bulk of their job... talk about a useless bureaucracy that has outlived its purpose. think about how environmentally destructive the post office is, the majority of clear cutting that is happening in this country is to give you junk mail. It wasn't too long ago I was battling big Potlatch co. who got in cahoots with big government to try and force me out of my land...so that they could turn it into paper. I damn near hate post office and hope they do some downsizing so those people can get real jobs doing productive things for society. Then again thats not how liberals work. Liberals want to preserve jobs regardless of how useless and antiquated the job is.

Contrast that to my experiences with some private companies: Duke Energy, Verizon, Ameritech, some web hosting companies, probably many more I've tried to put out of mind, and I've been through my share of bureaucratic hell.

Well the thing with the companies you mentioned is they have the chance to fail or be out competed if they become too bureaucratic. That was the beauty with what was happening between october and december last year. We were about to lose the worst of the worst companies...some of them so bad that their practice was forbidden in many countries around the world years ago, but not in the good old U S of A. Justiice was about to be served as the nature of their ways drove them into the ground....
But then the god damned liberals came to their rescue. And then they went even further and "promised" trillions more or whatever was needed to make sure they survived. To preserve the occupations of people whos job is to scam people out of money and create class separation.

I used to work at a very large state university and while it was inefficiently run, it was so because the VPs and other high level management were a bunch of ass hats. Most of the people who had there been there long enough acknowledged that things used to be much better.

This is the same thing that people say at every job. The majority of people in the world are ass hats and the older an organization gets the worse it gets.

I experienced enough there for a long enough time to know that it wasn't the state's problem, it was the people that were involved and the bad decisions they were making.

actually the state is who is telling the university what classes they have to offer and force you to take, i remember when I was forced to take intro to basket weaving among 20 other useless classes in order to be a computer engineer...what a waist.

....bad decisions have been made, there is too much red tape, etc. I have a hard time understanding how this is fundamentally exclusive domain of one or the other.

the government creates most the legal/red tape, even in private business; the gov forces unnecessary regulation on industry driving up price.

but I'd imagine not, in which case wouldn't at least the potential for less red tape and bureaucracy exist compared to a business held back by these sorts of liabilities?

No, I used to work for the government and theyre terrified of any complaints against them, even if a complaint is of no threat the great bureaucracy will come down with any excuse to axe rivals. In one aspect of my job I would write 1 half page ticket and send it in for a certain procedure. Six years later that half page turned into 4 full pages of information plus 4 screens of computer forms that needed filling out. A 5 min procedure became an hour procedure to accomplish the same thing; and thats just the start of it.

Either you care about what you do or you don't. Either you are held back by bad management or a bad work environment or you aren't. This can happen anywhere.

you are right. unfortunately it only takes a few bad managers to decide hey we need more paperwork and bureaucracy to ruin your ability to perform your job. By creating more bureaucracy the agency can say they are doing more work and demand more money to their use it or lose it budget; and by adding bureaucracy they have added job security. Compared to a corporation where managers need a surplus of money in their department to keep their job. The manger that runs the departments most efficiently wins or the company goes under...

Another question, how often are government programs inefficient because of a lack of resources? Take salary, for instance... Do you think that people are bad and unskilled because the pay may be lower than a similar job in the private sector?

Any federal career pays really well. Local gov jobs are based on local economy and politics/taxes.

What about jobs that have no private sector counterpart, such as planning road construction and stuff like that? Are these infrastructures with no competition still woefully inefficient because they are run by the government?

no, in fact I think the government should play a much larger role in road development than it is, as it is now roads are built with wealthy special interest in mind. I also think the gov should take over phone, internet and tv services; since they are inherent monopolies...that are already inefficient..

Doctors just bill Medicare instead of the patient, right - same medical service, just that Medicare "competes" with the insurance companies..

nope, incorrect. Medicare acts as an insurance but doesn't pay the doctor's going rate, they pay lower than any insurance company. When a patient goes to the doc the doc has no say what he gets paid...only what medicare says he gets paid. The result is most doctors refuse to take medicare patients. The only doctors I know that do take medicare patients are the hardcore christian types who believe in volunteering their time to help others. And I dare you find otherwise.

I dont disagree with having a medicare system that works for the poor, but the way they're going about it is insane...killing pirates in the Caribbean to fix healthcare.

1 we need more doctors

2 that means we need more med schools and funding for such it would be cheaper.

3. we need more nurse practictioners. for the simple things.

4. we need more P.A.s

5. and less government regulation in order to allow this to happen.


The reason our health care system works as good as it does, which isn't very good, is because its rationed; its rationed because their isnt enough medical professionals.

So if you have 5 oranges at 99 cents ea. and 20 people to feed, does giving 20 people 99 cents provide oranges for everybody?

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna

I was gonna join this thread, but damn you guys are wordy.

Speaking of bureaucracy, I wonder how many health insurance companies there are in the US? Each with their own CEO. Their own IT department. Accounting and payroll. Marketing. Account managers. Lawyers. More marketing.

I wonder how the US could reduce some of that pointless, wasteful bureaucracy?

Originally Posted by Railroader

By your logic here, everything would be better with a monopoly in charge.

By your logic here, pointing out that there is bureaucratic waste in the private insurance industry automatically means one is in favor of a monopoly in the insurance industry.

Bad Logic. Bad, bad Logic. Now go outside and sit under the tree until you remember what inductive reasoning is and how it functions.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Besson, you are right that those government entities do provide adequate services (not always, but often).

However, what you forget to factor in is AT WHAT COST.

The post office has been racking in losses for ages, so does Amtrak and other government run "businesses". But what's even worse: once the government runs it, there is no need to run it profitably, because the tax payer will foot the bill.

To state it simply: it's just an illusion to think the government could run everything as cost-inefficiently as it currently does run a few things, w/o cutting the service. You simply couldn't finance it by raising taxes to the level necessary to come up for he shortfall.

Health Care is so huge (cost wise) compared to Amtrak or the Postal Service. There is no way the government could keep it running at the same adequate service level for the money it will take.

-t

Don't forget how much of a loss a military racks in. Nevermind the massive bureaucracy of a military structure.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

Don't forget how much of a loss a military racks in. Nevermind the massive bureaucracy of a military structure.

Don't be silly! A government-funded military protects everyone in America, while a government-funded healthcare only protects fat, lazy and stupid poor people!

greg