The government can't do anything right.

[Dispatcher]

If one was to believe the conservatives on this forum and the Republican politicians, one would think that the federal government is incapable of doing anything right, (except, of course, wage war).
Two examples are always cited, Social Security and medicare.
And God forbid the Feds took over health care, there would be rationing, poor service, socialism, economic disaster, chaos, dogs and cats living together in sin, and the world as we know it would end.
The problem with this assumption is that it's simply incorrect.
The Federal government is slow, inefficient, wasteful, and unduly influenced by lobbyists. Still, the Federal Government does some things better than anyone else could.
Two examples come to mind....first, the private contractor companies hired to provide security, reconstruct iraq, and build infastructure. That went well, didn't it? Billions of taxpayer dollars just vanished and are unaccounted for. Schools, water and sewer projects, and other projects were never built, partially built, or built in a shoddy manner. Private Security Forces many times performed in a less than desireable manner, killing civilians and not exactly winning the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people. Even the military didn't like the private security companies. All the while, the owners and managers of these companies padded there bank accounts with a steady stream of money that had no oversight or accounting what so ever.

My second example is from personal experience working for a local (county) government. When I was hired as a Wastewater Operator in 1987, I was one of the first employees hired by a Sanitary Commision that had recently taken charge of the water and sewer utilities in a large development in Maryland. The private for profit company that had previously provided water and sewer service had been kicked out of the development by the home owners association, and the county had taken over.
Why was this private company that should have been able to do a better job than government kicked out? Because for years the owner of this company had padded his pockets with the homeowners' money without putting a dime in infrastucture repair and upgrades. The end result was sewer pumping stations and a sewage treatment plant that was over capacity and breaking down from lack of money for repairs. The money was there, the owner just didn't want to spend it. The same was true for the water system. It was so bad that the state department of environment clamped down a building moratorium (picture raw sewage running down the ditches and a house burning to the ground because there wasn't enough water pressure at the fire hydrant).
Then the county sanitary commission came in. They hired more operators. They upgraded both water and sewer pumping stations, upgraded the sewage treatment plant, replaced old water and sewer pipes, installed new fire hydrants.The building moritorium was lifted. There was joy in the development again. But of course, they raised the water and sewer rates right? No, they lowered them. Because they were not trying to make a huge profit, they could do so, and still pay for all the improvements over time.
So medicare and Social Security are insolvent. The two wars we are fighting are also unsustainable, yet we somehow always find the money to keep them going.
But, because it costs too much money, and big government is so bad, we should just scrap Medicare and Social Security. Or put it in the hands of corporations who only care about making a profit.
Then we can tell my wife, and all the other people that are disabled or elderly, "We're sorry, but you won't be getting medical care anymore and since there is no Social Security now, if you are too old or too bad off to work....you won't be eating or have a place to live anymore, so just get over it."
Maybe then the conservatives will be happy.
Maybe.
Funny though....conservatives don't seem to mind big government when it comes to the military and the ability to wage war.
I guess you have to have your priorities.

[stolz25]

Originally Posted by Dispatcher

Two examples come to mind....first, the private contractor companies hired to provide security, reconstruct iraq, and build infastructure. That went well, didn't it? Billions of taxpayer dollars just vanished and are unaccounted for. Schools, water and sewer projects, and other projects were never built, partially built, or built in a shoddy manner.

You do realize it was the government that was supposed to keep track of where they were spending the tax dollars? Not to mention making sure they actually were getting something for it.

Originally Posted by Dispatcher

My second example is from personal experience working for a local (county) government.

This example is pretty much the same thing. The people were counting on the government to take care of their water and the government hired a corrupt person to take care of it for them. And that's private business' fault somehow? The real crime is that the people had no way to get rid of the private company earlier and had to sit around and wait for the government to fix it for them.

Your examples of government doing better than private companies seem to hinge on taking private companies that didn't do the job at all (or are horrible by private standards) and comparing them to the best the government has to offer.

[stolz25]

Also, no one is saying that the government can't do anything right. Money spent by the government on private companies is every bit as bad as money spent by the government on government projects. The problem is that you don't have any clue if what the government is doing "right" is something that the individual people who contributed (via threat of jail) would actually want done with their money.

[Winston]

The government CAN run an effective program. Sure, the military is dominated by the military industrial complex that Ike warned us about. Sure, healthcare is dominated by a few players. And, believe it or not, the equity markets and our financial system is controlled by a few private equity firms. But, we made it to the moon, the Manhatten Project was ran well, and your butcher ain't going to chance putting his thumb on the scale. The problem is not rather the enterprise is private or public, the problem lies in the extortion of "economic rent".

It is easy to build wealth. But, it is a little more than spending less than you take in. The key is what is done with the excess. To build real intergenerational wealth you must attain assets that can be "rented", and then you transfer those assets to your decendents. Our government, like all republics, has transformed into a mercantalistic aristocracy--where government is utilized as a means of increasing the efficiency of the extortion of "rentier income".

It is the one area of agreement among both Keynes and Marx. "Rentier income" is BAD. It is Cingue's insect that sucks the marrow from the bones of the people. The entire last half of the 20th century was nothing but an attempt to justify "rentier income" as vital to the perpetuation of the Republic. An attempt to runaway from the truth discovered in the 19th century by Henry George. And now, we see those in power running to put out the fire that they started, and all the while looting the house while half-heartedly attempting to put out the flames.

[Dispatcher]

Originally Posted by stolz25

You do realize it was the government that was supposed to keep track of where they were spending the tax dollars? Not to mention making sure they actually were getting something for it.



This example is pretty much the same thing. The people were counting on the government to take care of their water and the government hired a corrupt person to take care of it for them. And that's private business' fault somehow? The real crime is that the people had no way to get rid of the private company earlier and had to sit around and wait for the government to fix it for them.

Your examples of government doing better than private companies seem to hinge on taking private companies that didn't do the job at all (or are horrible by private standards) and comparing them to the best the government has to offer.

The government did not hire this corrupt person to take care of the water and sewer utilities for them....the property developers did.
And if private enterprise is so good, why should the government have to keep track of what private contractors do in Iraq? That's like saying, it not the criminal's fault he robbed the bank...it is the fault of the police for not getting there in time.

[Photon1001]

In Mexico the police work for the drug gangs. If the bank paid the crime bosses then maybe they might show up. Unregulated industry is in fact much more successful than a regulated one, so successful that it creates regulations to maintain that success, prevent competition, just as the drug lords use the police to with force, regulated industry uses regulations to prevent competition. The difference is, of course that the regulated industries don't have to so violent since they have the peacekeeping police force on their side. When an entire industry is outright banned, however, things change. The "legit" government of Mexico is doomed, and soon enough, so will the American one, if they continue to ban things instead of regulating them. A pure anarchy state cannot exist as long as there is also an economy. Of course, such a paradise might be a place where everybody grew pot...

[stolz25]

Originally Posted by Dispatcher

And if private enterprise is so good, why should the government have to keep track of what private contractors do in Iraq? That's like saying, it not the criminal's fault he robbed the bank...it is the fault of the police for not getting there in time.

No it isn't. Private enterprise works not because everyone is angelic, but because people have the choice to find the best service they can. (Note: I'm completely drunk while typing this so I hope it's intelligible). Private companies work not because the companies themselves are fantastic, but because it's the individuals who choose how to spend their money.

[Photon1001]

Originally Posted by Dispatcher

And if private enterprise is so good, why should the government have to keep track of what private contractors do in Iraq?

I hope you don't mean those "private" contractors that the government paid to send over there to do the government's business for them, managing the aftermath of an unnecessary, unnatural, ongoing catastrophe that the government also created?

[The Great Catpiss]

Originally Posted by Dispatcher

Two examples are always cited, Social Security and medicare.

I just got a letter from social security. It stated that I should have no fear. They wont run out of money until the year I retire. WTF!??!?!?!?!!

The government is horribly inefficient at just about everything it does.

Your examples are flawed, btw. Private companies can be worse than the government. That doesn't mean the government is the best option. Find companies that can do the work properly. Also, when the government gets involved, funding can magically appear.

[Photon1001]

of course, funding can always magically appear, in fact it happens thousands (millions?) of times a day, practically every time a non-secured loan is issued.

[JaJae]

There doesn't seem to be any competition involved in the examples provided in this thread. Both instances in the first post show why allowing any entity to have complete control over something is generally a bad idea. It may start off well, but over time it often turns to crap. The competitive market is what typically keeps things in check.

This is not to say that things don't go awry in the competitive market, just that it is less likely to occur. The government typically spends more money and produces less of an outcome than the competitive market typically provides.

It seems this thread was created based off a comment I made in Sickguy's thread where he posted a letter to his state senators. And I stand still stand by that statement. Nothing said in this thread changes the fact that Medicare and Social Security (two of the government's largest programs) have essentially gone to crap. To suggest that somehow they could handle health care any better seems niave to me. Sure it may start off all well and good.. it typically does. All you have to do is look at our track record and what has happened in similar nations (IE-Canada) to see how well it will likely turn out.

[LikeIke]

Thanks to our brilliant government, we may soon need a perscription for Cheerios.

[Winston]

Originally Posted by JaJae

Nothing said in this thread changes the fact that Medicare and Social Security (two of the government's largest programs) have essentially gone to crap.

I believe you are slightly oversold on the Medicare and Social Security system has gone to crap. Few questions,

Is the poverty rate for the elderly lower now than it was before the implementation of the Social Security Act?

Medical improvement has led to a tremendous decrease in mortality rates, but--has the mortality rate for those over 65 decreased more significantly than other age groups since 1965?

How many college educations were funded with Social Security survivor benefits, how many orphans were kept out of poverty, how many of our elderly would be able to survive without Social Security benefits?

Do you carry disability insurance? What would the premium for that protection be without the dependability of long term disability benefits provided by Social Security?

Nope, before one condemn Social Security and Medicare they must provide a adoptable and workable alternative that could have provided the same benefits--both the active benefits like the prevention of poverty among the elderly, the disabled, and the orphaned, as well as the passive benefits, such as the employed Home Healthcare Aide and the medical coding clerk.

The real problem, the refusal to make a choice and attempt to have both a private and a public system of health care payment and retirement income. If you want the government to do it, then you let the government do it. If you private enterprise to do it, then you let them do it. But, the status quo is kind of like buying insurance at the blackjack table, a fool's bet--if you afraid of losing you shouldn't of bought in.

A CAT scan.

The uninsured gets billed $3500, and the hospital will use ever means possible to collect that debt.

The privately insured is billed $3500, but the hospital accepts $1500 from the private insurance company, a negotiated payment.

The Medicaid patient don't get a bill. The government pays the hospital $350, and they happy to get it within a year. And that is ALL they get.

Now, who is subsidizing who?

[Photon1001]

Well, in most any casino, as soon as you start to really win, you can expect that chances are good, you'll soon be accused of cheating and kicked out. There is not a single insurance company I've ever heard of that doesn't do anything and everything it can to purge itself of any and all liabilities. The question is what to do about the ppl who have become too much of a liability to insure?

[stolz25]

Originally Posted by Winston

Is the poverty rate for the elderly lower now than it was before the implementation of the Social Security Act?

These questions are a bit loaded aren't they? Even assuming the poverty rate is lower (I don't know if it is or not) there are a million different possible reasons for this to be.

Originally Posted by Winston

Medical improvement has led to a tremendous decrease in mortality rates, but--has the mortality rate for those over 65 decreased more significantly than other age groups since 1965?

This question doesn't even make any sense, since people still have to die sometime. Really, if medical improvements have lead to a tremendous decrease in mortality rates in every other age group, then the over 65 mortality rates would have to increase by default.

Originally Posted by Winston

How many college educations were funded with Social Security survivor benefits,

How many college educations weren't funded because of social security taxes?

Originally Posted by Winston

Nope, before one condemn Social Security and Medicare they must provide a adoptable and workable alternative that could have provided the same benefits--

No you don't. Suppose I don't believe these benefits are a right, and that stealing from people to give these benefits to people is theft. Why should I need to provide another alternative that would do the same thing?

Originally Posted by Winston

The uninsured gets billed $3500, and the hospital will use ever means possible to collect that debt.

This depends entirely on the hospital. A friend of mine at work had to pay for some of his sons medical bills (he's around 30 but doesn't carry any insurance). He called the hospital and negotiated down the bill first. Making it legal for hospitals and doctors to advertise costs would go a long way in helping this though. Medical service is the only place you go in completely blind and pay whatever they ask you when you are done.

[Photon1001]

Well, there still remains the fact that no "right" to anything, even life itself, or even one's own possessions and freedom could ever be proved to be in any kind of scientific fashion.

And the question of what to do with the ppl who cannot take care of themselves, either they being too old, too sick or just too incapable (and too broke of course). What logical answer lies left for them?

Obviously, death.

[The Great Catpiss]

Originally Posted by Photon1001

Well, there still remains the fact that no "right" to anything, even life itself, or even one's own possessions and freedom could ever be proved to be in any kind of scientific fashion.

And the question of what to do with the ppl who cannot take care of themselves, either they being too old, too sick or just too incapable (and too broke of course). What logical answer lies left for them?

Obviously, death.

Technically speaking, nothing can be proved in a scientific fashion as once it is proved it is no longer science.

Using science, you could come up with a conclusion that in a democratic society, people need certain rights in order to preserve order.

[Winston]

Originally Posted by stolz25

These questions are a bit loaded aren't they? Even assuming the poverty rate is lower (I don't know if it is or not) there are a million different possible reasons for this to be.

Elderly poverty in the U.S. decreased dramatically during the twentieth century. Between 1960 and 1995, the official poverty rate of those aged 65 and above fell from 35 percent to 10 percent, and research has documented similarly steep declines dating back to at least 1939. While poverty was once far more prevalent among the elderly than among other age groups, today's elderly have a poverty rate similar to that of working-age adults and much lower than that of children.

Social Security and Elderly Poverty

You would need to quantify some of those "million other things". The NBER study made adjustments for some. In fact, before Social Security it was quite common for the elderly to live with their children and depend upon family and charity. Again,

Applying this estimate to the change in Social Security benefits between 1967 and 2000 suggests that the increase in benefits can explain all of the 17 percentage point decline in poverty that occurred during this period. The authors also find that higher benefits lead some elderly to live independently rather than with family members, and conclude that the effect of Social Security on poverty would have been even more dramatic in the absence of these changes in living arrangements.

This question doesn't even make any sense, since people still have to die sometime. Really, if medical improvements have lead to a tremendous decrease in mortality rates in every other age group, then the over 65 mortality rates would have to increase by default.

The death rate is the number of deaths within a population divided by the number of people within that population. More people living longer has absolutely no effect on the death rate within a set population. A lower percentage of people over 65 are dying than before, significantly lower.

How many college educations weren't funded because of social security taxes?

Less than were funded by those benefits. What, did more people go to college before Social Security benefits were implemented? How were living conditions for orphans prior to the implementation of Survivor Benefits? You ever read Oliver Twist?

No you don't. Suppose I don't believe these benefits are a right, and that stealing from people to give these benefits to people is theft. Why should I need to provide another alternative that would do the same thing?

Then you have to make the argument that the providing of those benefits comes at a cost that exceeds the value derived. You have the make the argument that the world of Oliver Twist the orphan was much better than the world of Barack Obama, the orphan. I wait.

This depends entirely on the hospital. A friend of mine at work had to pay for some of his sons medical bills (he's around 30 but doesn't carry any insurance). He called the hospital and negotiated down the bill first. Making it legal for hospitals and doctors to advertise costs would go a long way in helping this though. Medical service is the only place you go in completely blind and pay whatever they ask you when you are done.

Oh yeah, advertising of pricing for the medical profession. Allowing pharmacetical companies and lawyers to advertise sure has provided great benefits. Check out the profit margins of the pharmacetical companies since the implementation of the Prescription Drug Marketing Act of 1987. While you at, take note that direct advertising to consumers of pharmaceticals has risen by 400% since changes in that act were adopted in 1997, and we wonder why prescription drug cost continue to garnish a ever growing share of our healthcare dollars.

[Photon1001]

Originally Posted by The Great Catpiss

Technically speaking, nothing can be proved in a scientific fashion as once it is proved it is no longer science.

Using science, you could come up with a conclusion that in a democratic society, people need certain rights in order to preserve order.

I'm not to sure about that first part, aren't scientific facts still scientific? No matter, though, the thing about rights is that we really only have them because we live in a democratic society. There was a time, only a cpl decades ago, iirc, where the people of Bolivia didn't even have a right to the water that fell from the sky. Literally, collecting rain water was a crime becase the company that owned all the rivers didn't want to lose the edge on their profit margins. Of course, that prompted the Bolivar revolution, and a more democratic Bolivia emerged, because the ppl demanded what they needed. So then, in practice you are correct, when the ppl don't get what they need, order isn't preserved and chaos ensues.

[SICKGUY]

Originally Posted by Dispatcher

If one was to believe the conservatives on this forum and the Republican politicians, one would think that the federal government is incapable of doing anything right, (except, of course, wage war).
Two examples are always cited, Social Security and medicare.
And God forbid the Feds took over health care, there would be rationing, poor service, socialism, economic disaster, chaos, dogs and cats living together in sin, and the world as we know it would end.
The problem with this assumption is that it's simply incorrect.
The Federal government is slow, inefficient, wasteful, and unduly influenced by lobbyists. Still, the Federal Government does some things better than anyone else could.
Two examples come to mind....first, the private contractor companies hired to provide security, reconstruct iraq, and build infastructure. That went well, didn't it? Billions of taxpayer dollars just vanished and are unaccounted for. Schools, water and sewer projects, and other projects were never built, partially built, or built in a shoddy manner. Private Security Forces many times performed in a less than desireable manner, killing civilians and not exactly winning the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people. Even the military didn't like the private security companies. All the while, the owners and managers of these companies padded there bank accounts with a steady stream of money that had no oversight or accounting what so ever.

My second example is from personal experience working for a local (county) government. When I was hired as a Wastewater Operator in 1987, I was one of the first employees hired by a Sanitary Commision that had recently taken charge of the water and sewer utilities in a large development in Maryland. The private for profit company that had previously provided water and sewer service had been kicked out of the development by the home owners association, and the county had taken over.
Why was this private company that should have been able to do a better job than government kicked out? Because for years the owner of this company had padded his pockets with the homeowners' money without putting a dime in infrastucture repair and upgrades. The end result was sewer pumping stations and a sewage treatment plant that was over capacity and breaking down from lack of money for repairs. The money was there, the owner just didn't want to spend it. The same was true for the water system. It was so bad that the state department of environment clamped down a building moratorium (picture raw sewage running down the ditches and a house burning to the ground because there wasn't enough water pressure at the fire hydrant).
Then the county sanitary commission came in. They hired more operators. They upgraded both water and sewer pumping stations, upgraded the sewage treatment plant, replaced old water and sewer pipes, installed new fire hydrants.The building moritorium was lifted. There was joy in the development again. But of course, they raised the water and sewer rates right? No, they lowered them. Because they were not trying to make a huge profit, they could do so, and still pay for all the improvements over time.
So medicare and Social Security are insolvent. The two wars we are fighting are also unsustainable, yet we somehow always find the money to keep them going.
But, because it costs too much money, and big government is so bad, we should just scrap Medicare and Social Security. Or put it in the hands of corporations who only care about making a profit.
Then we can tell my wife, and all the other people that are disabled or elderly, "We're sorry, but you won't be getting medical care anymore and since there is no Social Security now, if you are too old or too bad off to work....you won't be eating or have a place to live anymore, so just get over it."
Maybe then the conservatives will be happy.
Maybe.
Funny though....conservatives don't seem to mind big government when it comes to the military and the ability to wage war.
I guess you have to have your priorities.

good stuff!