[Brenda]

Talking about snow removal... When the city did it, it got done. Now it's contracted out to a private company, it was totally shit. I rather see the government take care of it than a private company.

[martin14]

You're right Lemmy, I should have said less expensive.

To be fair, a lot of the services you mention don't really have a private
sector equivalent to compare to, society having decided to put that service
in the government realm.

BF has been trying to argue that a public service health care option will
be cheaper than private.. this is just wrong.


It would be interesting to pick on... maybe winter snow removal,
and compare the costs of a private contractor vs. gov't.

But thats another thread.

[Lemmy]

martin14 wrote:

BF has been trying to argue that a public service health care option will
be cheaper than private.. this is just wrong.

It would be interesting to pick on... maybe winter snow removal,
and compare the costs of a private contractor vs. gov't.

But thats another thread.

Well, I'm not convinced its wrong with healthcare either. Cutting out the profit motive, cutting out insurance provision and keeping costs like medication and doctors' salaries in check are likely to make a public option less expensive. Now, I'm talking more about regulatory aspects of the system than public vs private, but a public system makes regulation easier.

If nothing else, the American movement towards a public system ought to provide us with the research to say whether it's more efficient or not. Right now, we just don't know. But, as I said before, the removal of private insurance companies from the system seems the greatest justification of the public system over a private one.

[martin14]

Lemmy wrote:

martin14 wrote:

BF has been trying to argue that a public service health care option will
be cheaper than private.. this is just wrong.

It would be interesting to pick on... maybe winter snow removal,
and compare the costs of a private contractor vs. gov't.

But thats another thread.

Well, I'm not convinced its wrong with healthcare either. Cutting out the profit motive, cutting out insurance provision and keeping costs like medication and doctors' salaries in check are likely to make a public option less expensive.

Not sure if the reforms will cure any of this.

[Lemmy]

martin14 wrote:

Not sure if the reforms will cure any of this.

Nor am I. We'll have to wait and see. I wouldn't go rushing out to buy stock in American insurance companies right now though.

[herbie]

Proculation wrote:

herbie wrote:

No I'll call your bullshit.
Anything they privatized costs more, deliver less and pockets what they fuck over their employees for.

Ok, that was a joke, right ? Really tell me that was a joke..

No joke. Sick and fucking tired of this rightwing b.s. basing everything on tired cliches.

Name one. Name one privatized service that's actually better.
One.

Even better, come on up here and argue face to face. Like Brenda mentioned, don't try to after the 15th of the month when the overtime budget's run out. It's winter and the fucking road won't be plowed if it ain't 8am-4pm Mon-Fri.
We can discuss it over a bottle. Bring an extra $7 cuz the normal LCB is shutting down 2 hours early and between 1:30 and 2:30 in the afternoon so they can come up with sales figures to justify closing it.
And don't get in any shit on the way there's no public defender anymore. You have to drive back 200 kms and grovel in a regular Law Office.
Bring a spare. Their going to come out with more stimulus funds one day so WTF would the private road crew do any maintenance?

[Lemmy]

herbie wrote:

No joke. Sick and fucking tired of this rightwing b.s. basing everything on tired cliches.

Name one. Name one privatized service that's actually better.
One.

Even better, come on up here and argue face to face. Like Brenda mentioned, don't try to after the 15th of the month when the overtime budget's run out. It's winter and the fucking road won't be plowed if it ain't 8am-4pm Mon-Fri.
We can discuss it over a bottle. Bring an extra $7 cuz the normal LCB is shutting down 2 hours early and between 1:30 and 2:30 in the afternoon so they can come up with sales figures to justify closing it.
And don't get in any shit on the way there's no public defender anymore. You have to drive back 200 kms and grovel in a regular Law Office.
Bring a spare. Their going to come out with more stimulus funds one day so WTF would the private road crew do any maintenance?

There is lots of literature on the privatization of Alberta's retail of liquor.

http://www.lib.uwo.ca/programs/generalbusiness/privatizationoftheliquorbusiness.html

Other major Canadian success stories from privatization include CN, Petro Canada and the Canadian Development Corporation. In Ontario, most agricultural services were privatized, with great success, in the 1990s. OMAF's services were broken into companies such as BIO (Beef Improvement Ontario), OSI (Ontario Swine Improvement), etc.

There are THOUSANDS of cases worldwide where privatization has been an overwhelming success. How many references/examples do you want?

Also check out: "Privatization: An Economic Analysis" - J. Vickers & G. Yarrow, 1988, MIT
"The Impact of Privatization: Ownership & Corporate Performance in the UK" - S. Martin & D. Parker, 1997, Rutledge.
"International Handbook on Privatization" - ED: D. Parker & D. Saal, 2003, Edward Elgar. (Dave Parker has done a lot of work on UK privatization)
"The Interdependenc Between Ownership Status and Market Structure: The Case of Privatization" - C. Fershtman, Tel Aviv, in Economica (57).

You can be angry if you want, Herbie, but the evidence and the literature supports that privatization is preferred in most circumstances. I have already suggested some of the places where economies of scale exist which may justify public provision, including, possibly, healthcare.

[BartSimpson]

Lemmy wrote:

Cutting out the profit motive, cutting out insurance provision and keeping costs like medication and doctors' salaries in check are likely to make a public option less expensive.

Hate to say, but it is unworkable so long as the lawyers are able to extort huge claims from the doctors. If an individual doctor is limited to making, say, $300,000 per year while still being required to pay $250,000 per year in malpractice insurance we will see experienced physicians bailing out of healthcare in droves.

Health care reform absent tort reform is wholly unworkable in the long run.

[BeaverFever]

martin14 wrote:

Lemmy wrote:

martin14 wrote:

BF has been trying to argue that a public service health care option will
be cheaper than private.. this is just wrong.

Cheaper for the consumer ie the person digging in their pocket to pay a premium or come up with a fee. "socializing" the costs of health care by spreading it across all taxpayers is cheaper to the participant than splitting up this basse into different groups. On top of that the profit motive is a MARK UP on any cost. Any good or service you purchase is sold to you at cost plus MARK UP. Subsidizing something with taxpayer money is WHY it is more affordable to the user who has to come up the out of pocket expense. The analagoy of mailing a letter for 44 cents is the point. The govt subsidy makes it affordable. My point is that the govt subsidy makes this vital service ACCESSIBLE and AFFORDABLE to the citizen, which is the whole point to begin with, to do something for the people.

[BeaverFever]

BartSimpson wrote:

Lemmy wrote:

Cutting out the profit motive, cutting out insurance provision and keeping costs like medication and doctors' salaries in check are likely to make a public option less expensive.

Hate to say, but it is unworkable so long as the lawyers are able to extort huge claims from the doctors. If an individual doctor is limited to making, say, $300,000 per year while still being required to pay $250,000 per year in malpractice insurance we will see experienced physicians bailing out of healthcare in droves.

Health care reform absent tort reform is wholly unworkable in the long run.

Agree, but the tort reform should come in the form of limiting awards for non-tagible claims like punitive damanges and "pain and suffering." Unfortunately, nobody in the US wants to do that. Instead those seeking reform have tried to leave the awards system as is and have tried to limit contigency fees instead so that only people who can afford to pay lawyers up front can sue. The wealthy and businesses love to sue eachother for exorbitant sums, they just dont like getting sued by us common folk so this is the solution they came up with. But this is off topic.

[ASLplease]

I am in favor of a system thjat uses public healthcare and private healthcare. Too much of either one is bound to screw us.

[ASLplease]

Private companies that screw us should be at risk of being nationalized.

And, public organizations that screw us should be at risk of privatization.

I see no other solution.

[Zipperfish]

ASLplease wrote:

I am in favor of a system thjat uses public healthcare and private healthcare. Too much of either one is bound to screw us.

Egg-zackly. Like anything else the public/private business is a continuum, not a dichotomy.