On October 3, 2013 at 23:53, Tom Ciaramitaro said...
OK, so we all agree on the problem, it's the solution that eludes us.
So to carry forward your line of reasoning, and not leave it hanging...
If you had a choice between two government run and privately run "institutions", which would you choose based on wanting to receive the best quality of service and most efficient operation (affecting your ability to RECEIVE the best quality service)?
Worded differently, would you say government is typically better at qos and efficiency?
This is a faulty line of questioning as it starts with a premise (the government sucks, because) meant to direct the person being asked a question into that original premise.
It's also not very effective as we are comparing two different things: the government and private sector.
I didn't leave anything hanging nor partially carry a line of reasoning: I challenge(d) the notion, the oft repeated dogmatic mantra, that the government sucks and the private sector is awesome at delivering goods and/or services. Well, I think the private sector does a good job of delivering many things, such as hot dog buns, mayonnaise, and delicious beer. And sometimes AV systems, despite manufacturers. Nobody questions this and there is no pending legislation for the government to take over the production and delivery of beer and mayonnaise and Sonos systems.
However, the private sector has not done a very good job of delivering health care. When it is good, it is expensive. And sometimes, it is not good. And still expensive.
Which is the reason the government got involved to tackle the problem in the first place. Especially the issue of people not insured or being able to afford health care. Which taxes the existing system even more. Unless everybody is cool with that situation...
So it seems illogical to complain about the government being wasteful, inefficient, and all around sucky when the private sector seems to have not done a very good job of delivering the service in the first place. And we're not talking about beer or mayonnaise here, we're talking about health care.
You should not be engaging a line of quesitoning asking me to defend government. You should be asking yourself, and everybody else, if the private sector should deliver health care to the citizens or if the government should manage it (more than it is managed now).
The private sector has failed at delivering health care (unless you're wealthy). So I think the question should be asked of people who pshaw and scoff at government, why are you defending the continuance of the private sector delivering this service?
And you should not get distracted by ideological canards such as 'lawsuits drive the costs up!' and 'everybody gets health care in an emergency room' and 'Socialism!'
But while working yourself through these questions you have to acknowledge that the answer has been a Yes from our government and the populace that elected them, a central platform of the current Administration, signed into law years ago, challenged in court, and challenged in Congress 41 times.
So while I wait for the state portals to deal with the overloaded servers (we have time, the deadline is not for 2 1/2 months), I'll acknowledge the government sucks because the servers are down. But not for one second will I wish for the private sector to take over because of all the times private companies have frustrated me to no end (even with *all* of my choices) and their servers crashed as well.