Your Universal Remote Control Center
Custom Installers' Lounge Forum - View Post
Up level
Up level
The following page was printed from


Original thread:
Post 71 made on Friday October 4, 2013 at 02:47
Senior Member
May 2010
On October 4, 2013 at 00:41, BigPapa said...

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.

I'm beginning to wonder if you think "logical canard" means "empirical truth that does not jibe with my own political and societal ideology." ;-)

Ask a few doctors if their exhorbitant annual malpractice insurance fees--necessitated by unchecked litigation or threat thereof--are just a "logical canard..." I'm guessing they'll explain that malpractice insurance fees are tangible cost drivers that they pass on to us patients.

On the other hand, the notion of "private sector health care" IS very much a "logical canard." Calling our health care system "private sector" is like calling particiption in the federal income tax system "voluntary." In truth, we've not experienced "private sector" (i.e. free market) medical care provision in this country for 50+ years.

First--as previously stated--government introduces enormous cost distortions into "private markets" via Medicare, Medicaid and TriCare. I'm not saying these programs are necessarily bad, but they DO confer/shift costs to those of us outside of those programs and add considerable overhead costs via arduous compliance and reporting requirements. Just as you are not performing profitable work while filling out tax forms, a doctor is not delivering value to patients while he completes Medicade paperwork for services he's forced--by the government-- to deliver at a discounted rate.

More critically, "private sector" medical, insurance and pharma markets are the most heavily regulated and artificially controlled markets on earth. The extent of government involvement IS de facto Corporatism. How has Corporatism served us...? We both agree that it has not served us well as regards affordable health care delivery.

You argue that the "private sector" (i.e. free market) has failed us and that we must abandon the free market model. I argue that the government destroyed the medical free market decades ago and that we are suffering the ravages of corporatism and governmental overreach.

Given the precarious financial state of EVERY government entitlement and given government's structural inhibitors to innovation, I assert that injecting more government into our health care market will inevitably kill both the patient and the doctor.

Only time will tell which of us has correctly diagnosed what ailes us.
"Whatever is rightly done, however humble, is noble." [Sir Henry Royce]

Hosting Services by ipHouse