Dorkington Posted June 19, 2014 Share Posted June 19, 2014 How do you know government "functions well'? I don't. I already said so. All I have is an opinion based on the empirical evidence of my own experiences. I do not have any comprehensive metrics to compare most government functions to a private alternative, as there's no clone of the United States that exists sans government. The best I can do is look at the history of the US, specifically the before/after effects of various government programs. But I do not have the time to do such a study, and as such I rescind my point of view, as I cannot back up my argument with the requested metrics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted June 19, 2014 Share Posted June 19, 2014 I don't. I already said so. That's a step in the right direction. All I have is an opinion based on the empirical evidence of my own experiences. Those are ancedotal, as you know. A quality individual experience delivered is not nearly synonymous with well functioning. I do not have any comprehensive metrics to compare most government functions to a private alternative, as there's no clone of the United States that exists sans government. The best I can do is look at the history of the US, specifically the before/after effects of various government programs. Let's start there. List the functions that you believe various government institutions or programs "perform well". (Your prior list provided was not such a list. Such a list would incude examples of efficiency, high service levels, end user friendliness, accessability, etc.; within those government sectors.) But I do not have the time to do such a study, and as such I rescind my point of view, as I cannot back up my argument with the requested metrics. If you don't know that government "fuctions well", then why do you assume it "functions well"? Further, what parts of government would you say don't "function well", and what differentiates them from those that do? When answering, please keep in mind that "functions well" is not synonymous with "things I believe government should be involved in". Thanks in advance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted June 19, 2014 Share Posted June 19, 2014 (edited) Show me comprehensive metrics. You know my favorite, favorite part of this? Very soon, gatorturds and the like will be BEGGING us for the observable in real time, consistent, comprehensive metrics that literally only we can provide(not soley due to technical approach, but also due to method/understanding). Nobody understands any of this yet, and that's fine, because they have no reason to care. This is all arcane, barely relevant stuff right now. It's just fun to see this now, knowing what I know about things like Meaningful Use....and knowing what I know about how gatorturd et al will be forced to defend it. What they will require, and more importantly, whom they will require it from? Hilarious. Edited June 19, 2014 by OCinBuffalo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Large Posted June 19, 2014 Share Posted June 19, 2014 I don't. I already said so. All I have is an opinion based on the empirical evidence of my own experiences. I do not have any comprehensive metrics to compare most government functions to a private alternative, as there's no clone of the United States that exists sans government. The best I can do is look at the history of the US, specifically the before/after effects of various government programs. But I do not have the time to do such a study, and as such I rescind my point of view, as I cannot back up my argument with the requested metrics. Overall healthcare outcomes, which are measured from data, can be the basis for the argument of "Government Single Payor/ Nationalized Medicine" delivers better access and comprable care in comparison to a fully private system. Start there to establish Government "Functioning Well" Healthcare is one of the few places I see the Role of Government as benefical to the system and citizen, or in simple terms, where I think it functions well. That being said, I think Single Payor Risk Pool with dedcutibles basedon income are the way to go, not a Nationalized System Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dorkington Posted June 19, 2014 Share Posted June 19, 2014 Overall healthcare outcomes, which are measured from data, can be the basis for the argument of "Government Single Payor/ Nationalized Medicine" delivers better access and comprable care in comparison to a fully private system. Start there to establish Government "Functioning Well" Healthcare is one of the few places I see the Role of Government as benefical to the system and citizen, or in simple terms, where I think it functions well. That being said, I think Single Payor Risk Pool with dedcutibles basedon income are the way to go, not a Nationalized System I could easily point to a dozen studies comparing different countries, but it'd get thrown out since they aren't *this* country. And we can't compare Medicare in this country to privatized, because Medicare only covers a certain segment of the population. Any comparison would have faults, and thus would be irrelevant. The only way to truly compare a socialized system and a privatized system is to have two copies of the United States that exist in perfectly parallel realities. Obviously that is impossible for me to achieve. That's a step in the right direction. Those are ancedotal, as you know. A quality individual experience delivered is not nearly synonymous with well functioning. Let's start there. List the functions that you believe various government institutions or programs "perform well". (Your prior list provided was not such a list. Such a list would incude examples of efficiency, high service levels, end user friendliness, accessability, etc.; within those government sectors.) If you don't know that government "fuctions well", then why do you assume it "functions well"? Further, what parts of government would you say don't "function well", and what differentiates them from those that do? When answering, please keep in mind that "functions well" is not synonymous with "things I believe government should be involved in". Thanks in advance. I have zero answers for you. Any metrics I could possibly provide would have their own set of faults, and could be thrown out for being imperfect. I'm sorry to disappoint you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Large Posted June 19, 2014 Share Posted June 19, 2014 I could easily point to a dozen studies comparing different countries, but it'd get thrown out since they aren't *this* country. And we can't compare Medicare in this country to privatized, because Medicare only covers a certain segment of the population. Any comparison would have faults, and thus would be irrelevant. The only way to truly compare a socialized system and a privatized system is to have two copies of the United States that exist in perfectly parallel realities. Obviously that is impossible for me to achieve. Vermont will be your test case for comparison- you can compare State systems here domestically. You can use Medicare, and it might be a good one to use in your argument. The issue with Medicare is is cover people who represent 20% of the population, but use 80% of the medical resources- that would not be indicative of the general population, which one would theorize if it includes a diverfified risk pool, ie the American Citizenry would be less expensive and much more efficient adminstratively, with information sharing and less confusion on the part of pateints to whats "included" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted June 19, 2014 Share Posted June 19, 2014 I could easily point to a dozen studies comparing different countries, but it'd get thrown out since they aren't *this* country. And we can't compare Medicare in this country to privatized, because Medicare only covers a certain segment of the population. Any comparison would have faults, and thus would be irrelevant. The only way to truly compare a socialized system and a privatized system is to have two copies of the United States that exist in perfectly parallel realities. Obviously that is impossible for me to achieve. I have zero answers for you. Any metrics I could possibly provide would have their own set of faults, and could be thrown out for being imperfect. I'm sorry to disappoint you. Then you're a complete moron for believing as you do. That's all you've managed to demonstrate, as you have litterally no basis for anything you believe other than your feelings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted June 19, 2014 Share Posted June 19, 2014 Compare USPS to UPS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Large Posted June 19, 2014 Share Posted June 19, 2014 Compare USPS to UPS. ex except that the USPS uses Fedex and UPS instead of mainting their own planes, and UPS and FEDex don't want that indivdual mail delivery business. It is perhaps a well documented scenario of public/ private synergy working well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted June 19, 2014 Share Posted June 19, 2014 ex except that the USPS uses Fedex and UPS instead of mainting their own planes, and UPS and FEDex don't want that indivdual mail delivery business. It is perhaps a well documented scenario of public/ private synergy working well. Except USPS is broke. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted June 19, 2014 Share Posted June 19, 2014 (edited) ex except that the USPS uses Fedex and UPS instead of mainting their own planes, and UPS and FEDex don't want that indivdual mail delivery business. It is perhaps a well documented scenario of public/ private synergy working well. It's not that UPS and FedEx don't want that business, it's that they are legally prohibited from conducting it by Federal law. In fact, the only reason an exemption was created for private parcell business in the first place, was that the Federal Government said that what UPS and FedEx do, couldn't possibly be done, so they had no issues with giving up that portion of Federal monopoly. Additionally, that USPS opperates in the red, as 3rd pointed out; while what the postal service said couldn't possibly be achieved, makes money hand over fist. I'll also note, however, that while the USPS doesn't "function well", it is a necessary and legitimate function of the Federal government, as it is vital to domestic national security. Edited June 19, 2014 by TakeYouToTasker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Large Posted June 19, 2014 Share Posted June 19, 2014 Except USPS is broke. That's a debate about pre-funded versus paygo with regards to pension and HC beny's to postal workers. I guess in the end is that with current mail delivery schedule and the redution in postage revenue because of the internet, it a question of dealing with shortages now, or when pensioners cash in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azalin Posted June 19, 2014 Share Posted June 19, 2014 That's a debate about pre-funded versus paygo with regards to pension and HC beny's to postal workers. I guess in the end is that with current mail delivery schedule and the redution in postage revenue because of the internet, it a question of dealing with shortages now, or when pensioners cash in. that's a pretty screwed up deal though. the way I understand it, congress requires the post office to pay approximately 5 billion anually to fund their pensions, but the money is placed directly into the general fund and not into any account to back the the pensions. they essentially start the year with a 5 billion dollar deficit and have to try to play catch up all year long, then they get nailed for operating in the red. that's not to say that the USPS can't be run more efficiently, but they get unfair negative PR for their annual losses because most people never hear about the mandatory pension payment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dorkington Posted June 20, 2014 Share Posted June 20, 2014 Vermont will be your test case for comparison- you can compare State systems here domestically. You can use Medicare, and it might be a good one to use in your argument. The issue with Medicare is is cover people who represent 20% of the population, but use 80% of the medical resources- that would not be indicative of the general population, which one would theorize if it includes a diverfified risk pool, ie the American Citizenry would be less expensive and much more efficient adminstratively, with information sharing and less confusion on the part of pateints to whats "included" I'm very excited to see what happens in Vermont. I truly hope its a success. Then you're a complete moron for believing as you do. Cool story. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted June 20, 2014 Share Posted June 20, 2014 Cool story. Hardly. It's a sad story. You can't feel your way through difficult problems. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dorkington Posted June 20, 2014 Share Posted June 20, 2014 Ok. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted June 20, 2014 Share Posted June 20, 2014 Vermont will be your test case for comparison- you can compare State systems here domestically. You can test it, but it's not going to lead to any reasonable conclusions. We are a country with a population of 315 million, Vermont has about 600k. Hardly a good test case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Large Posted June 20, 2014 Share Posted June 20, 2014 that's a pretty screwed up deal though. the way I understand it, congress requires the post office to pay approximately 5 billion anually to fund their pensions, but the money is placed directly into the general fund and not into any account to back the the pensions. they essentially start the year with a 5 billion dollar deficit and have to try to play catch up all year long, then they get nailed for operating in the red. that's not to say that the USPS can't be run more efficiently, but they get unfair negative PR for their annual losses because most people never hear about the mandatory pension payment. I like the idea of actually funding pension obligations- but yes, with hat money not sitting in an accoutn ready to meet future obligations, I wonder what can happen to it- I assume, spending. You can test it, but it's not going to lead to any reasonable conclusions. We are a country with a population of 315 million, Vermont has about 600k. Hardly a good test case. Is its successful, the question will be can is be scaled to meet a much larger number. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azalin Posted June 20, 2014 Share Posted June 20, 2014 I like the idea of actually funding pension obligations- but yes, with hat money not sitting in an accoutn ready to meet future obligations, I wonder what can happen to it- I assume, spending. yep, just like all the social security tax that's supposedly going into a separate account, it all actually goes into the general fund. which of course has been overspent by approximately 9 trillion dollars in the last six years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dorkington Posted June 20, 2014 Share Posted June 20, 2014 You can test it, but it's not going to lead to any reasonable conclusions. We are a country with a population of 315 million, Vermont has about 600k. Hardly a good test case. If it goes well, I wouldn't be surprised to see a couple more states look into it, and if those go well... etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts