[Wondergirl]

but you wouldn't dream of stepping into a VA office yourself to take care of your medical needs, even though as a wartime Vet you are eligible for their services. Government health care is good enough for poor folks, but not for excon.

For years, I accompanied my WWII vet uncle (who had a nice nest egg) to a nearby VA hospital for checkups and ongoing care, even as an in-patient. I was always impressed by the courtesy and care he received, from the receptionist to the technicians to the doctors.

[Wondergirl]

No, she's all wet because the very agencies she mentioned are the very examples of government inefficicency that we're talking about.

My experiences with the VA and SS so far have been above reproach. My younger son has worked for a total of twelve years for two large, well-known companies and has often mentioned their inefficiencies. You don't think corporate America is guilty of such?

[ETWolverine]

My experiences with the VA and SS so far have been above reproach. My younger son has worked for a total of twelve years for two large, well-known companies and has often mentioned their inefficiencies. You don't think corporate America is guilty of such?

Of course it is. But excon's solution to corporate inefficiency was government intervention. And my point is that no matter how inefficient corporate America can be, the government is MUCH worse.

I have never seen a corporation spend $500 for a $2 hammer, have you?

I have never seen a corporate entity that was $42 Trillion in debt with no assets remain in business. But the SS Aministration does it.

I have never seen a corporate agency that continually loses money for their business partners continue to get funding from its investors and do business wth those partners. But Medicare and Medicaid, both of which are costing states huge amounts of losses every year continue to receive federal and state dollars and continue to operate in those states.

Corporate entities that waste so much money that they go broke go out of business. Government agencies that waste so much money that they go broke get emergency appropriations from Congress and continue to lose money.

There is a magnitude of difference between corporate inefficiency and government inefficiency.

Elliot

[phlanx]

Evening Elliot

I am sure you can recognise that when a committee, organisation or a government is repsosible for spending money they will do so with peoples interest at heart

When a company spends money, a board or single person makes that decision with purely the bottom line in mind

Therefore there will always be a gap between efficiency of a company and a government

Do you accept that point of view?

Steve

[ETWolverine]

Evening Elliot

I am sure you can recognise that when a committee, organisation or a government is repsosible for spending money they will do so with peoples interest at heart

Actually, I recognize the exact opposite. NOBODY spends money with the interest of other people's interests at heart. Even charitable organizations do it because there's something in it for them. And governments are probably the worst...

When a company spends money, a board or single person makes that decision with purely the bottom line in mind

When a government agency spends money, they do it for one of two reasons... either to gain additional power for itself, or to create social engineerring. Usually the social engineering is done so that they can gain additional power for themselves.

Therefore there will always be a gap between efficiency of a company and a government

Do you accept that point of view?

Steve

Sure, I can accept that there is a REASON that governments are less efficient than businesses (though I don't agree that it is a good reason). But if, as excon has argued, the point of health care reform is to make it more EFFICIENT in order to make it more affordable through less wasteful spending, then nationalizing the system is counter-productive to that goal. Can you understand the logic of that position?

Elliot

[phlanx]

I can and I do agree, Politicians and their organisations should never run anything

However, I think on some levels, you should never let a business run it either

A business is never answerable to the people, governments are

Governments can't work efficiently, businessess can

And yet these are the two choices available to everyone

So what would you suggest to make the givernment more efficient?

I ask, because we all know, another level of administration hikes the price even further

Steve

[Wondergirl]

I have never seen a corporation spend $500 for a $2 hammer, have you?

No. They use 4"x4" Post-It Notes when 2"x2" ones would suffice. Don't even ask about our paperless corporations that buy tons and tons of copier and printer paper.

What about $40 for an aspirin?

[excon]

There is a magnitude of difference between corporate inefficiency and government inefficiency.

Hello again:

This from a fellow who calls emergency rooms EFFICIENT if the doctors work EFFICIENTLY. It doesn't occur to him that treating people for a cold in the emergency room ISN'T EFFICIENT, no matter HOW well organized the doctor is.

Believe what he says about EFFICIENCY, at your own risk.

I WILL provide the link, if the Wolverine denies he said it.

excon

[phlanx]

The only differnce I can think off between a company and government is this

A company will spend money to earn money, so the less they spend the more money they have at the end of the week to pay themselves

A government will spend money to earn praise, and regardless of how much they spend, they still get paid at the end of the week

I think until a politician has to account for his expenses every week to then provide his wages at the end of it, the system of overspend will never change

I also find it interesting that regardless of country, cultural back ground, all governments follow the same pattern

So it is a by product of the system, and I can't see anything out there that will alter it

[ETWolverine]

The only differnce I can think off between a company and government is this

A company will spend money to earn money, so the less they spend the more money they have at the end of the week to pay themselves

A government will spend money to earn praise, and regardless of how much they spend, they still get paid at the end of the week

I think until a politician has to account for his expenses every week to then provide his wages at the end of it, the system of overspend will never change

I also find it interesting that regardless of country, cultural back ground, all governments follow the same pattern

So it is a by product of the system, and I can't see anything out there that will alter it

You hit on something important here... corporations worry about their bottoms lines and so they SPEND LESS to maximize that bottom line. Whereas governments do not have to watch the bottom line... in fact, they have a spend-it-or-lose-it policy here in the USA. Whatever they don't spend won't be budgeted to them next year, so they spend every penny they get and MORE to justify the need for a larger budget next year.

Which means that a government will ALWAYS overspend, whereas a corporation will always try to MINIMIZE spending.

Guess which of these results in lower costs to the consumer.

Elliot

[Wondergirl]

Guess which of these results in lower costs to the consumer.

You musta missed this part: "so the less they spend the more money they have at the end of the week to pay themselves." (Psssst, they don't care about the consumer.)

[phlanx]

You know Elliot, you guys speak with a different accent, and yet we are kin

they have a spend-it-or-lose-it policy here in the USA

It is exactly the same here in the UK, most of Europe is the same, with eastern blocks emerging as equal partners of the EU, their system of governments are becoming the same

Who started that trend with budgeting, and where do they live :)

[phlanx]

You musta missed this part: "so the less they spend the more money they have at the end of the week to pay themselves." (Psssst, they don't care about the consumer.)

Show me a politician and a businessman and I will expose two liars

[ETWolverine]

You know Elliot, you guys speak with a different accent, and yet we are kin



It is exactly the same here in the UK, most of Europe is the same, with eastern blocks emerging as equal partners of the EU, their system of governments are becoming the same

Who started that trend with budgeting, and where do they live :)

I THINK that it started with the US government, but I'm not sure of that. I have no idea when the UK government started that budgeting practice. I am pretty sure that ALL western governments use the same basic methodology for budgeting... which just proves my point about government in general. Ain't none of 'em that are more efficient than a private sector business.

So... if your goal is to improve efficiency in order to bring down cost for the consumer (which is excon's main argument in favor of government-run health care) then you are being counter-productive when you hand it over to the government.

Elliot

[ETWolverine]

You musta missed this part: "so the less they spend the more money they have at the end of the week to pay themselves." (Psssst, they don't care about the consumer.)

They don't have to "care about the consumer". The result for the consumer occurs whether the business owner cares about the consumer or not. It is a natural byproduct of higher efficiency... both the consumer and the service provider benefit. The consumer pays less for the product and the owner of the business takes home greater profits. BOTH of them benefit.

Part of your problem, Wondergirl, is that you believe that if a business benefits, it must mean that the consumer is bwing screwed over and is losing out. To you, business is a zero-sum game... if one side of the transaction wins, the other side must lose. But that is simply not true. In most transactions, BOTH parties benefit. The guy who sells a car benefits by receiving money... hopefully more money than he paid for the car in the first place. The guy buying the car also benefits by receiving the product that he paid for in good working order. Neither one has been "screwed" in the deal. Both benefit equally. Similarly, when the insurance provider creates greater efficiencies, both he and his customer benefit equally... he increases his profitability, and the consumer pays less for his insurance.

You should really read Adam Smith's "Wealth of Nations", especially the part about the "invisble hand". It explains how people working solely for their own benefit (to make themselves rich) create benefits to others as well (greater efficiencies, new products, lower prices, better services). It is the entire basis for the capitalist system and it has worked in the real world for centuries now. But the basic point I am making is that all parties involved benefit from greater efficiencies and lower pricing... and it doesn't matter whether the insurance company owner CARES for his customers or not.

Elliot

[phlanx]

Morning Elliot

I agree with your points on business, I run my own businesses and as such, I do care about the customer, in as much as I want see them benefit from the product I sell

This obviously is a selfish act, as I want them to praise me and my product so word of mouth reputation will make more sales

However, there are certain aspects of business that I don't like when it connects social reform

Don't you think there is a case where business and government can work together to improve the governments effiecently while still leaving a voice for the people to address issues?

[ETWolverine]

Hello again:

This from a fellow who calls emergency rooms EFFICIENT if the doctors work EFFICIENTLY. It doesn't occur to him that treating people for a cold in the emergency room ISN'T EFFICIENT, no matter HOW well organized the doctor is.

Believe what he says about EFFICIENCY, at your own risk.

I WILL provide the link, if the Wolverine denies he said it.

excon

I said it, and I stand by the statement.

In fact, I will say it again...

ERs are, by their very nature, the most efficient part of the American health care system. They are the only part of the medical system that assign the assets of the health care system (doctor's time, medical equipment, drugs, etc.) to their patients based solely on the immediate need of the patients.

That fact cannot be argued... and in fact, excon doesn't even attempt to do so. He knows it to be true.

So... we can have our hypothetical patient with a cold wait in an emergency room, where he will be treated LAST, and only after all the critical and emergent care patients have been treated first.

Or we can have the same patient go to his doctor's office, where he will be treated faster, but on some other basis than immediate need... perhaps it is on a first-come-first-serve basis, or perhaps it is based on his friendship with the doctor, or perhaps on the basis of how much he's willing to pay. In any case, it won't be based on most urgent need.

Now... I happen to think that patients with a cold are better served by going to their private doctor rather than the emergency room. At the very least they will be seen and treated more quickly. However, there is still no question that when you are judging EFFICIENCY of providing medical services, the ER option is STILL more efficient... because all patients, including the patient with the cold, are treated based on actual need.

Excon would like to argue that the doctor's time is being wasted by dealing with the patient with the cold. However, since that patient is being treated AFTER all of the critical cases have been tended to, that is simply untrue. If that patient with the cold wasn't there, that doctor would just be sitting around cooling his heals till the next critical case came along. The fact that he has time to see the patient with the cold means that he has EXTRA TIME ON HIS HANDS that is not needed to treat critical cases. Which means that treating the patient with the cold is the most efficient use of his time until another more urgent case comes along.

The fact is that excon is simply wrong about the meaning of "efficiency". He doesn't like the fact that patients with colds go to ERs, and would prefer that they go to private doctors. And so would I in reality. However, the fact that he would prefer something else doesn't mean that what is happening now is "inefficient". If efficiency is defined as putting the assets of the hospital where they are needed most urgently within a certain budget, then ERs are much more efficient than doctors offices, EVEN WHEN DEALING WITH THE PATIENT WITH A COLD.

Excon, you would prefer a different definition of "efficiency" of course. Though you never seem to be able to give us a definition. You seem to always fall back on the argument "Well everyone ought to recognize it." You never define what "it" means.

Sorry, that ain't going to fly here. If you can't provide an alternate definition of "efficiency" as it pertains to ERs, you ain't got a leg to stand on.

Elliot

[excon]

Now... I happen to think that patients with a cold are better served by going to their private doctor rather than the emergency room. At the very least they will be seen and treated more quickly.

Hello again, Elliot:

Let's forget about efficiency for a moment... I think you finished yourself off there...

But, let's take a look at your statement above... It's actually bizarre. It shows the absolute disconnect you have..

The funny thing is, you probably have NO IDEA what I'm talking about either.. You probably think I'm arguing with you about whether he'll be seen and treated quicker by his own doctor.. Or maybe you still think I'm talking about efficiency... Or maybe you think I'm just arguing for the commie plot to take over the health care industry. Who knows what goes on in your little brain?

But, I'm not going to tell you what you're missing... I'm going to make you guess - IF you can, and I'll bet you can't.

excon

[ETWolverine]

Morning Elliot

I agree with your points on business, I run my own businesses and as such, I do care about the customer, in as much as I want see them benefit from the product I sell

This obviously is a selfish act, as I want them to praise me and my product so word of mouth reputation will make more sales

EXACTLY!! I think you stated it better than I could have.

However, there are certain aspects of business that I don't like when it connects social reform

Don't you think there is a case where business and government can work together to improve the governments effiecently while still leaving a voice for the people to address issues?

No I don't.

The fact is that government and business have an adversarial relationship. It is the job of government to regulate business. It is the job of business to maximize profitability by testing the edges of regulation wherever possible. The two are, by nature, working against each other.

Because that is true, I do not believe that there is a way for government and business to "work together" at anything.

I believe that this is even more true when the government is run by someone who has stated or intimated in the past that they believe businesses to be "the enemy" and must be "broken" in order to bring them in line with the administration's policies, as is the case right now in the Obama administration. In such a situation, collaboration between business and government would be nearly impossible. One of the two MUST lose in such a relationship, and we both know it isn't going to be the government.

But even if that were not the case, government, by it's very nature, has the ability to control the rules of the game. They can change regulations at any time of their choosing so that businesses are either hurt or benefit. That means that the government essentially controls the terms of any such "alliance" and can therefore change the terms of the deal at any time.

It reminds me very much of the Star Wars movies... Remember the scene in The Empire Strikes Back when Han Solo and Leia Organa are captured on the Cloud City of Bespin by Darth Vader because Lando Calrisian betrayed them? Calrisian and Vader had a deal... but Vader changes the terms of the deal. From the Internet Movie Database, here is the exact quote:

Lando: Lord Vader, what about Leia and the Wookiee?
Darth Vader: They must never again leave this city.
Lando: [outraged] That was *never* a condition of our agreement, nor was giving Han to this bounty hunter!
Darth Vader: Perhaps you think you're being treated unfairly?
Lando: [after a pause] No.
Darth Vader: Good. It would be unfortunate if I had to leave a garrison here.
Lando: [to himself] This deal is getting worse all the time.

Government has the ability to change the terms of any deal at any time, and there is nothing that business would be able to do about it. Therefore, any "collaboration" between business and government of the type that you are proposing would eventually be detrimental to businesses. Even if the government never changed the rules, the FEAR that they might do so and the attempts to keep them from doing so would keep businesses from acting in a "free market" manner, which is detrimental to those businesses and to the economy in general.

So I do not believe that it is possible for businesses and government to collaborate in anything except for very short-term efforts... ie: wartime buildups as in WWII, emergency response to disasters, or similar situations. Except in the most extreme emergencies and only for short periods, I do not believe that government and business can work together toward a "common goal", because I do not believe that the government and business HAVE common goals and the two will eventually end up at odds with each other.

Elliot

[ETWolverine]

Hello again, Elliot:

Let's forget about efficiency for a moment... I think you finished yourself off there...

But, let's take a look at your statement above... It's actually bizarre. It shows the absolute disconnect you have..

The funny thing is, you probably have NO IDEA what I'm talking about either.. You probably think I'm arguing with you about whether he'll be seen and treated quicker by his own doctor.. Or maybe you still think I'm talking about efficiency... Or maybe you think I'm just arguing for the commie plot to take over the health care industry. Who knows what goes on in your little brain?

But, I'm not gonna tell you what you're missing... I'm gonna make you guess - IF you can, and I'll bet you can't.

excon

I'm not going to guess at anything.

If you can't state your point clearly, it's probably because you don't have one.

You've gone from arguing "efficiency of ERs", which is a point that YOU brought up, to arguing some other point that I'm supposed to "guess at". You can't even state what your point is anymore. Again, the goal post moves when you can't reach it.

Game, set and match.

Elliot