Seriously, when was the last time you chose to use a Federally-provided service over a similar commercial service?
How often have you chosen the Postal Service instead of FedEx or UPS?
When was the last time you seriously considered taking Amtrak between L.A. and San Francisco? Or L.A. and, say Seattle?
Have you ever called the IRS to ask a question and received a competent answer, or been anything less than frustrated?
So, if you're not willing to use a federally-controlled monopoly system for something as simple as shipping a package, why would you even consider letting a federally-controlled bureaucracy get involved in life and death decisions about your medical care?
As far as I'm concerned I have yet to meet anybody more expert on my health care decisions than me and my doctor.
That's not to say I'm unwilling to consider doing something for people who aren't insured. Americans already pay for the medical treatment consumed by the uninsured. We pay for it in our current health care premiums. You don't think that hospitals really "eat" those costs? Of course not, those "unpaid" costs get moved into your bill. So, not only to do we directly pay for Medicare, MediCal, Medicaid, Social Security (with taxes) but we also pay for the "uninsured" through hidden costs.
But, telling me in order to provide coverage for everybody, I have to relinquish important legal and medical decision-making authority to a federal bureaucracy that is completely unaccountable to the democratic forces of the market...well, that doesn't have a good track record.
2 comments:
I migrated this post from another site. The original comment from "Bob" is here:
"i'm afraid you have a distorted view of the services provided by government
A few examples:
The US Postal Service is forbidden to make a profit. That's why you can send a letter for $.44. But you can save a fortune by using Parcel Post and be guaranteed that your package will arrive. You can get online delivery confirmation at a fraction of the cost of FedEx.
When My mom was in decline, she accidently threw out an IRS refund check.I called them and they were incredibly helpful and courteous. They even called me back to make sure she got it ok.
The government doesn't run Amtrak. It provides capital. Amtrak stinks because it hasn't been provided sufficient capital. The new money may make a difference.
One thing is for sure, though. The free market is not democratic, It is not one person one vote; it is one share one vote and unless you have a whole lot of shares, you don't have much of a vote."
Bob - Is my view distorted, or do we simply disagree?
Yes, there are the occasional exceptions to every general rule. That's why they're called "general" rules, as opposed to "perfect" rules...or "always" rules....or "rules with no exceptions". But, nothing you relate does anything other than reinforce my point. If you want something delivered "guaranteed" and fast with on-line tracking (not just delivery confirmation) you always choose a commercial service. But, more importantly, think about what you wrote for a second. "Guaranteed" to arrive...several weeks later. What kind of service is that? You hired someone to deliver something...and...you're excited that they actually delivered it? Talk about low expectations.
Same for the IRS? You're happy they issued your Mom a new check? What else would you expect? Oh yeah, in "general" you expect surly, incompetent bureaucrats. Which is precisely why you recall the incident with your Mom, because it stands out as being unusual.
As far as Amtrak goes, puhleez. Jimmy Carter made that argument. Several billion dollars and 30 years later it makes less sense now than then. Why on Earth would I get on Amtrak to go from LA to *anywhere* for the privilege of spending more money and way more time than getting on a faster, cheaper airline? If you want to ride Amtrak, be my guest, but don't kid yourself about it being a giant, expensive, foolish anachronism.
I didn't say the market was "purely" democratic, nor do we live in a "pure" democracy. Our democratic republic is governed by rules that restrict "pure" democracy. Just like the free market has other rules about capital. These rules may make each respective system more or less "purely" democratic, but they're still recognizably democratic. As opposed to "command-and-control" or fascistic or communistic, or what-have-you. I was making a point that any market - whether it's a market for votes, or dollars - tends to respond to consumer/voter desires when exposed to competition. Just like politicians respond better to citizen demands when exposed to a competition for votes.
Tell you what. You name a service that the government does better than a comparable commercial service and I'll grant you might have a point. The only catch is that the service you pick can't be one of the very few Constitutionally-enumerated powers. In other words, "the army" doesn't count. Highways? Maybe...
Post a Comment