by MrBill » Wed 20 Sep 2006, 04:23:21
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Doly', 'I') was reading this weekend again my textbooks on economy, and one of the things I read was about why some services are often provided by the government "for free" for all citizens, specifically education and basic healthcare. (Of course, "for free" means in fact from the pockets of taxpayers).
It turns out that private companies in a free market aren't by far the best way of providing the service. The problem is, while in most services, the more expensive version of them would be considered a luxury, in the case in education and healthcare this isn't the case. We feel strongly that higher education should be available to those capable to follow it, and the more expensive diagnostics or treatments should be available to those who need it. A free market would only provide expensive services to the rich.
It is possible to even things out using insurance, but private insurers that try to get a profit will always eliminate from their ranks those who are a higher risk. In the case of healthcase, the sickest people have trouble to get insurance, which doesn't seem fair at all.
A free market isn't the best way of allocating resources every time. In fact, any good textbook on economics will explain the assumptions under which a free market operates well. In any other circumstances, it's unlikely to be optimal.
That is incorrect. Why? The public sector is only useful to step-in and fill a role that the private sector is not interested in. Think insurer of last resort in a known hurricane zone. Private insurers are trying to tell homeowners, DO NOT BUILD THERE!
Public employees are not somehow magically more productive or useful than private sector employees, and usually due to lifetime tenor, jobs for life, seniority and public sector unions a lot less effective or efficient. Think of all the money that Blair has thrown at public services, which just ended up in the pockets of union employees instead of paying for more doctors, nurses and hospitals. What a total waste of resources.
The job of the government is to make sure healthcare services and education are available to everyone at a reasonable price, or in certain situations to subsidize those who cannot afford to pay market prices. The government itself does not have to deliver those services themselves. They can sub-contract them out and control the standards as well as test the outcome.
It is a myth that private companies only service wealthy customers or even that they prefer to. Companies fulfill niches. If there is a niche, someone will fill it. All our talk about ARMs and loans to low income consumers and house buyers shows that private companies care about making money, and if they can make money selling to the lower twenty five percentile they will.
If bigger companies won't, smaller, newer companies will spring up to fill the need. And as I said, in Germany for example, private hospitals and clinics operate along side one another, while there is a dual system of private and government healthcare plans who operate as payers regardless of which system the patient chooses.
If you want to talk about deficiencies in the way healthcare or education are provided in the USA or any other country you choose fine. Let us look at who is setting the standards. Public sector unions. Special interest groups. Turf wars between federal, state and local governments. Etc. That has very little to do with public versus private in this sense. There are many successful public and private universities that compete equally with one another to attract the best students even if it means higher tuition for those who can pay to subsidize the ones who cannot.
Large, liquid, deep capital markets have replaced governments even for large capital instensive projects with long payback periods. The historical preserve of governments to provide electricity and infrastructure for example.
And remember most textbooks written by most academics are not only boring, and limited by the experience of the authors, who may have never worked in the private sector, but who are also employed in the public sector and who enjoy tenor and jobs for life through seniority. What would you expect them to write? ; - )
The organized state is a wonderful invention whereby everyone can live at someone else's expense.