That's awesome. However, if I am unhappy — for whatever reason — with how NHS covers what it does, I need to lobby my lawmakers to lean on NHS to change. I'd like to be able instead to just switch to an alternative the way I can switch to a different pizzeria or supermarket.
Three years ago, we had competition among the insurance companies.
Hardly. There were very few and all were (and remain) harshly and strictly regulated.
Except that it cost twice as much per capita and delivered poorer outcomes in terms of lifespan, disability, and time-to-treatment than most of the socialist programs
Somehow I doubt, you can get the government health-care to pay for your gender-change in Cuba (or even in the UK), but in the US insurers are obligated to cover the procedure for all. And that's just one example...
The government made all of us a giant disfavor decades ago by allowing employers to deduct employees' health-insurance from taxes. This tied "healthplans" to employment, crowded individuals out of the insurance market and made insurers cater not to actual individuals, but to their employers. Likewise doctors and hospitals began cater to the insurers more and more, rather than the patients.
It was bad, but it went to even worse with Obamacare...
Can you tell me why you think the more structurally sound free-market healthcare, when implemented in the US, was so much worse than the structurally defective NHS implemented in the UK?
I'm unaware of any objective comparison of health-care availability and quality between the two countries. Anecdotal evidence is certainly mixed to put it mildly...
Numerous factors other than quality of healthcare factor into life expectancy. You knew that, didn't you? But chose to make the fallacious argument anyway...
And finally, you can get private healthcare in the UK too.
Sure. And I can send my child to a private school here in the US as well. I just have to pay for it in addition to paying for the public one, that some other children will be attending...
In other words, these private options aren't really in competition to the public one — and thus pose no pressure on the public one to improve.
Yep, which is why the US has such a low per capita cost for healthcare and the UK has such a high per capita cost.
US' higher expenditures are explained by the availability of much better treatments. Once the government officials begin deciding, what's "appropriate" (depending on the patient's age, health, station in life, political leanings), we will, likely have the costs reduced, yes...
Sure, getting sick here without insurance can bankrupt you
Getting sick without insurance may bankrupt you everywhere, where insurance companies are the dominant payers for healthcare.
The problem outlined by this news is that, when the insurer has no competition, they can continue raising their premiums to no end and survive any sort of idiotic inefficiencies and waste. The joys of the "single-payer" system, that Obamacare is the harbinger for...
the banks of the world explicitly and openly collude to fuck us as hard as they can
Where do you see that intent? My take on the story is the banks are trying to escape our (and our governments') attempts to do it unto them (and their clients).
Are you campaigning for the abolition of the Second Amendment — the piece of the Bill of Rights, which establishes the right (not a mere privilege) to keep and bear arms — so that some day, if the need arises, the armed citizenry can form a militia to defend the country?
And if you aren't planning to officially abolish this right, what you are calling for amounts simply to "shredding the Constitution". So, make up your mind.
And Australia has its own anti-trust laws — and had for decades. Please, do not get overly pained, when your country's exciting uniqueness is no explicitly mentioned every time America's is.
Have you got a solution that doesn't involve regulation?
Before I start seeking solutions, I'd like convinced, the problem is anything but an excuse for more regulations. While the time given in long-term projections has not arrived yet, certain short-term ones have already been shown bogus. Such as Al Gore's claim — made in his UN speech — that Arctic ice will disappear by 2013...
Considering the fact, that he himself just recently purchased a multi-million estate not in, say, Colorado mountains, but at an ocean-front, I find it very difficult to believe, his implorations and exhortations are sincere.
In other words, he is lying. Either in complete cynicism and for personal enrichment, or to further those "regulations" for some Greater Good(TM).
And the thread is about Ropert Murdoch and whether government should be providing services, that non-government entities can (and do) provide as well... Hard, I know.
The people can decide by voting and if need be moving to do what they will with tax money.
And just why would the same people, who wouldn't — much to your anguish — punish a news-paper for fraud, be willing to punish anyone else for same?
Even where voting is meaningful (and plenty of cynics would have you believe, it is a charade), commercial competition is far more effective. If I decide, I don't like Pepsi-Cola, I don't need to wait until the next vote to have the recipe change — I can just switch to Coca-Cola (or one of the dozens others) immediately. Same with just about anything else — except for those few things, which can not be done privately in principle (like military and police).
We tried it your way once upon a time, we had a poorly educated society and rampant corruption.
Have you really? When and how? And what were the known alternatives at the time?
Read "The Jungle" to learn more.
However successful the book was at the time, I will not grant its author a second of my life. He was a Socialist and, having grown up in the USSR, I know first-hand, what the views and the policies he favored lead to, when put into practice in earnest. Lying "for a greater cause" is perfectly acceptable to such people — what is, after all, personal integrity compared to the Greater Good(TM)? Consider Heinlein's "Logic of Empire" for illustration on how grotesquely the truth needs to be twisted and the wrongs exaggerated (or outright invented) in order for a book to impress the readership into "doing something". I wouldn't believe "facts" given in the book any more, than I'd believe anything found in the movies of the aforementioned Michael Moore (Sinclair's fellow Socialist, who'd guess?).
However bad the conditions may have been for recent immigrants in Chicago, I stipulate, they weren't as bad as in most of the rest of the world at the time (1906). Russia, for example, had just shot up a workers' demonstration (the original "Bloody Sunday" of 1905) — and the workers' lives there have only become worse, when Sinclair's colleagues took power there in 1917. And that's native workers, not the recent immigrants, who always tend to live worse than the average native simply due to the transplant. On the plus side, however, America living "my way" has developed the first mass-market automobile, air-travel, water-closet and toilet paper, refrigerator and other every day conveniences. What do Socialists have to offer? Sputnik?
I was not aware the USA had a government controlled news-source.
Although it is not their sole source of revenue, NPR are receiving government funding. You can guess, what their opinion is of people, who seek to reduce the government's budget, for example...
And then there are "Voice of America", "Radio Liberty" and others broadcasting abroad (we were listening to it back in Ukraine). Until recently government was not allowed to directly broadcast in the US itself, but that rule was quietly rescinded this year.
My objection is not to how they are collected, but to how they are spent. Functioning government, defending the country from the foreign enemies and local criminals are the only morally-allowed expenditures of any funds collected through coercion.
People wishing for anything else to be available — be it for themselves or for somebody else — ought to pay on their own. Those unable to afford it (whatever "it" is) may politely ask others of charity, but none of the monies collected at gun-point can be spent on such things.
A tribal leader? Like an elected representative?
I'd venture an informed guess, that tribal leaders in Afghanistan, on average, command about the same (if not higher) respect from their subjects, than many (most?) Western politicians do from theirs. And yet, we would view their control of mass media with (a well-deserved) suspicion.
I'm puzzled, why you wouldn't apply the same standard to your own country and its government-controlled news-sources.
So then claiming it is news and printing fiction is not fraud?
"fraud -- (intentional deception resulting in injury to another person)". The second somebody comes out with evidence of having been injured by the deception, the news outlet in question will be in serious trouble...
As in the public should be allowed to fund a news source that might print news.
There is no ban keeping you from funding whatever your heart desires to fund. But you aren't satisfied with that, are you? You want others — to whom you refer as kindly as "public" — to be forced at gun-point (which is how government collects all taxes) to help you fund it, don't you?
In other words, you have no problem with the tribal leader controlling, what gets printed — as long as he is a "good" tribal leader...
You need to read more fiction it looks like
As long as we are exchanging reading advice, might I suggest some non-fiction literature for yourself?
Yes, I am very well aware, what "fraud" is. "Made up" news can be called that in anger, but it really is not — it is not any more illegal for the newspapers to lie, than it is for politicians or, indeed, you and me. (Except under oath, of course.)
I think the public has a right to news from a source that might even try to print news.
Really? A right? Is there an article in the Constitution (or whatever the supreme law is in your country) on the subject? And what/who is the judge of what's fit the print — a tribal leader leader, perhaps? An omniscient and benevolent one?
corporate feudal state
A meaningless combination of words having no relation to the topic discussed.
The second implies that all monopolies are created by the government, and that all government services are monopolies. Which is obviously horseshit.
(Watch your language, sir... ) Anti-trust laws in America are over 100 years old. I wish, they were applied more vigorously.
I can't think of a government-provided service, a competition for which is not strongly discouraged where not outright legally banned:
Though you may still send your children to a private school in many countries, you must pay for it in addition to the public one (which your children will not be attending).
Though you may want your own private pension arrangements, you must still pay into Social Security fund all your working life.
Post-office has always had a monopoly on the "First Class Mail" — and until 1979 there was no exception for "Extremely Urgent" correspondence, which gave rise to FedEx and UPS. An exception, that USPS can still legally suspend.
People want entertainment. "Made up news" certainly fits. Michael Moore's "documentaries" were anything but, for another example. Though his international awards were in the "fiction" categories, he got rave reviews — and millions of viewers — anyway.
Why not just publish fiction as fiction?
They seem to be doing fine whatever label you put on them.
Are you even reading what you are typing?
I wish, you did — and concentrated on the point I'm making, which is, once again, that government ought not to provide non-governmental services. Never. Not even when the non-governmental providers are personally unpleasant and unscrupulous.
The dailymail which has admitted to making up stories is now the most visited internet site for news.
Then that is exactly, what their consumers want. You — as most other fans of big government — seem to hold this arrogant opinion, that you "know better" than the little men. While this may very well be, in fact, true, you should not allow yourself (nor the government) to force things upon these contemptible doofusen.
All you can (morally) do, is try to ensure, those among the subjects (yourself included), who want better, can get it. And while I have little doubt, Ropert Murdoch, were he really ever come to the power of suppressing opposition through non-business means, would do just that, my point was — and remains — that he does not have such power. Unlike the local tribal leaders, who are, after all, government officials.
Slashdot Mirror
That's awesome. However, if I am unhappy — for whatever reason — with how NHS covers what it does, I need to lobby my lawmakers to lean on NHS to change. I'd like to be able instead to just switch to an alternative the way I can switch to a different pizzeria or supermarket.
If it is the same to you, sir, I'd like my deadness to a) set as late as possible; b) be as painless as possible.
Neither objective is particularly achievable via a one-way travel to an icy rock.
Hardly. There were very few and all were (and remain) harshly and strictly regulated.
Somehow I doubt, you can get the government health-care to pay for your gender-change in Cuba (or even in the UK), but in the US insurers are obligated to cover the procedure for all. And that's just one example...
The government made all of us a giant disfavor decades ago by allowing employers to deduct employees' health-insurance from taxes. This tied "healthplans" to employment, crowded individuals out of the insurance market and made insurers cater not to actual individuals, but to their employers. Likewise doctors and hospitals began cater to the insurers more and more, rather than the patients.
It was bad, but it went to even worse with Obamacare...
I'm unaware of any objective comparison of health-care availability and quality between the two countries. Anecdotal evidence is certainly mixed to put it mildly...
Numerous factors other than quality of healthcare factor into life expectancy. You knew that, didn't you? But chose to make the fallacious argument anyway...
Sure. And I can send my child to a private school here in the US as well. I just have to pay for it in addition to paying for the public one, that some other children will be attending...
In other words, these private options aren't really in competition to the public one — and thus pose no pressure on the public one to improve.
US' higher expenditures are explained by the availability of much better treatments. Once the government officials begin deciding, what's "appropriate" (depending on the patient's age, health, station in life, political leanings), we will, likely have the costs reduced, yes...
The solution is not to reduce the competition, but to increase it.
Getting sick without insurance may bankrupt you everywhere, where insurance companies are the dominant payers for healthcare.
The problem outlined by this news is that, when the insurer has no competition, they can continue raising their premiums to no end and survive any sort of idiotic inefficiencies and waste. The joys of the "single-payer" system, that Obamacare is the harbinger for...
Citation needed. Desperately...
Where do you see that intent? My take on the story is the banks are trying to escape our (and our governments') attempts to do it unto them (and their clients).
And if you aren't planning to officially abolish this right, what you are calling for amounts simply to "shredding the Constitution". So, make up your mind.
And Australia has its own anti-trust laws — and had for decades. Please, do not get overly pained, when your country's exciting uniqueness is no explicitly mentioned every time America's is.
While the anti-Americans world-wide are wagging their fingers at the US, China is killing itself with pollution...
Before I start seeking solutions, I'd like convinced, the problem is anything but an excuse for more regulations. While the time given in long-term projections has not arrived yet, certain short-term ones have already been shown bogus. Such as Al Gore's claim — made in his UN speech — that Arctic ice will disappear by 2013...
Considering the fact, that he himself just recently purchased a multi-million estate not in, say, Colorado mountains, but at an ocean-front , I find it very difficult to believe, his implorations and exhortations are sincere.
In other words, he is lying. Either in complete cynicism and for personal enrichment, or to further those "regulations" for some Greater Good(TM).
And the thread is about Ropert Murdoch and whether government should be providing services, that non-government entities can (and do) provide as well... Hard, I know.
Having been on the receiving end of one such "investigation", I can say, I'm glad, the justice is not as swift these days.
But you can't ban this — not without abolishing the First Amendment...
True. This site, the /., however, is unapologetically US-centric. Get used to it, sorry.
And just why would the same people, who wouldn't — much to your anguish — punish a news-paper for fraud, be willing to punish anyone else for same?
Even where voting is meaningful (and plenty of cynics would have you believe, it is a charade), commercial competition is far more effective. If I decide, I don't like Pepsi-Cola, I don't need to wait until the next vote to have the recipe change — I can just switch to Coca-Cola (or one of the dozens others) immediately. Same with just about anything else — except for those few things, which can not be done privately in principle (like military and police).
Have you really? When and how? And what were the known alternatives at the time?
However successful the book was at the time, I will not grant its author a second of my life. He was a Socialist and, having grown up in the USSR, I know first-hand, what the views and the policies he favored lead to, when put into practice in earnest. Lying "for a greater cause" is perfectly acceptable to such people — what is, after all, personal integrity compared to the Greater Good(TM)? Consider Heinlein's "Logic of Empire" for illustration on how grotesquely the truth needs to be twisted and the wrongs exaggerated (or outright invented) in order for a book to impress the readership into "doing something". I wouldn't believe "facts" given in the book any more, than I'd believe anything found in the movies of the aforementioned Michael Moore (Sinclair's fellow Socialist, who'd guess?).
However bad the conditions may have been for recent immigrants in Chicago, I stipulate, they weren't as bad as in most of the rest of the world at the time (1906). Russia, for example, had just shot up a workers' demonstration (the original "Bloody Sunday" of 1905) — and the workers' lives there have only become worse, when Sinclair's colleagues took power there in 1917. And that's native workers, not the recent immigrants, who always tend to live worse than the average native simply due to the transplant. On the plus side, however, America living "my way" has developed the first mass-market automobile, air-travel, water-closet and toilet paper, refrigerator and other every day conveniences. What do Socialists have to offer? Sputnik?
Although it is not their sole source of revenue, NPR are receiving government funding. You can guess, what their opinion is of people, who seek to reduce the government's budget, for example...
And then there are "Voice of America", "Radio Liberty" and others broadcasting abroad (we were listening to it back in Ukraine). Until recently government was not allowed to directly broadcast in the US itself, but that rule was quietly rescinded this year.
My objection is not to how they are collected, but to how they are spent. Functioning government, defending the country from the foreign enemies and local criminals are the only morally-allowed expenditures of any funds collected through coercion.
People wishing for anything else to be available — be it for themselves or for somebody else — ought to pay on their own. Those unable to afford it (whatever "it" is) may politely ask others of charity, but none of the monies collected at gun-point can be spent on such things.
I'd venture an informed guess, that tribal leaders in Afghanistan, on average, command about the same (if not higher) respect from their subjects, than many (most?) Western politicians do from theirs. And yet, we would view their control of mass media with (a well-deserved) suspicion.
I'm puzzled, why you wouldn't apply the same standard to your own country and its government-controlled news-sources.
"fraud -- (intentional deception resulting in injury to another person)". The second somebody comes out with evidence of having been injured by the deception, the news outlet in question will be in serious trouble...
There is no ban keeping you from funding whatever your heart desires to fund. But you aren't satisfied with that, are you? You want others — to whom you refer as kindly as "public" — to be forced at gun-point (which is how government collects all taxes) to help you fund it, don't you?
In other words, you have no problem with the tribal leader controlling, what gets printed — as long as he is a "good" tribal leader...
As long as we are exchanging reading advice, might I suggest some non-fiction literature for yourself?
"Fiction" vs. "non-fiction".
Yes, I am very well aware, what "fraud" is. "Made up" news can be called that in anger, but it really is not — it is not any more illegal for the newspapers to lie, than it is for politicians or, indeed, you and me. (Except under oath, of course.)
Really? A right? Is there an article in the Constitution (or whatever the supreme law is in your country) on the subject? And what/who is the judge of what's fit the print — a tribal leader leader, perhaps? An omniscient and benevolent one?
A meaningless combination of words having no relation to the topic discussed.
(Watch your language, sir... ) Anti-trust laws in America are over 100 years old. I wish, they were applied more vigorously.
I can't think of a government-provided service, a competition for which is not strongly discouraged where not outright legally banned:
People want entertainment. "Made up news" certainly fits. Michael Moore's "documentaries" were anything but, for another example. Though his international awards were in the "fiction" categories, he got rave reviews — and millions of viewers — anyway.
They seem to be doing fine whatever label you put on them.
I wish, you did — and concentrated on the point I'm making, which is, once again, that government ought not to provide non-governmental services. Never. Not even when the non-governmental providers are personally unpleasant and unscrupulous.
Khmm... What you cited was an opinion, not fact... Try again?
Then that is exactly, what their consumers want. You — as most other fans of big government — seem to hold this arrogant opinion, that you "know better" than the little men. While this may very well be, in fact, true, you should not allow yourself (nor the government) to force things upon these contemptible doofusen.
All you can (morally) do, is try to ensure, those among the subjects (yourself included), who want better, can get it. And while I have little doubt, Ropert Murdoch, were he really ever come to the power of suppressing opposition through non-business means, would do just that, my point was — and remains — that he does not have such power. Unlike the local tribal leaders, who are, after all, government officials.
And that is fine — as long as the competition remains possible to both produce and consume.
Though BBC is the government option, they do have competition, which forces them to stay on their toes.