Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Hidden Cost of Privatization

ineteconomics.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 174 posts

Re: The Hidden Cost of Privatization

#91

Post by pizzetta »

BoiledCabbage wrote: post #62
pizzetta wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Imagine if unions were strong and IT were unionized. How would you imagine the progress we've seen in information technology? The impact on progress should not be discounted as an externality. Imagine if taxicabs or any livery service of any kind had to have a union member associated with it. Would autonomous cars make the same progress (for example, we can have autonomous subways/trains but they have to be "personne…

> Imagine if unions were strong and IT were unionized. How would you imagine the progress we've seen in information technology? Unions would've collectively bargained and agreed not to work for companies that abuse H1-B visa farms. And this whole issue would've been resolved ages ago.

I'll grant you that --but while that protects domestic workers it may hurt domestic industry in that some things would be cheaper to develop in locales with less unionization or simply lower labor costs.

Re: The Hidden Cost of Privatization

#92

Post by Mindcraft »

leroy_masochist wrote: post #44

Article is a summary of others' thoughts (mostly Keynes) without a clear thesis. Would have been nice to read, say, an analysis of why privatizing air traffic control is a bad idea despite the fact that the tech the gov't uses in that space is super antiquated, which in terms drives a bunch of inefficiencies and safety hazards in that particular sector.

Evidence that private air traffic control use/would use more modern tech?

Re: The Hidden Cost of Privatization

#93

Post by subverter »

r_smart wrote: post #88
matchbok wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because if you don't mandate insurance, then the entire system falls apart. Sick people need it, healthy people don't want to pay for it. You need everyone to pay to make it affordable.

You're confusing insurance with healthcare. Insurance is supposed to be for risk mitigation, rare but extremely damaging events. If everyone uses insurance for everything health related, like we all want to do now, it's impossible for insurance to be anything other than a premium you pay on top of your healthcare costs. Insurance shouldn't be used for routine stuff, and people shouldn't be required to have it unless…

A salient distinction that's very important in the whole debate.

Re: The Hidden Cost of Privatization

#94

Post by frgtpsswrdlame »

subverter wrote: post #81
bjl wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But what about the millions of people with poor family/friends? Are they supposed to just roll over and die if they get sick? And don't say 'but charity', we already know charity is massively insufficient.

No, absolutely not. You're assuming that if the government didn't mandate health insurance, nobody would step in to help those people, which I don't believe is true. Lots of different groups – religious, businesses, municipalities, etc. – could fill that role. Individuals could even give directly to strangers in need through something like https://donorsee.com/ .

>You're assuming that if the government didn't mandate health insurance, nobody would step in to help those people

No, the assumption is that if government mandated dollars stopped coming in, voluntary contributions wouldn't make up the difference. And that seems pretty obvious to anyone who pays attention to the political dialogue. Look at the Republicans who believe Obamacare is too costly. Their sole goal is to have less of their own dollars subsidize the sick.

Re: The Hidden Cost of Privatization

#95

Post by boomboomsubban »

subverter wrote: post #81
bjl wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But what about the millions of people with poor family/friends? Are they supposed to just roll over and die if they get sick? And don't say 'but charity', we already know charity is massively insufficient.

No, absolutely not. You're assuming that if the government didn't mandate health insurance, nobody would step in to help those people, which I don't believe is true. Lots of different groups – religious, businesses, municipalities, etc. – could fill that role. Individuals could even give directly to strangers in need through something like https://donorsee.com/ .

So are you in favor of a law so they can't discriminate on who they help? As if you are, it's an optional tax played for by people who aren't fully aware of the need. And if you aren't, better not tell anyone about your differences, you might die if the coke distributor knows you drink Pepsi or if the church knows you're gay.

Re: The Hidden Cost of Privatization

#96

Post by subverter »

rayiner wrote: post #80
subverter wrote: post #46

The problem in Keynes thinking on "social services" is that it's impossible to gather all of the knowledge necessary to ascertain what those would be. That knowledge is dispersed among ~320m citizens (in the U.S.) who each have particular wants and needs. And even if you could somehow attain that knowledge in one place, the likelihood of finding consensus on how a particular "social service" should be offered is next…

> Why do so many oppose such a solution where everyone can much more easily find a place where they agree with the "social services" offered (or not)? Because it creates collective action problems. Countries can exercise their sovereign powers to control commerce and the flow of people so as to reinforce their chosen social welfare systems. If they offer universal healthcare, for example, they can control immigration…

In your example of Maryland and Virginia and universal healthcare, Maryland will continually need to ensure they're collecting enough money (i.e., through taxes of some sort) to pay for universal healthcare. If an influx of unhealthy people enter the state, they'll have to increase taxes to pay for the higher healthcare bills, which will in turn make them less competitive with other states, and cause people to leave. There's no way Maryland adds universal healthcare and remains equal in all other categories.

In your example of child labor, it's arguably better for everyone if Virginia can produce cheaper goods. (Please don't think I'm in any way arguing for child labor.) Maryland benefits from the cheaper goods as well, and is able to free resources for other pursuits that are economically advantageous for them. We already see this to a degree in places that have an abundance of a natural resource – it's cheaper and more efficient for them to export the resource than it is for other places that don't have the resource.

Re: The Hidden Cost of Privatization

#97

Post by subverter »

boomboomsubban wrote: post #95
subverter wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, absolutely not. You're assuming that if the government didn't mandate health insurance, nobody would step in to help those people, which I don't believe is true. Lots of different groups – religious, businesses, municipalities, etc. – could fill that role. Individuals could even give directly to strangers in need through something like https://donorsee.com/ .

So are you in favor of a law so they can't discriminate on who they help? As if you are, it's an optional tax played for by people who aren't fully aware of the need. And if you aren't, better not tell anyone about your differences, you might die if the coke distributor knows you drink Pepsi or if the church knows you're gay.

No, in fact, the ability for these institutions to choose who they help is key. A business being able to choose to help only its own workers makes it possible to even help them in the first place. If they had to help anyone, it wouldn't be feasible. Same for a church or any institution. Being able to discriminate is important; it's not a dirty word.

Now before you go and doomsay about all sorts of discrimination happening based on race, gender, sexuality, etc., I'd argue that lots of institutions wouldn't discriminate on those factors. Case in point: most of the major tech companies. And if one did, would you really want to be associated with them and/or have them paying for your healthcare?

Re: The Hidden Cost of Privatization

#98

Post by subverter »

frgtpsswrdlame wrote: post #94
subverter wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, absolutely not. You're assuming that if the government didn't mandate health insurance, nobody would step in to help those people, which I don't believe is true. Lots of different groups – religious, businesses, municipalities, etc. – could fill that role. Individuals could even give directly to strangers in need through something like https://donorsee.com/ .

>You're assuming that if the government didn't mandate health insurance, nobody would step in to help those people No, the assumption is that if government mandated dollars stopped coming in, voluntary contributions wouldn't make up the difference. And that seems pretty obvious to anyone who pays attention to the political dialogue. Look at the Republicans who believe Obamacare is too costly. Their sole goal is to ha…

That's also assuming the costs would stay the same, which they wouldn't if government stopped intervening. With lower costs, more people could afford to pay for healthcare out-of-pocket, which would reduce the amount of voluntary money necessary to cover those who truly need it.

Re: The Hidden Cost of Privatization

#99

Post by gnaritas »

subverter wrote: post #64
matchbok wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because if you don't mandate insurance, then the entire system falls apart. Sick people need it, healthy people don't want to pay for it. You need everyone to pay to make it affordable.

Affordable for whom? It has become much less affordable for those who are healthy. How do you justify the healthy paying for the unhealthy? And is it really affordable, even for the unhealthy?

> How do you justify the healthy paying for the unhealthy?

Over the course of time, everyone falls into both categories; this idea that there are healthy people is silly, everyone's health fails eventually and often randomly. Healthy is a temporary state. Everyone should contribute so everyone is covered when they become the unhealthy, as they all will.

Better to pay a little bit all of the time than to pay nothing and be unable to afford a giant medical bill that hits you all at once. This is why everyone should pay all of the time, then there's enough money to cover the every changing subset of people, which will eventually include you, who are sick.

Re: The Hidden Cost of Privatization

#100

Post by gnaritas »

yock wrote: post #76
bjl wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They run over a pedestrian without insurance, now that pedestrian has no way to pay for their medical care.

You liquidate the assets of the at-fault party. If that is insufficient you garnish their wages. Financial responsibility is something to be enforced by courts, not mandated by congress.

The party at fault may not have assets nor a job, your solution is is not a solution and doesn't help the person harmed when they actually need it, at the time of the accident.

> Financial responsibility is something to be enforced by courts, not mandated by congress.

That's a matter of opinion.

Post reply on HN