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

101–110 of 174 posts

Re: The Hidden Cost of Privatization

#101

Post by dragonwriter »

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?

How do you justify those whose property isn't on fire paying for firefighters?

Re: The Hidden Cost of Privatization

#102

Post by gnaritas »

subverter wrote: post #84
bjl wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

OK, so use any other example. What if Florida decides to roll back gay marriage? What if Alabama rescinds the Civil Rights Act? Are those who can't afford to move supposed to just deal with it?

There's a significant part of the U.S. population that wants to roll back gay marriage. What if that happened? As it is, you'd have to move out of the country. You're relying on the right people being in office/power making the right decisions in your opinion. But of course, at any point the wrong people can get into office and make the wrong decision in your opinion. For nearly half the country, that happened when O…

> There's a significant part of the U.S. population that wants to roll back gay marriage.

Oppressing others isn't something that should be allowed to happen, period; those people are simply wrong, the position is immoral and indefensible. These things belong at the federal level, states should not be allowed to say oppression is OK because a majority of our citizens want to oppress gays.

Re: The Hidden Cost of Privatization

#103

Post by subverter »

Decathect wrote: post #86
yock wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

They died in the accident, leaving behind a critically injured spouse and their kids. The medical bills for any one of the surviving parties dwarf the net assets of the deceased. Who pays the remainder?

There are already solutions available when there's no counter-party or the counter-party is unfit. i.e., uninsured motorist insurance, life insurance, etc.

And who's to say the extended family or community wouldn't step up to cover their expenses?

Re: The Hidden Cost of Privatization

#104

Post by maxerickson »

subverter wrote: post #96
rayiner wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.…

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.)

So is it arguably better for everyone or should there be protections for the children (who are presumably part of "everyone")?

I think if you immediately include a disclaimer about the children you probably don't believe there is much of an argument to be made.

Re: The Hidden Cost of Privatization

#105

Post by maxerickson »

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…

it's impossible for insurance to be anything other than a premium you pay on top of your healthcare costs.

And yet each year there are millions of people that receive medical services in excess of their insurance payments (including premiums, copays, etc).

Re: The Hidden Cost of Privatization

#106

Post by subverter »

dragonwriter wrote: post #101
subverter wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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? How do you justify those whose property isn't on fire paying for firefighters?

I don't. I think paying for firefighters should be voluntary. Either I pay for it individually, or as part of my neighborhood, or at some other level that's much closer to me.

If I don't want to protect against my house burning down, why should I pay for it? And before you go and say, "because your neighbor's house could burn down too", they could choose to pay for firefighters and have them come out to douse my house in defense of their own.

Re: The Hidden Cost of Privatization

#107

Post by stale2002 »

crdoconnor wrote: post #85
stale2002 wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oooh how about these ones: Your pay would be pegged to seniority, not ability to contribute. Better pay your dues, newbie. You don't deserve as much money as I do, solely because of your age. You wouldn't be allowed to do anything outside your extremely limited job description. That's someone else's job, don't take it away from them! No more wearing many hats. Unless you literally kill someone, you are immune from be…

>Your pay would be pegged to seniority, not ability to contribute That's pretty much how it works now. I've never had a boss who was able to accurately (or even non-accurately) gauge my productivity and I'll bet that unless your job is mind-numbing, you haven't either. I've had bosses who have counted SLOC though and stupidly tried to use that to gauge my productivity. Unions usually agree to formalize the existing p…

" Why are collective agreements intrinsically bad?"

Because I should be able to do what I want, instead of being forced to go along with whatever stupid ideas the union chooses to do. It is called freedom of choice.

What if I want to negotiate for myself?

What if I want to wear multiple hats?

What if I want to work without getting a BS certification?

If I negotiate, and convince someone to hire me, then I can get all of these things.

We can agree and disagree about what makes a work environment good or bad. And thats fine. Just you do your thing, and I will do mine. If you don't like these things, then you can try to get a job that doesn't make you do them.

My relationship should be between me and my employer. I will negotiate all the things that I mentioned, and if the situation doesn't work out then I will vote with my feet and go somewhere else. Do not take away my right to free association.

Sure, fine, if you don't like doing those things, then you are free to join your own private organization and decide for yourself on how to do collective bargaining, and all that.

The problem with pro-union people is that they assume that their needs are the same as everyone else's needs. Different people want different things, and this whole "fight for the people" BS gets thrown out the window the moment you try and force me to join your org and force me to go along with stuff I don't agree with.

"And, of course, if you really don't want to work for a unionized workplace you can go and work at a non-unionized workplace."

Well, instead of doing this thing, I could just use the law to protect me. Forcing people to join unions is, thankfully, illegal in many states.

And, thankfully, unions are very unpopular among techies. So I am doing precisely that, and I will continue to fight against them in tech, precisely because I do not want our industry to be turned into one that does not value freedom of choice among employees, and forces different people into associations that they don't agree with.

Re: The Hidden Cost of Privatization

#108

Post by subverter »

gnaritas wrote: post #102
subverter wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a significant part of the U.S. population that wants to roll back gay marriage. What if that happened? As it is, you'd have to move out of the country. You're relying on the right people being in office/power making the right decisions in your opinion. But of course, at any point the wrong people can get into office and make the wrong decision in your opinion. For nearly half the country, that happened when O…

> There's a significant part of the U.S. population that wants to roll back gay marriage. Oppressing others isn't something that should be allowed to happen, period; those people are simply wrong, the position is immoral and indefensible. These things belong at the federal level, states should not be allowed to say oppression is OK because a majority of our citizens want to oppress gays.

To quote you above[1]:

> That's a matter of opinion.

To be clear, I am not one who is in favor of rolling back gay marriage. But you cannot logically say

> Oppressing others isn't something that should be allowed to happen, period

while in the same breath calling for the oppression of those you disagree with. It's an inconsistent position using the same argument you're railing against.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14555374

Re: The Hidden Cost of Privatization

#109

Post by bjl »

subverter wrote: post #98
frgtpsswrdlame wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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.

>which they wouldn't if government stopped intervening.

That's a very strong assumption, and I see no reason to believe its true.

Re: The Hidden Cost of Privatization

#110

Post by subverter »

maxerickson wrote: post #104
subverter wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.…

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.) So is it arguably better for everyone or should there be protections for the children (who are presumably part of "everyone")? I think if you immediately include a disclaimer about the children you probably don't believe there is much of an argument to b…

Child labor is complex subject that we should avoid getting into here. The reason I added my disclaimer is because my argument is about cheaper goods, not any particular way they happen to be produced.
Post reply on HN