US Politics - Pretending that the Iowa caucuses matter for some reason

[lupis42]

Why do we frame the consideration for our government in the business model? That seems utterly inappropriate.

Governments are not companies, cannot and should not be compared to them

When government provides a service that could also be provided by a free market (e.g. health insurance, retirement savings/insurance, disability insurance) it makes sense to compare the government to a corporation as service provider.

Also, since both governments and corporations employ bureacracies, comparing the organizational structures and incentives to employees is again extremely spot on.

Actually, in practice, getting sick does bring moral entitlements in our culture. If you won't give up your seat in the train for a person on crutches on request and make them stand, you'll probably feel guilty, and you might get 'tut's from nearby passengers. You get more benefits from being unemployed due to disability than from normal joblessness in countries with welfare. If you mistreat or swindle a sick or disabled person, you will get judged harsher than if you had done the same to a healthy person.

Do you have a problem with these things? If so, why?

There's two kinds of unemployment due to disability - when the disability was acquired in the course of your job, in which case it is not unreasonable to consider disability insurance as a factor of compensation, and SSI-style disability, which I have much more of a problem with, but that's getting a bit off topic.

If you mistreat or swindle a person, the harshness of the judgement will be in proportion to that person's ability to defend themselves, and the harm you do - so mistreating a healthy child will be judged more harshly than a wealthy person with cancer, and swindling a little old lady out of her retirement will be judged more harshly than getting the same amount of money from Bill Gates. The cause of the power discrepency is still morally neutral in most cases.

As far as the person on the train is concerned, I agree with the principle, but I think it's more limited than you're making it out to be, and less specific - the moral fervor is very minor, mostly limited to cases where the disability is obvious or visible, and the cultural attitudes are very mixed when it comes to enforcement, especially when the sacrifice required goes up. Consider handicapped parking - everyone agrees that it's reasonable to respect it when there are dozens of other spaces 100 yards away. It gets much more mixed when there are no other parking options within a mile, or when an appartment building's residents only parking lot has handicapped spaces, but there are no handicapped residents and residents are being forced to park on the street.

[Atreides]

When government provides a service that could also be provided by a free market (e.g. health insurance, retirement savings/insurance, disability insurance) it makes sense to compare the government to a corporation as service provider.

Also, since both governments and corporations employ bureacracies, comparing the organizational structures and incentives to employees is again extremely spot on.

I believe you mentioned earlier how most businesses are closed within five years. Stuff like health insurance and retirement savings are extremely critical to the general welfare. If put in private hands, they might be run more efficiently--until they are lost as the company goes under. The government guarantees reliability at the cost of some efficiency. Because of the loss of efficiency government is not apt to run all aspects of the economy, but in some cases the trade off is worth it. And for instance, in terms of health care, if everyone has insurance they can get regular checkups and treat problems early, which saves money. If someone cannot afford insurance then they are apt to wait under a health problem becomes crippling, in which case they become unable to work while they recover and society pays the more expensive bill anyways. Which is better? That's why government has a role in some areas, even if it is less efficient. Because short-term profit is not always the best scenario.

[Brienne the Beauty]

The government guarantees reliability at the cost of some efficiency.

In some cases, government-run can actually be more efficient. I can tell you that the UK NHS has way less paperwork for the consumer than the American system, having experienced both. "Healthcare billing" isn't even a job in the UK, due to being completely redundant. When you go to the doctors in the USA you have to fill out a big form detailing your health insurance and conditions. This seems to need to be done every visit, with an even longer form the first time. As well as being annoying, this data has to be entered and processed by someone who needs to be paid, which increases costs. When you go to the doctors in the UK, you just turn up and give them your national insurance number the first visit, and with subsequent visits there is no paperwork at all. This has obvious efficiency savings.

Competition only promotes efficiency in business sectors where the consumer has free choice. Since most people in the USA have next-to-no choice about who their health insurance is with, they get the inefficiencies of a monopoly combined with the requirement to make a profit of a private business, which leads to high prices all round.

[TerraPrime]

When government provides a service that could also be provided by a free market (e.g. health insurance, retirement savings/insurance, disability insurance) it makes sense to compare the government to a corporation as service provider.

Also, since both governments and corporations employ bureacracies, comparing the organizational structures and incentives to employees is again extremely spot on.

I disagree.

First of all, there are no services which the government provides which cannot be privatized. None. There is no reason, for example, why a private mercenary force cannot serve just as well for national security. It's simply that we prefer to not use mercenaries.

Second, the fundamental difference that makes applying a business model to analyze government services inappropriate is the underlying motive. When we say that a business is more efficient than a government service, we are implying that turning a profit is more important than the other factors, for that's what concerns businesses and what makes a business "good." I'm happy to talk about how we can make the government services more efficient and more cost-effective, but I reject the framework in which we judge government services by the standards that we use to evaluate businesses.

[Tormund Ukrainesbane]

Competition only promotes efficiency in business sectors where the consumer has free choice. Since most people in the USA have next-to-no choice about who their health insurance is with, they get the inefficiencies of a monopoly combined with the requirement to make a profit of a private business, which leads to high prices all round.

I wonder whose fault that is?

[Arthmail]

Job creators are that which take resources and create something of greater value to someone else. That's why jobs exist.

That is a fairly simplistic way of looking at the economy, and not entirely true.

People need to get over this notion that job creators will hire more people if they pay less taxes. That is blatantly not true. I own a construction business, i am only going to hire as many people as i can reasonably expect to keep employed over the course of the year. This year it looks to be about ten, but if you cut my taxes back, that number will not change. It will just mean i am personally taking home more, and while i can be generous with my employees, most owners feel no such compulsion to pass any of the profits down.

As for estate taxes, there is no reason that they should not be taxed. All of this libertarian bullshit is just helping to create a gilded class. The sad thing is that the people defending it the most loudly are the ones that are not a part of it. Those that are a part of it are using the loopholes all of the hoople-heads have allowed to pass to continue their multi-generational power grab, if they are not actively endorsing candidates that support them or giving money to lobby groups or superpacs that support their cause.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Considering that the Republicans have made it VERY clear they will veto ANYTHING proposed by Obama - even things they actively support (at least in theory),

Here is a listing of all the laws passed in 2011, none of which could have passed if your statement, including CAPITALIZED emphasis so everyone would know you really meant it, was true. It starts with laws passed as early as January 31, 2011, and went right through the end of December.

http://www.congress-summary.com/B-112th-Congress/Laws_Passed_112th_Congress_Seq.html