The "WAr On Women??"

[js207]

Good point! If we all have to pay anyway, why not pay where we get the most out of it = a system that doesn't have to show a profit, but just has to cover costs?

In practice, that tends not to work; the small profit margin tends to help improve efficiency, which isn't generally something government bodies are known for.

[leo9]

In practice, that tends not to work; the small profit margin tends to help improve efficiency, which isn't generally something government bodies are known for.

Then why are healthcare costs in the US twice or three times as much as they are in all those "inefficient" government run systems in other countries? (For poorer health outcomes, in many areas.) Could it have something to do with the need for corporations to keep paying their shareholders? Or is it - as our recent economic disasters suggest - that the whole idea that capitalism automatically means efficiency is a myth?

[StrictMasterD]

Then why are healthcare costs in the US twice or three times as much as they are in all those "inefficient" government run systems in other countries? (For poorer health outcomes, in many areas.) Could it have something to do with the need for corporations to keep paying their shareholders? Or is it - as our recent economic disasters suggest - that the whole idea that capitalism automatically means efficiency is a myth?

No it is so Pharmcutial Comaspnies can send Billions upon Billions on R&D and pay thier CEO's etc $25,000,000 a year in slalry plus bonuses it is all about the money noting more,Pharmacitical Companies could care less about the average American Joe, they do it for the Money
They jsut said on the new tonight that the CIO of Chase, although she resigned do to the scandal, that she was paid $23 mill, in salary last years and got a "Serverence Check" today for $15 Million and she ovewr saw the issue and did noting so it cost Chase $2-4 Milioni n comapny money, they did mention money last was NOT customer money but their own money, yet she recieive as $15 miloin dolar bomus as service pay for costing her company to loos $2-4 Billion,?? No wonder our Costs and bank feesare so high, if i cost my company that kind of money I would not only be out a job but possibly facing criminal charges

[leo9]

No it is so Pharmcutial Comaspnies can send Billions upon Billions on R&D and pay thier CEO's etc $25,000,000 a year in slalry plus bonuses it is all about the money noting more,Pharmacitical Companies could care less about the average American Joe, they do it for the Money
They jsut said on the new tonight that the CIO of Chase, although she resigned do to the scandal, that she was paid $23 mill, in salary last years and got a "Serverence Check" today for $15 Million and she ovewr saw the issue and did noting so it cost Chase $2-4 Milioni n comapny money, they did mention money last was NOT customer money but their own money, yet she recieive as $15 miloin dolar bomus as service pay for costing her company to loos $2-4 Billion,?? No wonder our Costs and bank feesare so high, if i cost my company that kind of money I would not only be out a job but possibly facing criminal charges

Like I said: the claim that capitalism leads to efficiency is a myth. Corporations waste money on a scale that no government outside China could get away with.

[Punish_her]

Like I said: the claim that capitalism leads to efficiency is a myth. Corporations waste money on a scale that no government outside China could get away with.

if chase is wasting its own money, who cares? the government wastes FAR more money, and its my money that they're wasting

[leo9]

if chase is wasting its own money, who cares? the government wastes FAR more money, and its my money that they're wasting

If you think a bank's losses are nobody else's problem, you really haven't been paying attention. Banks don't make money out of thin air, though they often talk as if they did, to cover up the fact that their money comes from the same place as everyone else's, the hard work of ordinary folk.

These losses will come out of the pockets of their customers, in poorer interest rates and higher charges, and out of the general economy, in less loans to business, depressing trade. Even if they never have to apply for a government bailout, they are sustained on the market by the certainty that the government will catch them if they fall: and the government's credit rating is the poorer because the markets know it could be exposed to that kind of unplanned cost. Which means that when the banks look shaky, government borrowing costs the government more, which comes out of your taxes. "No free lunch" applies to bad stuff as well as good.

It's all of a piece with what I've been trying to explain about social welfare issues like health and policing and emergency services. Society is all interconnected, that's what "society" means, and anyone who thinks they can live as a heroically independent individual within it is dreaming. Unfortunately, it's a dream that a lot of politicians and business leaders like to encourage, since people don't act collectively if they think their neighbours' troubles are nothing to do with them. Divide and rule at the personal level.

[Punish_her]

If you think a bank's losses are nobody else's problem, you really haven't been paying attention. Banks don't make money out of thin air, though they often talk as if they did, to cover up the fact that their money comes from the same place as everyone else's, the hard work of ordinary folk.

These losses will come out of the pockets of their customers, in poorer interest rates and higher charges, and out of the general economy, in less loans to business, depressing trade. Even if they never have to apply for a government bailout, they are sustained on the market by the certainty that the government will catch them if they fall: and the government's credit rating is the poorer because the markets know it could be exposed to that kind of unplanned cost. Which means that when the banks look shaky, government borrowing costs the government more, which comes out of your taxes. "No free lunch" applies to bad stuff as well as good.

It's all of a piece with what I've been trying to explain about social welfare issues like health and policing and emergency services. Society is all interconnected, that's what "society" means, and anyone who thinks they can live as a heroically independent individual within it is dreaming. Unfortunately, it's a dream that a lot of politicians and business leaders like to encourage, since people don't act collectively if they think their neighbours' troubles are nothing to do with them. Divide and rule at the personal level.

ah yes, i do love getting lectures on the banking system, its not as if im about to complete a masters degree in the field or anything.
1) you're absolutely right, their money does come from the hard work of ordinary folk . . . which will grow with interest if they give it to a bank.
2) if you're literally losing money by having it in a bank, you wont leave it in the bank. thats just stupid
3) bailout and fdic insurance is not the same. at all really
4) a 500 billion dollar bailout would only make up 13% of the federal budget. considering the deficit is already projected to be 2.5 times that, i got a feeling its not that big of a deal
5) seems that you really just want free shit from other people. you said yourself "no such thing as a free lunch" but then you find it unbelievable that people should pay out of their pocket for fire protection, health services, or police.
and finally, in the wake of serious losses, the cio steps down, and this is inefficient? usps loses about 3 billion every quarter, and they close only a few offices. right, super efficient

[Punish_her]

If you think a bank's losses are nobody else's problem, you really haven't been paying attention. Banks don't make money out of thin air, though they often talk as if they did, to cover up the fact that their money comes from the same place as everyone else's, the hard work of ordinary folk.

These losses will come out of the pockets of their customers, in poorer interest rates and higher charges, and out of the general economy, in less loans to business, depressing trade. Even if they never have to apply for a government bailout, they are sustained on the market by the certainty that the government will catch them if they fall: and the government's credit rating is the poorer because the markets know it could be exposed to that kind of unplanned cost. Which means that when the banks look shaky, government borrowing costs the government more, which comes out of your taxes. "No free lunch" applies to bad stuff as well as good.

It's all of a piece with what I've been trying to explain about social welfare issues like health and policing and emergency services. Society is all interconnected, that's what "society" means, and anyone who thinks they can live as a heroically independent individual within it is dreaming. Unfortunately, it's a dream that a lot of politicians and business leaders like to encourage, since people don't act collectively if they think their neighbours' troubles are nothing to do with them. Divide and rule at the personal level.

and this is? . . . hookay

[thir]

In practice, that tends not to work; the small profit margin tends to help improve efficiency, which isn't generally something government bodies are known for.

Each system has its pro and cons..commercial health care is there to make money, and so it does what makes the most money with smallest cost, which is often not something that benefits the customers. We have this discussion here in UK right now, with our goverment wanting to sell out public health care.

It is also true that public hospitals can be very expensive and need overseeing, but at least their first priority is people's health, and we are many who share in paying.