Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : A US National Health Care System? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lane3 who wrote (2778)	11/8/2007 8:23:29 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 42652

I have some experience with the civil service. Of course I have the normal experience of having to deal with them on occasion as a citizen, and I've worked with them in the past when I was in the national guard (15 days a year for 6 years), but my experience of the civil service is a lot less extensive than yours. Still I don't think that there fundamentally different from other humans. Self interest is important to them, and the collective good, while something they might consider important, isn't always something that comes up on a day to day basis. Which isn't to say that they are particularly narrow minded self-serving people. Just that they aren't saints, or measurably closer to that status than other groups. Self interest is a major motivator in their lives just like it is in other people's lives. I'm not sure that Peter's point was that the people in the federal civil service are so focused on their own narrow interest. I think it was more the point that Adam Smith made, when he talked about how the baker doesn't produce bread out of the goodness of his heart but out of his desire to profit. The point being that the self interest to provide a good or service is a more reliable way to get the good or service than relying on people's desire to achieve a collective good. Its not like self interest isn't a factor in the civil service doing their job. They are working for money, and if they do their job better they are probably more likely to get recognition, and promotion. OTOH "doing their job better" might not always mean serving the people they work for. To the extent they can advance by meeting politicians wishes, to the extent they are isolated from the politics, than the meeting the "cultural" expectations of their organization, which might not always match up with the actual needs of their "clients" The problems when dealing with them are more likely to be problems with the system than problems with the individual. Some of those system wide problems originate with the politicians. Others are just part of the nature of bureaucracies. Corporations have bureaucracies as well and some of the same problems, but at least they have the check of having to make a profit. I'm sort of rambling here. Probably should have dropped out one or two points, or put them in separate posts instead of jumping from idea to idea...

To: Lane3 who wrote (2778)	11/9/2007 12:38:30 PM
From: Peter Dierks	Respond to of 42652

I guess I am not willing to gamble my life and the lives of my family on the bet that it will always be the way you experienced it.

To: Lane3 who wrote (2778)	11/12/2007 9:31:16 AM
From: Peter Dierks	Respond to of 42652

freemarketcure.com What’s great about this is that Browning has done more than recap the basic problems with socialized medicine; he’s actually gone out and found the human side of the story, taking a (painful, I think) look at the personal costs that come when government gets put in charge of health care. Universal coverage advocates love to trot out personal anecdotes in service of their arguments — often times instead of them. But it should be remembered that liberals don’t have a monopoly on such stories. Government-run medicine has a deep, personal cost as well.