Universal Healthcare

[Bjorn]

[ QUOTE ]
By removing the motivation for profit, people who would have gone to school to become doctors end up going to school for something else.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well I'm not so sure about that part. There are some mighty powerful non-monetary incentives to be a doctor after all. I know this is anectdotal but despite universal health care and lower doctor salaries than in many other countries studying to be a doctor is still the extremly desired. So desired in fact that not even the maximum possible grades is neccesarilly enough, typical they have to resort to a lottery to separate among people with top grades.

/Bjorn

[Propertarian]

[ QUOTE ]
instead of everyone having a great level of care, everyone has some beaurocratic middling level of care.

[/ QUOTE ] And the place in the world in which everyone has a great level of care is???

The countries with the highest median level of care are certainly ones in which universal health care exists.

[Propertarian]

[ QUOTE ]
you do realize that commons only exist where the market does not, don't you?

[/ QUOTE ] Correct. And this is a classic reason to have government: some markets do not exist, and some are terribly incomplete.

[Propertarian]

[ QUOTE ]
If there were 3 cable companies competing with each other there would be no cable tv because the cable would never have been laid.

[/ QUOTE ] Even once they were laid, it is still preferable to have government regulation or ownership of cable companies, because cable is an example of a natural monopoly.

[kidpokeher]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If there were 3 cable companies competing with each other there would be no cable tv because the cable would never have been laid.

[/ QUOTE ] Even once they were laid, it is still preferable to have government regulation or ownership of cable companies, because cable is an example of a natural monopoly.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why is it that telecom deregulation has worked for the most part (AT&T may disagree) whereas cable companies are still pretty much a monopoly for the areas they serve?

I'm being simplistic, but it seems they both offer a "pipe" and charge customers to use that pipe.

[tolbiny]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If there were 3 cable companies competing with each other there would be no cable tv because the cable would never have been laid.

[/ QUOTE ] Even once they were laid, it is still preferable to have government regulation or ownership of cable companies, because cable is an example of a natural monopoly.

[/ QUOTE ]

What? Cble is NOT a natural monopoly. Frist there are free TV channels, second there are satellite networks (more than one), third there are downloadable shows online, thirdly there are hundreds of other types of media for education/intertainment. Books, newspapers, movies, theatre.

[tolbiny]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
instead of everyone having a great level of care, everyone has some beaurocratic middling level of care.

[/ QUOTE ] And the place in the world in which everyone has a great level of care is???

The countries with the highest median level of care are certainly ones in which universal health care exists.

[/ QUOTE ]

What, like Norway that sits on the biggest pile of money in the world (not exactly a situation you can replicate), or Japan that is currently holding 150%+ of its GDP in public debt. How ong can it continue paying for stuff on credit?

[tolbiny]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
you do realize that commons only exist where the market does not, don't you?

[/ QUOTE ] Correct. And this is a classic reason to have government: some markets do not exist, and some are terribly incomplete.



[/ QUOTE ]

At some points in time "commons" exist when there is more land and resources than the current inhabitants can use (like after killing all the indians there were "so many" buffalo that poeple hunted them near to extinction, and there was no property rights to protect because there was to much land to own). These situations do not exist in the real world with a very small number of possible exceptions (i could see large tracts of fishless oceans being unownable), however the commons and "incomplete markets" may still persist becase government intervention prevents those markets from developing, not because of something inherent to those markets/resources.

[AlexM]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
By removing the motivation for profit, people who would have gone to school to become doctors end up going to school for something else.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well I'm not so sure about that part. There are some mighty powerful non-monetary incentives to be a doctor after all.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh absolutely. Most doctors become doctors in large part because they want a job that helps people. Not all do though, and even if you only lose say 10% of your doctors because of this, it's a pretty nasty blow. And even among those who want to help there's generally a subconcious desire to make money as well. How many will find ways to help people in more lucrative ways, such as being a lawyer?

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If there were 3 cable companies competing with each other there would be no cable tv because the cable would never have been laid.

[/ QUOTE ] Even once they were laid, it is still preferable to have government regulation or ownership of cable companies, because cable is an example of a natural monopoly.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why is it that telecom deregulation has worked for the most part (AT&T may disagree) whereas cable companies are still pretty much a monopoly for the areas they serve?

I'm being simplistic, but it seems they both offer a "pipe" and charge customers to use that pipe.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think the assumption that telecom deregulation worked is questionable. A lot of the price pressure on telecom is the result of technology...satellite, internet, and cable...creating competition, not competition with traditional land line companies created by the spinoff.

There is a long thread from about a year ago analyzing the breakup of ATT, the early competition (or lack thereof) among the RBOCs, and the crossover of computer networking expertise overcoming the R&D advantage of Bell Labs.