|
|
#61
08-08-2007, 12:18 AM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Universal Health Care
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] "It seems reasonable to suspect that government might be able to administer some particular industry better than private business due to differences of structure and incentive." [ QUOTE ] It may seem reasonable... but can you give us an example? [/ QUOTE ] [/ QUOTE ] The fire service [/ QUOTE ] Just because you say so? 
|
|
#62
08-08-2007, 12:26 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Universal Health Care
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] "It seems reasonable to suspect that government might be able to administer some particular industry better than private business due to differences of structure and incentive." [ QUOTE ] It may seem reasonable... but can you give us an example? [/ QUOTE ] [/ QUOTE ] The fire service [/ QUOTE ] Just because you say so? [/ QUOTE ] Are there laws restricting competition from private fire companies?
|
|
#63
08-08-2007, 12:32 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Universal Health Care
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] "It seems reasonable to suspect that government might be able to administer some particular industry better than private business due to differences of structure and incentive." [ QUOTE ] It may seem reasonable... but can you give us an example? [/ QUOTE ] [/ QUOTE ] The fire service [/ QUOTE ] Just because you say so? [/ QUOTE ] Are there laws restricting competition from private fire companies? [/ QUOTE ] Speeding, red lights, stop signs, and no parking in fire zones come to mind as laws which might hinder a private service.
|
|
#64
08-08-2007, 12:36 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Universal Health Care
[ QUOTE ]
Of course. Presuming that you allow the government to make continual losses, which they always do, regardless of the industry, blackjack or otherwise, and grant it the power to make up those losses through coercion. Since you will be diverting resources that would have voluntarily gone to other goods and services that would not have voluntarily been purchased in the absence of the government blackjack monopoly (otherwise there is no need for it), you have forced consumers to take lesser valued (according to them) rather than higher valued goods and services (again, according to them). I.e. you have made everyone poorer. There is no possible sense in which you can claim to be providing a good or service better while making everyone poorer for it. This analysis holds no matter which good or service you'd like to monopolize/subsidize/restrict/etc. the production of. [/ QUOTE ] First, governments don't lose money on lotteries as far as I know. Second, it would be trivial for the government to provide the same level of action as all private casinos combined provide. If they do that and then operate so as to break even they are administering the industry better than private enterprise. There probably won't be much net increase in blackjack losses nationally, so the consumer will simply get more play for their money, if overhead costs remain constant. [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] It might even be able to avoid a dreaded stagnation in blackjack innovation. [/ QUOTE ] Because, certainly, monopoly doesn't harm innovation:  [/ QUOTE ] Innovation in blackjack...
|
|
#65
08-08-2007, 12:42 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Universal Health Care
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] "It seems reasonable to suspect that government might be able to administer some particular industry better than private business due to differences of structure and incentive." [ QUOTE ] It may seem reasonable... but can you give us an example? [/ QUOTE ] [/ QUOTE ] The fire service [/ QUOTE ] Just because you say so? [/ QUOTE ] Are there laws restricting competition from private fire companies? [/ QUOTE ] Speeding, red lights, stop signs, and no parking in fire zones come to mind as laws which might hinder a private service. [/ QUOTE ] Good points. Secondly, what do you think someone would say if you tried to sell them fire protection in a city? I see that Scottsdale, AZ contracts out a private firm, but it still isn't chosen by people. Also this statement from their website seems to support the idea that they aren't representative of a truly private organization: " Rural/Metro was instrumental in leading the passage of a residential and commercial fire sprinkler ordinance that has made Scottsdale a proven safer city in which to live and work " web page
|
|
#66
08-08-2007, 12:45 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Universal Health Care
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] "It seems reasonable to suspect that government might be able to administer some particular industry better than private business due to differences of structure and incentive." [ QUOTE ] It may seem reasonable... but can you give us an example? [/ QUOTE ] [/ QUOTE ] The fire service [/ QUOTE ] Just because you say so? [/ QUOTE ] Are there laws restricting competition from private fire companies? [/ QUOTE ] Speeding, red lights, stop signs, and no parking in fire zones come to mind as laws which might hinder a private service. [/ QUOTE ] they dont hinder private ambulance companies.
|
|
#67
08-08-2007, 12:53 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Universal Health Care
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] "It seems reasonable to suspect that government might be able to administer some particular industry better than private business due to differences of structure and incentive." [ QUOTE ] It may seem reasonable... but can you give us an example? [/ QUOTE ] [/ QUOTE ] The fire service [/ QUOTE ] Just because you say so? [/ QUOTE ] Are there laws restricting competition from private fire companies? [/ QUOTE ] Speeding, red lights, stop signs, and no parking in fire zones come to mind as laws which might hinder a private service. [/ QUOTE ] they dont hinder private ambulance companies. [/ QUOTE ] Good point.
|
|
#68
08-08-2007, 12:55 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Universal Health Care
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] "It seems reasonable to suspect that government might be able to administer some particular industry better than private business due to differences of structure and incentive." [ QUOTE ] It may seem reasonable... but can you give us an example? [/ QUOTE ] [/ QUOTE ] The fire service [/ QUOTE ] Just because you say so? [/ QUOTE ] Are there laws restricting competition from private fire companies? [/ QUOTE ] Speeding, red lights, stop signs, and no parking in fire zones come to mind as laws which might hinder a private service. [/ QUOTE ] they dont hinder private ambulance companies. [/ QUOTE ] Do you consider a company that is subsidized by tax money to be private? Also, do you think that a truly private ambulance service is inferior to one ran by a municipality?
|
|
#70
08-08-2007, 01:10 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Universal Health Care
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] "It seems reasonable to suspect that government might be able to administer some particular industry better than private business due to differences of structure and incentive." [ QUOTE ] It may seem reasonable... but can you give us an example? [/ QUOTE ] [/ QUOTE ] The fire service [/ QUOTE ] Just because you say so? [/ QUOTE ] Are there laws restricting competition from private fire companies? [/ QUOTE ] Speeding, red lights, stop signs, and no parking in fire zones come to mind as laws which might hinder a private service. [/ QUOTE ] they dont hinder private ambulance companies. [/ QUOTE ] Do you consider a company that is subsidized by tax money to be private? Also, do you think that a truly private ambulance service is inferior to one ran by a municipality? [/ QUOTE ] No, a regulated or subsidized company (such as Scottsdales Rural/Metro fire service) is not "private". And no, I dont think a private ambulance service is necessarily inferior to municipals, in fact I would think that privates are in the majority. However, full privitization (and therefore competition) of fire services would be either more costly or less effective than regulated fire services.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
