Voluntary mutual aid associations >>government "solution"

[jstnrgrs]

I'm very disapointed in the direction this thread has taken. The point is that there was a good healthcare system in place, and then the government messed it up.

It doesn't matter weather or not a non-profit or a for profit provides better care. Both would probably provide better than the current system. If for-profit can provide healthcare more effieiently, I'm sure they would.

[nietzreznor]

[ QUOTE ]
I am saying the resulting economy's health care industry will NEVER be driven by the mutual aid societies because they are inefficient and quite frankly no better than governments at what they do.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure how you can make this claim, given that when we had a freer society health care was driven by mutual aid societies.

That said, I don't think it matters much since I think there would be significant contributions from both non-profit and for-profit industries (and I think Long's point about different types of economies is relevant here too--mutual aid societies might be either charity or labor economy, and I think all three types would be important).

[ShakeZula06]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm very disapointed in the direction this thread has taken. The point is that there was a good healthcare system in place, and then the government messed it up.

It doesn't matter weather or not a non-profit or a for profit provides better care. Both would probably provide better than the current system. If for-profit can provide healthcare more effieiently, I'm sure they would.

[/ QUOTE ]
word.

[almostbusto]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
what I am saying is that these organization will never be effective or widespread because they suck at what they do.

[/ QUOTE ]

Did you read the OP?

[/ QUOTE ]
yes, have you taken an introductory economics course?

[/ QUOTE ]

Why are you so combative in this thread? I asked if you read the OP because it describes an example of the organizations in question becoming widespread and effective through free market forces. Since you are claiming that they will never be effective or widespread, perhaps you could address this? (Without being a dick)

[/ QUOTE ]

sorry if i got combative, i was fine up until PVN's post #10801182 and #10801215, at that point and on he is just trolling and/or not even reading my posts before responding.


re: why they won't be efficient:
I already outlined it in my post about the hypothetical cancer charity. not having a profit motive makes it very hard for any organization to be efficient in achieving its goals because its hard to find proper benchmarks for success and its hard to provide the proper incentives to management. its even harder when dealing with all the intangibles that charities do, since its hard to do a cost benefit analysis when the benefits are almost impossible to measure. but i am just repeating myself, i think the cancer hypothetical post outlines the argument pretty well.

[almostbusto]

[ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure how you can make this claim, given that when we had a freer society health care was driven by mutual aid societies.


[/ QUOTE ]

Let me preface my thoughts by saying I have read that entire article.

I am no history buff, but I am not sure your claim is correct. I see no evidence that the health care industry was ever dominated by these societies and i don't think the article actually establishes that. maybe you know something i don't. the health care industry is a much more capital intensive industry nowadays as well, so even if it were true its not necessarily analogous.

i have a very strong suspicion that the majority of money spent on healthcare has always been individually funded or funded by traditional insurance companies. I will see if i can find evidence to support it.


the statistic in the article that at the height of fraternal societies, only 25% of Americans were members supports my argument (at least i think that was the stat). I am guessing that some of those 25% were members who paid in but never received funds from the society for healthcare (and never planned too). I am sure many people used these societies more like a country club than an insurance agency and never planned on collecting any health care benefits and instead privately funded their own health care in some manner. So that number should be diluted further.

[ShakeZula06]

[ QUOTE ]
the statistic in the article that at the height of fraternal societies, only 25% of Americans were members supports my argument

[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, one of the primary sources of health care and health insurance for the working poor in Britain, Australia, and the United States was the fraternal society.

[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
As recently as 1920, over one-quarter of all adult Americans were members of fraternal societies. (The figure was still higher in Britain and Australia.)

[/ QUOTE ]
From this we can draw that 1920 was a declining year for fraternities, and that the 1/4th number was for America, and was higher in the Britain and Australia.

[bkholdem]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
what I am saying is that these organization will never be effective or widespread because they suck at what they do.

[/ QUOTE ]

Did you read the OP?

[/ QUOTE ]
yes, have you taken an introductory economics course?

[/ QUOTE ]

Why are you so combative in this thread? I asked if you read the OP because it describes an example of the organizations in question becoming widespread and effective through free market forces. Since you are claiming that they will never be effective or widespread, perhaps you could address this? (Without being a dick)

[/ QUOTE ]

sorry if i got combative, i was fine up until PVN's post #10801182 and #10801215, at that point and on he is just trolling and/or not even reading my posts before responding.


re: why they won't be efficient:
I already outlined it in my post about the hypothetical cancer charity. not having a profit motive makes it very hard for any organization to be efficient in achieving its goals because its hard to find proper benchmarks for success and its hard to provide the proper incentives to management. its even harder when dealing with all the intangibles that charities do, since its hard to do a cost benefit analysis when the benefits are almost impossible to measure. but i am just repeating myself, i think the cancer hypothetical post outlines the argument pretty well.

[/ QUOTE ]

How much is presently pissed down the rathole in govt since there is no profit motive?

Do you realized the 'benchmarks for success' in govt are a joke?

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Nobody ever claimed that "these societes are major players".


[/ QUOTE ]

ORLY?????????????


[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I am just saying they won't be a major player in solving these problems, because simply put, they can't (at least not nearly as efficiently).

[/ QUOTE ]

How come they are now?


[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, you're conflating the "societies" mentioned in the OP with "charities" that you've been yammering about.

Would you say that, for example, HHMI is "not a major player"? The Gates Foundation?

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
PVN you are just being a troll at this point. you are suggesting that owners might actually like it if managers game their incentive structure to maximize the manager's income while doing as little work as possible?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not suggesting anything of the sort. I am suggesting that it's really none of your business if they do, unless YOU happen to be that owner. If they are as inefficient as you say they are, they will be bankrupt pretty quickly, so the "problem" solves itself.


[/ QUOTE ]

Are you trying to be obtuse? Like i said i am not worried about it, i am not saying it is my business. what I am saying is that these organization will never be effective or widespread because they suck at what they do.

you are just being intellectually lazy by just considering what needs to be done to create an ACist society, you never consider what the resulting economy would look like. I am saying the resulting economy's health care industry will NEVER be driven by the mutual aid societies because they are inefficient and quite frankly no better than governments at what they do.

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe you're right. What difference does it make?

[almostbusto]

[ QUOTE ]

Do you realized the 'benchmarks for success' in govt are a joke?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't buy into government based solutions to America's health care problems. so i agree with you, i think my posts make this point very obvious.