Brad, There is all the difference in the world between market competition and government action to provide something better at a lower price.
In the market, things will change while the government are trying to put together a committee. Obviously the 4 minute miler would beat the cripple in a race. But then, perhaps, next morning he would get a job working for the cripple. In other words, there are all kinds of talents and lack of same. In a just society, which means equality of condition - everyone will be able to earn a reasonable living. Those few who are in desperate straits will be provided for privately -they always have. The coming of the welfare state increases the number who "need" welfare. Now everyone gets privileges, from the poor who get food stamps to the middleclass who get tax relief on to the rich who enjoy privilege in quantity. They would all be better off in a free society, but they are unlikely to get it. Harry ******************************************** Henry George School of Social Science of Los Angeles Box 655 Tujunga CA 91042 Tel: 818 352-4141 -- Fax: 818 353-2242 http://haledward.home.comcast.net ******************************************** -----Original Message----- From: Brad McCormick, Ed.D. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, November 23, 2003 4:43 AM To: Harry Pollard Cc: 'pete'; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [Futurework] Private health care (was E.European...) -- the free market again(?) Harry Pollard wrote: > Brad, > > I've already told you that you are too good to be anxious about small > things. Thank you. But I still think that goodness is its own reward (or as the cliche might go, a cup of coffee regularly costs $1.85 in Starbucks, but it's only $1.85 if you are good). > > At the end of 20 years, your doctor will probably retire, so you will > have to get used to another. My current doctor is younger than I am. He "inherited" me from a doctor who retired (and who was older than me). > > Groups of doctors are better than single doctors, for they can fill in > for each other. There's always a doctor there when you need him. True enough. My doctor is in a group practice that probably has over 50 doctors on its staff, if not more than twice that many. > > The difference between entities such as Kaiser and (say) the Canadian > National Health Service, is that Kaiser has to compete. > If standards go down they will lose members to a competing service. [snip] Maybe here is a place where we can get some "traction" on the issue of competition. If "Kaiser's" standards go down and/*or* some other "private" provider offers better service *or* lower rates (perhaps with worse service), "customers" may move to the competing service. But who are the customers? Not individual putatively free persons like me (and maybe you?), but corporate entities: businesses, universities, government agencies, etc. for whom individuals work. This is obvious, but doesn't it get to the heart of your idea of competition and "free markets"? The rich, do indeed have a free market, but not persons below what I have cynically called the Golden Parachute Line. The Canadian Health Service is subject to change, too. The specific mechanism would be different (e.g., the legislature taking action). If you say this kind of institution is [even?] more difficult to change than "private" institutions like "Kaiser", I don't disagree, but aren't we talking in all cases about what social order is legislated and enforced, not "whether"? But isn't the issue exactly what kinds of institutions with what kinds of external controls will work best for an "us" which is composed of a very large number of indiviuals who, no matter what shape the institutions take, are not "players", "customers" or whatever one wishes to call the shapers of the institutions, but rather have our choices shaped by external forces, be they "private" (corporate) or "public" (i.e., governmental, which we know may be largely a veil for furthering of "private" interests)? Don't you think that neither "socializing" not "privatizing" solves the problem, so that neither the socialists nor the "neo-cons" can have a simple answer? But I think that, given the forced choice, I would tend to side with the socialists (or, of course, if they exist, the moderates, who may be the best of all...), because the "neo-cons" and persons like George W Bush seem not to care how much people other than their privileged clique suffer, or how much they themselves wilfully *add* to people's sufferings. Do you really believe that most persons compete on a level playing field, or that the field could be levelled, or even that if it could be that to do so would be desirable? One of the conundrums from "Philosophy 101" is -- I forget its name -- the issue of what constitutes justice, since some persons are crippled and some can run a 4 minute mile, etc. Should the 4 minute milers take al and the cripples freeze to death in garbage dumps? Should the con-man cripples take all from the honest athletes, etc.? Best wishes to all! \brad mccormick --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.548 / Virus Database: 341 - Release Date: 12/5/2003 _______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://scribe.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
