Palin = The Worst Telepalmter Reader of ALL TIME!!!

0 Kudos

Started By	Comment
squashthebeef		#1881	[-]
Posts: 23525 (11/19/09 2:33 PM) super badass Reply Quote More Recent Posts	but the medical industry isn't just comprised of doctors, is it? What's the pay off for the industry as a whole if profit is removed?
springfeverish		#1882	[-]
Posts: 3800 (11/19/09 2:34 PM) Registered User Reply Quote More Recent Posts	What is the 'payoff' for other non-profits? What is the 'pay-off' in countries that have effective healthcare systems such as France or Australia? You assume that there will be no financial oversight because the profit motive is taken out. But if you look at non-profit and for-profit hospitals this is not only not true but the non-profits are less costly and more efficient. Serving community and society while making a decent salary with nice benefits is a powerful motivation for many. Like some teachers, maybe?
platoshrimp		#1883	[-]
Posts: 52 (11/19/09 2:44 PM) Registered User Reply Quote More Recent Posts	Archimedes wrote: If Rick Sanchez wanted to be "Fair & Balanced" (like Fox News) he needs people to discuss BOTH sides of the issue. 99.9% of all Fox News panels that I have seen have 1 or more Democrats depending on the size of the panel. MSNBC and CNN usually have Democrat domination in their "discussions" There were two conservatives and two democrats in that group. The majority identified themselves as moderates/independents. That is fair and balanced. When CNN and MSNBC start showing pictures of Hurricane Katrina (R) Louisiana, they might be approaching Fox levels of bias.
Goosehead		#1884	[-]
Posts: 2045 (11/19/09 2:49 PM) Registered User Reply Quote More Recent Posts	The logic to perform well (analogous to the profit-motive) in public institutions is similar to that in any large bureaucratic agency. You want to perform to ensure continued funding (from the government) and, for individuals, to keep one's job or move up in the organisation. The big difference between private and public institutions is that public ones are, ultimately, accountable to the public. Governments nowadays are very sensitive to public opinion which demands public institutions be accountable, efficient, effective, etc. Directives are given in a similar manner that CEOs give their upper-management: shape up or gtfo.
Beefcake		#1885	[-]
Posts: 4751 (11/19/09 3:04 PM) Registered User Reply Quote More Recent Posts	I can't think of any government agency whose performance I'd brag about, or that I think of as being "accountable" to the public. That's the rap on bureaucracies: they don't care and there's nothing we can do about it. And Spring: do you really want to hold up teachers as examples of public sector excellence? Really? Teachers???
springfeverish		#1886	[-]
Posts: 3801 (11/19/09 3:13 PM) Registered User Reply Quote More Recent Posts	My kids went through public education and had many excellent dedicated teachers. My oldest went to an elite private university and held her own with kids with private education. My youngest went to a public university in another state and offered placement in the honors college and a nice scholarship. She plans to go directly to graduate school and going to a public institution allows her to do so without going into debt.. Although they went to very different types of colleges, both were praised for their writing skills. When done right, American public education is bargain and moving to a good school district the best investment parents can make.
Beefcake		#1887	[-]
Posts: 4753 (11/19/09 3:19 PM) Registered User Reply Quote More Recent Posts	I dunno where you went to school, but when I was in college the only people who went into teaching were the dumbest of the dumb. Even the Psych majors made fun of them.
pearly whites		#1888	[-]
Posts: 1558 (11/19/09 3:25 PM) Reply Quote More Recent Posts	springfeverish wrote: My kids went through public education and had many excellent dedicated teachers. My oldest went to an elite private university and held her own with kids with private education. My youngest went to a public university in another state and offered placement in the honors college and a nice scholarship. She plans to go directly to graduate school and going to a public institution allows her to do so without going into debt.. Although they went to very different types of colleges, both were praised for their writing skills. When done right, American public education is bargain and moving to a good school district the best investment parents can make. My brain exploded trying to read this. I blame public schools.
SonOfAbraxas		#1889	[-]
Posts: 14252 (11/19/09 3:36 PM) BB Forum Moderator Reply Quote More Recent Posts	Rumor has it Obama wanted to become President just so he'd be moved out of the Chicago area so his little girls could get a good education. PS: Wasn't it just this week that one of them scored a double-F minus negative eleventy-billion on a test, or something? YIKERS!
squashthebeef		#1890	[-]
Posts: 23526 (11/19/09 3:56 PM) super badass Reply Quote More Recent Posts	public ones are, ultimately, accountable to the public. For profits are much more so. Governments nowadays are very sensitive to public opinion That must be why they are so responsive to the "teabaggers". Even if that were true, we are talking about a system that is not being set up just for 'nowadays' but supposedly to endure. People will always care about making money, will they always care about public opinion?
Goosehead		#1891	[-]
Posts: 2046 (11/19/09 4:32 PM) Registered User Reply Quote More Recent Posts	My point is that 'nowadays' (and this is a relatively new phenomenon), citizens are demanding that public institutions be run on the same sort of principles that private companies: efficacy and efficiency. And governments, largely, are trying to institute these principles into the bureaucratic operations of government programs, not only to respond to public opinion, but also as much as possible to keep budgets balanced.
Archimedes		#1892	[-]
Posts: 1268 (11/19/09 4:36 PM) Reply Quote More Recent Posts	platoshrimp wrote: There were two conservatives and two democrats in that group. The majority identified themselves as moderates/independents. That is fair and balanced. When CNN and MSNBC start showing pictures of Hurricane Katrina (R) Louisiana, they might be approaching Fox levels of bias. The old man in the front row in the blue shirt raised his had for "conservative" and also for "moderate/ independent". The woman behind him (in purple with the white shirt) raised her hand for "independant" and then for "democrat". Rick Sanchez used a sampling group of 9 people. This group should represent America. Only 1 person raised their hand for "conservative" (I'm not counting the confused old man). Accoring to Rick's sample that means that only 11% of Americans are conservative. Even if we count the old fool, that translates to 22% of people being conservative. How many people are conservative when you use the proper size sample? About 40% according to gallup: PRINCETON, NJ -- Conservatives continue to outnumber moderates and liberals in the American populace in 2009, confirming a finding that Gallup first noted in June. Forty percent of Americans describe their political views as conservative, 36% as moderate, and 20% as liberal. This marks a shift from 2005 through 2008, when moderates were tied with conservatives as the most prevalent group. I trust Gallup before Rick Sanchez any day.
Licorice		#1893	[-]
Posts: 2682 (11/19/09 5:22 PM) Reply Quote More Recent Posts	The private sector is sooo overrated. Three cheers for Big Government!
squashthebeef		#1894	[-]
Posts: 23527 (11/19/09 5:27 PM) super badass Reply Quote More Recent Posts	citizens are demanding that public institutions be run on the same sort of principles that private companies: efficacy and efficiency. Why would citizens want that though, unless private companies are run better and have more accountability?
Goosehead		#1895	[-]
Posts: 2047 (11/19/09 6:47 PM) Registered User Reply Quote More Recent Posts	Because private companies aren't accountable to citizens, but to shareholders. Yes, at some level they need to respond to consumer demand, but not the 'public good' in the political sense. In my opinion, government programs are designed to provide a minimal level of basic security for it's citizens so that they can enter into the marketplace exempt from living in a state of constant insecurity and anxiety - and as a result, have the ability to be a little more free when they make decisions like choice of career, changing careers, quitting a shitty job, going back to school, or in general choosing to take some risks in their lives. All of these things become much more tenuous when you don't have at least some form of social safety net to fall into if you fail or make a bad choice. Healthcare is a big aspect of this, and should be affordable and universal, imo (I think spring mentioned a few posts back about the insecurity of changing jobs when you don't know if you'll end up with health insurance, as an example). When you subject these sorts of programs to the marketplace, you just throw people back into a situation where they're insecure and dominated by the marketplace. In conclusion, public institutions should be understood to operate in the 'public good', not simply what consumers demand. Regardless, increasingly citizens want these institutions run on business models which may result in more efficient and effective ways of addressing insecurity in the marketplace, or may begin to deteriorate it. Time will tell.
PoChop		#1896	[-]
Posts: 2968 (11/19/09 7:01 PM) Registered user Reply Quote More Recent Posts	So is that why the John Stroger got sick he didn't go the the Crook County hospital that was named after him? Maybe it wasn't accountable enough for him? Couldn't blame him though. I wouldn't be caught dead in that place.
squashthebeef		#1897	[-]
Posts: 23533 (11/19/09 7:10 PM) super badass Reply Quote More Recent Posts	In my opinion, government programs are designed to provide a minimal level of basic security for it's citizens You don't find the idea of "minimal level" sort of frightening when talking about healthcare? so that they can enter into the marketplace exempt from living in a state of constant insecurity and anxiety - and as a result, have the ability to be a little more free when they make decisions like choice of career, changing careers, quitting a shitty job, going back to school, or in general choosing to take some risks in their lives. All of these things become much more tenuous when you don't have at least some form of social safety net to fall into if you fail or make a bad choice. Healthcare is a big aspect of this, and should be affordable and universal, imo (I think spring mentioned a few posts back about the insecurity of changing jobs when you don't know if you'll end up with health insurance, as an example). When you subject these sorts of programs to the marketplace, you just throw people back into a situation where they're insecure and dominated by the marketplace. Life is full of anxiety. Mature people learn to cope with it. You will never get rid of anxiety. Never. It is monumental folly to try. In conclusion, public institutions should be understood to operate in the 'public good', not simply what consumers demand That's pretty fucking vague not to mention arrogant of them. Who decides what is in the "public good"? At least in a free market organizations can be counted on to follow the money so you know where they are coming from. It's pretty foolhearty to trust anyone who says they are acting in your best interest without knowing what's in it for them. Regardless, increasingly citizens want these institutions run on business models which may result in more efficient and effective ways of addressing insecurity in the marketplace, or may begin to deteriorate it. Time will tell. Again, for months now we've been told by the pro obamacare people that private corporations are evil, bad, inefficent, and heartless. Now the public institutions are going to use them as models? Doesn't make much sense.
Goosehead		#1898	[-]
Posts: 2048 (11/19/09 7:53 PM) Registered User Reply Quote More Recent Posts	Squash, I can respond to your post in more detail later (I'm off to play volleyball), but in short: I think that what I said about the role of public institutions is the proper model for buidling a strong liberal democracy with a large middle-class and a dynamic economy. It's a tried and true method that even the US was built on (minus the universal healthcare). The American 'golden era' of prosperity emerged out of the welfare state model, and IMO the death of the welfare state means the death of the middle-class (which is the singularly most important charateristic of a strong liberal democratic society)
Dr Will Hatch two point oh		#1899	[-]
Posts: 9632 (11/19/09 8:32 PM) Registered user Reply Quote More Recent Posts	Government is responsible for enforcing contracts which in turn is the reason why corporations can do evil deeds unchecked.
squashthebeef		#1900	[-]
Posts: 23541 (11/19/09 8:32 PM) super badass Reply Quote More Recent Posts	Most people see the term 'welfare state' as a system of dependence. Since it is impossible for such a system to result in a golden era of prosperity, you obviously see it differently. Care to define?

<< Previous Topic Next Topic >>

Yuku free message boards

Palin = The Worst Telepalmter Reader of ALL TIME!!!