Kinnison's last stand

[kinnison]

"It is perfectly true that the government is best which governs least. It is equally true that the government is best which provides most." - Walter Lippmann, American journalist (1889-1974)

Argument from authority, and a rather poor one at that. I. for one, have never heard of him. In any case, if the government is going to provide something it is NOT free. TANSTAAFL. Someone has to pay for it. Or to put it another way, government never provides anything - the people working for it do, and they could just as easily be working for a private organisation. Obviously, there are some things only government can provide - but even some of that could be outsourced. The obvious exceptions are national defense and the judicial system.

There are inefficiencies in both private and governmental provision of any good or service. In private industry, there is a necessity to produce a profit - which necessarily siphons off some of the money from service provision to that end. (Note, however, that the profit is probably being spent or invested, thus recycling it into the system.) Both types of organisation divert some of the resources to bureaucracy and rigid rules. It seems obvious that the bigger the organisation, the more layers of management have to be in the system and therefore the more inefficient it gets; to take extreme examples the paperwork management of a corner shop costs nothing (except the wasted time of the manager, who without the office work could be working on improving trade) and the management of GM probably has 5 or 6 levels - at least - who produce nothing. Bureaucratic empire-building is also more of a problem the bigger the organisation.

Government organisations tend to be bigger and hence more inefficient. There is also the natural human tendency to want to pass on even slightly difficult cases to someone else, especially if poor performance has no consequences. In a small firm, if you don't do your job you get fired - no ifs, no buts. In "civil service" this can take years, if it ever happens at all.

In American medical practice AFAIK, there is a totally different source of inefficiency. This is the performance of almost certainly unnecessary procedures, mainly of a diagnostic nature, purely to cover the physicians against malpractice suits should something go wrong. This really has nothing to do with the practice of medicine but with the practice of law and the natural desire of lawyers to make money and of doctors not to lose it. The outlawing of "no-win no-fee" legal instructions might actually greatly reduce medical costs for this reason.

Are there any figures available, however rough, for the cost of redundant procedures in American medicine? (The reverse change in the UK some years back has enormously increased insurance rates and local govenment costs for compensation claims for such things as tripping over loose paving slabs. Sometimes an accident really is nobody's fault - lawyers make a very comfortable living by finding someone to blame.)

Incidentally, afaik the French system is something of a hybrid between public and private, as are most European ones; the UK system is the real dinosaur. And some UK hospitals more resemble a scene from Dante's inferno than a modern hospital.

There is, it seems to me, a division here between those who want government to take as few resources as possible and those who think that it should ideally take them all. My opinion is that if there is no difference in efficiency between government and private industry, or if the difference is not known, then private industry should get the job; the opinion of many here seems to be the direct opposite.

On the subject of determining to whom you are going to take yourself for medical care is really rather simple. A rating system; hospitals and doctors should have to publish their results (death and morbidity rates for example). If a hospital has twice the death rate during surgery for heart disease as another, which one would you choose?

[Samuel]

Argument from authority, and a rather poor one at that. I. for one, have never heard of him.

That wasn't an argument. He was just putting up a quote that showed his thoughts on the matter.

In any case, if the government is going to provide something it is NOT free. TANSTAAFL. Someone has to pay for it.

Thanks, I'm sure we have members who have never taken a single economics class.

Or to put it another way, government never provides anything - the people working for it do, and they could just as easily be working for a private organisation.

Except that private organizations work for profit so whenever the profit motive reduces the working of a system you need the government.

Obviously, there are some things only government can provide - but even some of that could be outsourced. The obvious exceptions are national defense and the judicial system.

Must... resist... Orwell... quote.

Technically you could outsource the judicial system or the military. They just work MUCH better when done by the government.

It seems obvious that the bigger the organisation, the more layers of management have to be in the system and therefore the more inefficient it gets;

Ever heard of economies of scale?

Incidentally, afaik the French system is something of a hybrid between public and private, as are most European ones; the UK system is the real dinosaur.

Cuba 11000
LE 78
US 45800
77

I believe that this is one of the few areas where ripping off the commies is a good idea.

There is, it seems to me, a division here between those who want government to take as few resources as possible and those who think that it should ideally take them all.

Big false dilemmia. None of the members here are commies- even the communists didn't hold that view.

My opinion is that if there is no difference in efficiency between government and private industry, or if the difference is not known, then private industry should get the job; the opinion of many here seems to be the direct opposite.

... did you bother to read the previous page? The one that talked about why private industry can never do health care insurance in such a way to cover everyone?

If a hospital has twice the death rate during surgery for heart disease as another, which one would you choose?

The one with twice the deaths is probably the hosptial that gets stuck with all the poor people. If you rate hospitals and that is their sole source of funding they will refuse risky patients.

[Terralthra]

There are inefficiencies in both private and governmental provision of any good or service. In private industry, there is a necessity to produce a profit - which necessarily siphons off some of the money from service provision to that end. (Note, however, that the profit is probably being spent or invested, thus recycling it into the system.)

Your aside here provides an obvious retort that by the same logic, no wasted money is ever truly wasted, because it will all be spent by someone eventually and thus be "recycled into the system."

Both types of organisation divert some of the resources to bureaucracy and rigid rules. It seems obvious that the bigger the organisation, the more layers of management have to be in the system and therefore the more inefficient it gets; to take extreme examples the paperwork management of a corner shop costs nothing (except the wasted time of the manager, who without the office work could be working on improving trade) and the management of GM probably has 5 or 6 levels - at least - who produce nothing. Bureaucratic empire-building is also more of a problem the bigger the organisation.

Government organisations tend to be bigger and hence more inefficient. There is also the natural human tendency to want to pass on even slightly difficult cases to someone else, especially if poor performance has no consequences. In a small firm, if you don't do your job you get fired - no ifs, no buts. In "civil service" this can take years, if it ever happens at all.

Do you intend on providing evidence for the assumption here that bureaucracy and management reduces efficiency instead of increasing it? I can provide studies showing how good management and organizational schema can lower net cost and increase productivity in real terms. Can you justify your axiom that "bureaucracy is inefficient by definition," or do all your lolbertarian friends just nod whenever you say it because it's in their gospel too?

[Darth Wong]

"It is perfectly true that the government is best which governs least. It is equally true that the government is best which provides most." - Walter Lippmann, American journalist (1889-1974)

Argument from authority, and a rather poor one at that. I. for one, have never heard of him.

You're a fucking moron. I quoted him because it's a good line, not as the basis of an argument. It doesn't matter who he is.

The rest of your long-winded post completely evaded the various points I made in the rest of my post, which you dishonestly and unfairly characterized as an appeal to the authority of the quote that I used as my introduction.

[Teebs]

Kinnison, you used the government management of the UK railways as an example of government inefficiency. Both I and Bobalot answered your criticism. Perhaps you could respond to our points?

[bobalot]

Kinnison, you used the government management of the UK railways as an example of government inefficiency. Both I and Bobalot answered your criticism. Perhaps you could respond to our points?

He will either latch onto a minor point in which he perceives he has an advantage and use that as a springboard to simply restate his numerous (and unsupported by any evidence) Libertarian talking points. Like the typical Lolbertarians seen on this board, he will avoid actual concrete examples or analysis.

Libertarians are the Marxists of the right. Devoid of intellectual rigor.

[Lord MJ]

Attacking Obama and calling for his impeachment because "Obama obviously doesn't care about the constitution because 'empathy' is the main trait he is looking for in a new supreme court justice."

I would argue that understanding that judicial decisions actually impact human lives is just as if not more important than "The Constitution." But I'm just a guy with an opinion..

[Darth Wong]

Attacking Obama and calling for his impeachment because "Obama obviously doesn't care about the constitution because 'empathy' is the main trait he is looking for in a new supreme court justice."

I would argue that understanding that judicial decisions actually impact human lives is just as if not more important than "The Constitution." But I'm just a guy with an opinion..

So they are saying that a good Supreme Court Justice should be a sociopath? That's what a lack of empathy is, after all.

[Junghalli]

So they are saying that a good Supreme Court Justice should be a sociopath? That's what a lack of empathy is, after all.

Considering how much of lolbertarianism can be summed up in the phrase "how dare you expect me to help somebody if I don't feel like it!" that actually strikes me as hilariously appropriate.

[bobalot]

Any money kinnison will turn up somewhere else spouting his libertarian bullshit while ignoring all the responses in this thread?

[Qwerty 42]

It's funny to me how many conservatives are in the vein of Rush Limbaugh in that they claim that waterboarding is absolutely harmless, yet reject any idea of doing it themselves. The only one who did, the VF journalist whose name escapes me, recanted immediately.

[Patrick Degan]

"It is perfectly true that the government is best which governs least. It is equally true that the government is best which provides most." - Walter Lippmann, American journalist (1889-1974)

Argument from authority, and a rather poor one at that. I. for one, have never heard of him.

You're a fucking moron. I quoted him because it's a good line, not as the basis of an argument. It doesn't matter who he is.

As an aside, it's amusing how kinnison dismisses Lippmann because he, for one, "never heard of him". Which, in kinnison-world, invalidates anything the man might have to say.

You also notice how often rightwingers have used the first half of that quote while conveniently snipping off the second half of it; the same way they tend to cherry-pick the Bible, the Constitution, and Adam Smith.

[Teebs]

It's funny to me how many conservatives are in the vein of Rush Limbaugh in that they claim that waterboarding is absolutely harmless, yet reject any idea of doing it themselves. The only one who did, the VF journalist whose name escapes me, recanted immediately.

Christopher Hitchens? Don't know if he's the one you're thinking of, but he said it wasn't torture and agreed to have it performed and publically recanted. He has more integrity than people like Limbaugh could ever hope for though.

[Rye]

It's funny to me how many conservatives are in the vein of Rush Limbaugh in that they claim that waterboarding is absolutely harmless, yet reject any idea of doing it themselves. The only one who did, the VF journalist whose name escapes me, recanted immediately.

Christopher Hitchens? Don't know if he's the one you're thinking of, but he said it wasn't torture and agreed to have it performed and publically recanted. He has more integrity than people like Limbaugh could ever hope for though.

When did he say it wasn't torture?

[Lonestar]

I believe it's on VanityFair's youtube channel.

[kinnison]

Mr. Degan: I made the "argument from authority" comment precisely because Darth Wong took me to task for, in another thread, doing exactly what he did; namely, using a quotation from a historical figure to illustrate and encapsulate my point. Of course, when I do it it's terrible but when he does it it's OK. Mr. Wong, to hell with you; you have demonstrated beyond doubt your total lack of interest in fair debate. Incidentally, the historical figure I chose was a trifle better known - the little known lawyer Abraham Lincoln.

On the subject of Constitutional interpretation; I may be wrong, not being American and thus not immersed in the niceties of the American system - but I was under the impression that the function of the Supreme Court was to make decisions about what the intent of the Constitution was when the wording is unclear. Most especially not to rewrite the Constitution in practise according to the fashion of the day. You don't like the Constitution? Then change it, by the proper procedure. It's been done 27 times before, after all.

This may surprise everyone - but I concede the point about the UK rail system. For whatever reason, the UK rail system actually consumes more subsidy money than it did before. There is an argument, however, that when calculated by passenger-mile the figure is less - but let it go. Perhaps the rail system is one where an integrated system is necessary. Health care is not. Regarding Cuba and the US - well, the populations are rather different in habits and diet, are they not? That single figure is worthless.

Terralthra: Of course GOOD management can decrease costs. This only matters when costs are important to the managers.

[Patrick Degan]

Mr. Degan: I made the "argument from authority" comment precisely because Darth Wong took me to task for, in another thread, doing exactly what he did; namely, using a quotation from a historical figure to illustrate and encapsulate my point. Of course, when I do it it's terrible but when he does it it's OK. Mr. Wong, to hell with you; you have demonstrated beyond doubt your total lack of interest in fair debate. Incidentally, the historical figure I chose was a trifle better known - the little known lawyer Abraham Lincoln.

No, you displayed your ignorance in assuming that Mike's argument proceeded from that quote. Not only did it not do so, the argument would not have met the definition of an Appeal to Authority fallacy (not the first time you've misapplied fallacy labels, BTW) since it was not using Lippmann as the sole justification for its validity. And the quote you attributed to Lincoln in the Rachel Maddow/Teabag Rallies thread wasn't even one of his to begin with, as was pointed out to you.

On the subject of Constitutional interpretation; I may be wrong, not being American and thus not immersed in the niceties of the American system - but I was under the impression that the function of the Supreme Court was to make decisions about what the intent of the Constitution was when the wording is unclear. Most especially not to rewrite the Constitution in practise according to the fashion of the day. You don't like the Constitution? Then change it, by the proper procedure. It's been done 27 times before, after all.

I hate to break it to you, but interpreting the constitution involves fitting its meaning into the context of the present day as much as following precedent in the original document and successive court decisions.

[Terralthra]

He used the quote as an introduction to an argument. You used quotes as evidence for an argument. There is a difference.

[Lusankya]

Health care is not. Regarding Cuba and the US - well, the populations are rather different in habits and diet, are they not? That single figure is worthless.

Here is a list of 8 countries by healthcare expenditure (healthcare % of GDP/life expectancy)

USA: 15.3/78.06
Switzerland: 11.3/80.62
France: 11.1/80.87
Germany: 10.6/78.95
Canada: 10.0/80.34
New Zealand: 9.3/78.96
Australia: 8.8/81.2
UK: 8.4/78.7

Here are the same data, organised by life expectancy:

Australia: 8.8/81.2
France: 11.1/80.87
Switzerland: 11.3/80.62
Canada: 10.0/80.34
New Zealand: 9.3/78.96
Germany: 10.6/78.95
UK: 8.4/78.7
USA: 15.3/78.06

I tried to choose the ones that I thought were culturally most similar to the US. What do you notice about these lists?

Terralthra: Of course GOOD management can decrease costs. This only matters when costs are important to the managers.

You make two assumptions:

First of all, that governments don't care about minimising costs.

Secondly, that keeping the cost as low as possible is the main objective in any given enterprise.

[Darth Wong]

He used the quote as an introduction to an argument. You used quotes as evidence for an argument. There is a difference.

Frankly, kinnison has repeatedly demonstrated that he is too stupid to know that difference. He clearly does not have any comprehension of the proper method for expressing, supporting, or defending an argument. I have never seen him post an argument regarding government which consisted of something other than him simply spouting axiomatic claims and ignoring challenges to those axioms.

It's like arguing with a Biblical fundamentalist about the validity of the Bible. You can't get a real dialogue going because he considers the validity of the Bible to be a matter of unquestionable truth, and hence not subject to any of your arguments. Similarly, Kinnison is totally unwilling to reconsider his assumptions about government for even one moment, so you can attack those assumptions, challenge him to back them up, produce evidence that they may be faulty, etc. and he will blithely repeat those assumptions and look for loopholes in your argument, utterly ignorant of the fact that he has failed to support those assumptions in any way.

[bobalot]

Jesus Christ, what a fucking retard.

Mr. Degan: I made the "argument from authority" comment precisely because Darth Wong took me to task for, in another thread, doing exactly what he did; namely, using a quotation from a historical figure to illustrate and encapsulate my point. Of course, when I do it it's terrible but when he does it it's OK. Mr. Wong, to hell with you; you have demonstrated beyond doubt your total lack of interest in fair debate. Incidentally, the historical figure I chose was a trifle better known - the little known lawyer Abraham Lincoln.

You posted your quote/axiom and that was it. You didn't provide the analysis that Darth Wong provided. In fact, you have NEVER provided any analysis or evidence for ANY of your claims despite many people asking you.

Perhaps the rail system is one where an integrated system is necessary. Health care is not. Regarding Cuba and the US - well, the populations are rather different in habits and diet, are they not? That single figure is worthless.

Where the fuck is your evidence for your claim? How does the difference in diet explain the gigantic difference in costs? You have managed to ignore the British, French, Australian, Japanese, Canada, [Insert rest of the industrialized world] universal health care systems that deliver better results for less cost. Like a typical lolbertarian troll you narrowed it one point (Cuba) and used that to dismiss universal health care (Using a dubious claim with no evidence) while ignoring mountain loads of other evidence.

How about comparing health care to other industrialized nations similar to America? Wait... that would disprove your predetermined ideological position, therefore like a typical lolbertarian troll you ignored it.

This may surprise everyone - but I concede the point about the UK rail system. For whatever reason, the UK rail system actually consumes more subsidy money than it did before. There is an argument, however, that when calculated by passenger-mile the figure is less - but let it go.

You let it go because even measured by passenger miles it's still ridiculously fucking bad.

Note: I made an error with my original % for the increase in public subsidies. There was a 66% increase in passenger journeys with a corresponding increase of subsidies of 121%.

As for passenger miles.

In 1994, 28.8 billion passenger miles were traveled.
In 2007, 48.8 billion passenger miles were traveled.

An increase of 69%.

Public subsidies in 1993/4 were £1,627m (£2,332.68 in 2007 terms adjusted by RPI)
Public subsidies in 2006/7 were £6,308m

An increase of 170%.

My earlier figure for £5,147 for 2008 actually has this note attached to it.

The figures include only England and Scotland, but not Wales, which leads to a break in series for the year 2007-08.
We are aiming to get the Welsh figures, and will update the 2007/08 data upon receiving those.

£5,147m is not even the total cost for 2008.

[kinnison]

Lusankya, would you or would you not agree that keeping the bureaucratic cost overload down is important in any organisation? It's a matter of priorities, really.

I am of course going to get flamed for this. However, here goes: A few years ago, I was being taken by taxi (being at that time unable to drive) for an appointment at my local hospital, which was supposed to be routine (it wasn't). I happened to get talking to the driver; taxi drivers are a source of news, biased as it may be. It happens that around this time my local hospital was having done extensive renovation and expansion - many years overdue, as it happens (some of the wards then in use were built as temporary structures during World War II). I was told that part of the £18,000,000 works were already open and had been for 6 months; the rest had about 3 months still to go. Care to guess which part was 9 months ahead? Right. The new office block. Socialised medicine at its best. I checked later, and the information given was accurate - if not exactly widely disseminated.

I have no quarrel at all with the people in the NHS who actually work at the sharp end; at their best they can hold their heads up high among the best. Unfortunately, they are commanded by people who don't give a shit. To use a simile from another government organisation; lions led by donkeys.

[Terralthra]

You don't think that could possibly be because offices are easier to build than hospital rooms?

[Darth Wong]

Kinnison, ANSWER THE GODDAMNED POINTS, YOU FUCKING EVASIVE LITTLE PIECE OF SHIT. For that matter, go to school and learn how to support an argument, since you clearly have NO idea how to do it.

Do you honestly think this "I'm going to ignore everyones' points and bring up something a cab driver told me once" argument of yours somehow refutes anyone else's points, refutes the numbers on American vs Canadian health care overhead costs, or supports anything other than my personal assessment of your tragically sub-normal IQ?

[Patrick Degan]

Mr. kinnison, taxicab drivers are not a source of news, they are a source of gossip. Learn the difference between the two.