Quote from: mainpmf on May 13, 2017, 06:15:16 PM

Quote from: freeyourmind on May 12, 2017, 06:02:44 PM

I have nothing against your opinion of government or the system. What kind of slavery do you speak of?

The job market, the new slavery of our 21st century.

Quote

Prices can be regulated possibly, but the more common approach is to leave the price as it is and "subsidize" the cost for the buyer. So prices will remain high, but a portion of our taxes would go towards the payment. They can manipulate it either way really.

The point was that you said to give an example where private companies offer better service than public, and I gave an example of pathetic public service. You wouldn't get that with a private company because you can simply choose not to do business with them ever again. Eventually if everyone shared that sentiment, they'd have to improve their service or eventually go out of business.

Completely wrong that's where the problem is :/
What you're describing is in a beautiful word with fair competition...
What actually happens is that the really big corporation are at first very competitive. They provide great services and innovate a lot...
Then as time goes by they have less and less concurents and become more and more powerful. And at a point they have a monopole in their sector, then they can do whatever they want.
That's what's happening in the whole insurance and banking system for example. But the same is true in great distribution, food production etc...

Quote

I never said the health care in Canada is bad. It's okay, but it is expensive and takes up a large chunk of our taxes. But I know of wealthier folks that need serious medical attention fly over to the states to get their procedures done.

I'm not sure where you got the France vs. USA healthcare dollars from, but let's assume it's accurate. You realize that the USA has a reactive healthcare system right? And that the USA has by far the most unhealthy population in the world, which would require more reactive health care??
The reason it has a high dollar amount is because of the # of customers (unhealthy people requiring medical attention). Europe in general is much more health conscious and eats more whole foods/less processed foods. Finland for example has chef's in schools that teach kids about cooking and eating healthy. I grew up with a cafeteria that sold burgers, pizza and fries, a McDonalds next to our high school and a vending machine that only sold pop/soda. Why would we be as healthy as France? Unless you take your health into your own hands, educate yourself on diet and have routine physical activity, the default is to eat garbage and get obese...and look at who has the most obese population in the world.

So you mean Americans are 2.5 times more sick than Europeans?
No. That's just too much.
The explanation I'm trying to make is that overwhole the healthcare system in France is more efficient than the American one... Why? Because as French health system is public, they don't have to make profit.

Let's put it simply: a public service has to provide the same thing than a private one but WITHOUT MAKING PROFIT NOR ADVERTISEMENT
Then it's simply mathematically obvious that a public service will be less expensive...

USA is the country where everything is private. Economic freedom at its best... Well look how great it is: http://www.leftbusinessobserver.com/Awfulness.html

I somewhat agree with the majority of jobs and especially corporate jobs. But no one is forcing anyone to work those jobs. I get when people that have very little economic resources feel compelled to continue to work low paying unsatisfying jobs, but at the end of the day, it can be difficult but they can build skills that are in demand and make more money, or do something they enjoy. But without skill, those types of shitty low paying jobs are the only option, and there is a huge supply of unskilled workers.

I agree competition is not always fair, but you do understand that the barriers to entry are government regulations right? You mentioned insurance and banks. Highly regulated industries...that are not in a "free market" environment. I can add telecommunications to the mix. Kind of like an oligopoly. But in Canada, all three of those industries are highly regulated, and we don't allow foreign competition. This is a result of corporate lobbying influencing policy in the government. There's nothing wrong with a corporation wanting to benefit from policy change...but it should be up to a benevolent government (in our particular system in present day, not that I think it's a good system) to ignore special interests and act for the interests of the taxpayers and citizens as a whole. But they often put corporate interests ahead of consumers. We do not allow foreign bank or telecom competition. So again we are forced to deal with an oligopoly or not have that particular service at all, but the oligopoly is made possible with government intervention. Our government sets the competitive landscape, even for private companies.

I would actually say that the USA and France have a health discrepancy over 2.5 times, but that's just an unsubstantiated subjective opinion. And I've been to both countries multiple times. There are parts of the states that are very healthy, but as a country, no bueno.

Some quick wikipedia info:
USA is #1 in depression in the world - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epidemiology_of_depression
USA is #19 in obesity in the world - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_Body_Mass_Index_(BMI)
USA is #6 in cancer rate in the world (France is #2 lol) - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_OECD_countries_by_cancer_rate

Anyways, this doesn't really prove anything, but on factors that affect health, they rank among the worst in the world per capita. So the health care costs are going to be a function of having a relatively unhealthy population, having a standard approach to death with palliative care (expensive way to drug yourself into ecstacy as you drift out of existence) and efficiency of a dollar in your health care system. Healthy population = less patients.

With respect to healthcare costs of public vs. private - it just depends on how the business is implemented and executed. I think either can be made to be efficient with a high level of service if that's the goal. Here, government jobs represent union negotiated raises (not on merit), 100% job security unless you assault, harass or murder someone, and when you do anything to fuck with their income, they threaten to go on strike and provide no service at all. You can't tell me that these are servants of the public. They serve themselves, and #2 priority is public service. Our police cars say "to serve and protect" yet many people get an uneasy feeling when the person dedicated to "serving and protecting" you is around.

USA is mostly private, but with a corrupt (and large) government that hooks up special interests (corporations) which usually harm the consumer aka tax payer. We have one highway that is kept better than all others in Toronto. It's a private toll highway, and you need to pay each time you use it, on top of all your taxes for public roads. That private road is kept better than other highways because it is competing for business, which is cars. The more cars it can take, the more money it makes. So it's in that companies best interest to keep the customers coming, by offering nice smooth roads, and less traffic. Our public roads get pot holes and there is a long delay before anything is fixed, because they don't give a fuck. And at the end of the day, I can almost guarantee that the construction costs (by distance) will be less than our public roads, because they will better negotiate with contractors when you're not playing around with guaranteed tax revenue, but your own money.