Education and Healthcare | 6 comments (6 topical, 0 hidden)
agree, they should be non profit (none / 0)

i agree that basic healthcare and education should be provisioned in non-profit, transparent way.  It's the specific details of how it's implemented that matter. 

 My main point is that if we can't get past words like public, private, as an issue of political left / right, then how can we even start the conversation?  Our we going to place ideology over analysis and discussion of solutions?

Are there things you allow the private sector to do? yes, they can do some effective programs that augment the core public service.  Would that be large corporations?  I would say that's a bad idea when it comes to education and healthcare.  But does that mean you can't hire private tutors, or a specialist doctor for your cosmetic surguery?

  I run a small business, many small, medium business exist of all shapes and sizes, and they do not have to be publicly traded corporations.  I think publicly traded corporations are the worst candidates for essential services, for the very good points you made.  But is there a way smaller private orgs get involved, if there is some transparency?  Think healthcare prevention as just one example of a beneficial service that might find a contract with smaller local private orgs.  Don't get stuck on false divisions, I know the details are tough, but can be more creative. We can do a lot better than this black and white world.

Look, we need to face that the world is too complex to fit into the boxes we make, like left, right, democrat, republican.  My point is, we need to make move the focus to solutions, not ideology.  Also that local representation is a critical balance to central power that is missing in this country.

by snellcode on 03/03/2011 07:51:58 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Yes, political identification is a problem (none / 0)
We often get distracted by ideology.  Liberalism, libertarianism, conservatism, and corporatism all focus on doctrinal structure rather than outcome.  And it's that belief in a doctrine that actually hinders us from focusing on pragmatics.  Rather than identify a problem, examine solutions, and select the one that benefits the most, hurts the least, and respects all people's rights, we argue about who is moral and who is immoral.

But that's why I'm a progressive.  I don't give a damn what the structure is.  If it works, fine.  If it doesn't then we need to change it.

But there are certain lessons that we have learned that there is no need to relearn, except that we keep making the same mistakes over and over and over.  Drug wars, permitting the accumulation of vast wealth in the hands of a few without imposing obligations to society at large, allowing corruption and influence peddling, and privatizing public utilities -- just to name a few.

I do understand your point about allowing private enterprises to provide services that they can do more efficiently.  They should provide those services to the government for fixed and limited terms.  For instance, the government has no business creating a public construction company for short-term projects, such as to build a power plant or a hospital.  A private construction company that already possesses the infrastructure necessary for the task and that will reuse it for other projects when this one is done is far more efficient.

But when it comes to actually providing electricity or medical services to the public at large, the public should own the infrastructure and provide those services to itself.  There is absolutely no need for privately-owned businesses to get involved in routine matters that affect everyone because they always want to change the routine in some why to benefit themselves more because that is what a private business is supposed to do.  When they mess with something that affects everyone, the result can be too catastrophic for the risk.

That doesn't mean that all doctors have to be government employees.  Personally, I don't think it's relevant who employs a doctor or if a doctor is completely self-employed.  Any qualified doctor should be able to practice in a public hospital.  But let them form a union and negotiate with the public the price of the services that they perform.  When what we're talking about is one continuing and routine but vital service (health care) to one customer (the public), the public should not divest itself of its right to absolute control of those services.

by EveningStarNM on 03/03/2011 10:44:30 PM EST

[ Parent ]

Education and Healthcare | 6 comments (6 topical, 0 hidden)