Originally posted by KazetNagorra Sure there is. But if you don't pay whoever is running the detention center for locking up more youths or for whatever they are doing when inside, then where is the incentive to be corrupt?
Paying the center happens no matter what. But having 2 or more private detention centers ensures competition and thus forces some degree of efficiency -- unlike the government-run versions.
Originally posted by spruce112358 Paying the center happens no matter what. But having 2 or more private detention centers ensures competition and thus forces some degree of efficiency -- unlike the government-run versions.
Efficiency - in terms of what?
Sounds like the idea that private hospitals are more efficient -- they are not, in fact in my experience are less efficient as regards what staff does, but the paywall keeps occupancy down so they don't have to do as much and so get to claim to be more efficient.
Originally posted by Bosse de Nage Efficiency - in terms of what?
Sounds like the idea that private hospitals are more efficient -- they are not, in fact in my experience are less efficient as regards what staff does, but the paywall keeps occupancy down so they don't have to do as much and so get to claim to be more efficient.
Efficient in terms of giving clients what they want.
In a public institution, the incentive is to get rid of clients as fast as possible so you have time to surf the internet and chat, etc.
In a private institution, the incentive is get as many clients as possible and please them so that they come back over and over again.
Incentives, my dear Bosse, incentives. Although I don't doubt your experience -- there is some 'privatization' out there which doesn't work well in the beginning either due to continuing (onerous) regulation -- essentially forcing a 'public model' to try to 'do business' - -when the first thing business would do is change the model.
Originally posted by spruce112358 Efficient in terms of giving clients what they want.
In a public institution, the incentive is to get rid of clients as fast as possible so you have time to surf the internet and chat, etc.
In a private institution, the incentive is get as many clients as possible and please them so that they come back over and over again.
Incentives, my dear B ...[text shortened]... ' to try to 'do business' - -when the first thing business would do is change the model.
Who are the clients of a prison?
Private hospitals are doing great business in South Africa -- many people wouldn't dream of setting foot in a public hospital even though the level of care is just as good. The only reason that holds water is that the price of admission excludes most, so you're assured of getting treated quickly. Far from making private hospitals efficient, this has the effect of bolstering complaceny. I mean, you wouldn't believe the stories. Although the organ harvesting practised by NetCare deserves a special mention.
Originally posted by Bosse de Nage Who are the clients of a prison?
Private hospitals are doing great business in South Africa -- many people wouldn't dream of setting foot in a public hospital even though the level of care is just as good. The only reason that holds water is that the price of admission excludes most, so you're assured of getting treated quickly. Far from making priv ...[text shortened]... e the stories. Although the organ harvesting practised by NetCare deserves a special mention.
Originally posted by Wajoma Going on a waiting list can not be considered:
"...level of care is just as good."
I was obviously referring to the level of expertise in caring for patients. I don't consider administration the same as care, although it is part of the total package.
That said, in terms of outcomes, it works out about the same. People here tend to die at the same rate whether treated in private or public. Private hospitals have nicer restaurants though.
Originally posted by spruce112358 Paying the center happens no matter what. But having 2 or more private detention centers ensures competition and thus forces some degree of efficiency -- unlike the government-run versions.
How is providing incentives for corruption "efficient"?
Originally posted by spruce112358 Paying the center happens no matter what. But having 2 or more private detention centers ensures competition and thus forces some degree of efficiency -- unlike the government-run versions.
1. A state-run prison is 'paid' for extra prisoners in that they a slightly larger allowance for the extra costs. That is just a transfer from one part of the government to another though. No one will be any better off because of it, no one has a financial incentive for using the money on prisoner care instead of something else. In a private sector prison, every extra prisoner brings a clear financial advantage for specific persons, the owners of these prison. If you can show me who in a state-run prison system gets the same benefits as these owners of a prison in a private system, I'll concede that they are equally susceptible to corruption.
2. "Ensures competition and thus efficiency ..... " Economy 101, very nice, but completely ignores everything from economy 102 up. By their nature, prisons won't make a very competitive market. Prisons have strong economies of scale and high start up costs. Both lead to markets with few players. This brings us to either monopolies or oligopolies, not exactly market forms know for their efficiency. You'll also give a lot of bargaining power to the private prisons, allowing them large premiums, meaning that even if their costs were lower, they aren't necessarily cheaper for the government than running their own prisons that don't need to make a profit.
Originally posted by Bosse de Nage Who are the clients of a prison?
Private hospitals are doing great business in South Africa -- many people wouldn't dream of setting foot in a public hospital even though the level of care is just as good. The only reason that holds water is that the price of admission excludes most, so you're assured of getting treated quickly. Far from making priv ...[text shortened]... e the stories. Although the organ harvesting practised by NetCare deserves a special mention.
Non-inmates.
Without regulation, hospitals would surely diverge in size and specialty. There would be Walmart-sized hospitals where you could get anything from ear wax removal to a biopsy for low cost (and maybe on volume they would be able to bring the wait time down). And then there would be "high cost" clinics for life-threatening, hard-to-treat conditions. Most of us would be more comfortable in the mid-size, mid-cost hospitals. Of course independent physicians would disappear -- would go the way of the small farmer. And they should -- they are obsolete. But Regulation preserves their way of life.
Of course, regulation keeps healthcare service at a uniformly low level almost worldwide. There is no interest in cures, only in treating symptoms, because that's the way the incentives are set up. Regulation has cemented that fact squarely in place. The only competition, as you note, is on volume and speed of treatment.
Without regulation, hospitals would surely diverge in size and specialty. There would be Walmart-sized hospitals where you could get anything from ear wax removal to a biopsy for low cost (and maybe on volume they would be able to bring the wait time down). And then there would be "high cost" clinics for life-threatening, hard-to-treat c ...[text shortened]... only competition, as you note, is on volume and speed of treatment.
Up (yours) Regulation!
The problem with health care is that it is not transparent (people don't know what they are buying since people don't know jack about medicine) and that price elasticity is extremely low (people will pay anything they can for a cure). Therefore the disadvantages of price mechanisms, such as overtreatment, outweigh any possible advantages. Real-world evidence confirms this - state-run health care systems are more efficient.
Originally posted by Barts 1. A state-run prison is 'paid' for extra prisoners in that they a slightly larger allowance for the extra costs. That is just a transfer from one part of the government to another though. No one will be any better off because of it, no one has a financial incentive for using the money on prisoner care instead of something else. In a private sector prison, eve ...[text shortened]... per for the government than running their own prisons that don't need to make a profit.
A private prison can be sued for prisoner maltreatment. A public one can't -- at least not as easily. Suddenly the clients/customers (e.g. the non-inmates) have a voice -- a very definite voice. So the private system has much more incentive to find ways to treat prisoners better -- and for less money, sure. As for corruption, that exists everywhere. If I had to guess, I would say it is more common under more "repressive" systems as people try to seek ways around the many rules that prevent "progress."
As for inefficiency in the prison market -- of course. We have "mandated" prisons from the county lock-up to the Federal penitentiary. A market would dictate massive consolidation -- and a huge increase in the 'prisoner transfer' business. But again...
20 Apr '11 05:01
Prisons as Farms
Back to Top