20 Apr '11 10:57>
Originally posted by KazetNagorraYep.
So these judges were just evil?
Originally posted by spruce112358Well, the prison farming story shows that private prisons pose a risk to non-inmates -- the risk of being wrongfully sent to prison.
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 c ...[text shortened]... only competition, as you note, is on volume and speed of treatment.
Up (yours) Regulation!
Originally posted by spruce112358Assuming that the fiction labelled 'free market' exists -- of course it does.
The free market doesn't 'provide' incentives for corruption.
Originally posted by Bosse de NageYou're right, waiting lists are more like 'don't care'.
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 spruce112358A 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
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 ...[text shortened]... and a huge increase in the 'prisoner transfer' business. But again...
Regulation!!!
Originally posted by shavixmirThere are various forms of slavery. Owning people is highest form of it. The bad thing is when a person volunteers for it such the incurring of a substantial debt. The state does have the people involuntarily working for it to pay taxes.
So a State can't own people?
Originally posted by KazetNagorraCriminal activity can be discouraged in lots of ways. Converting whole institutions from private to public operation is just a little bit of overkill to achieve that. On top of which, one loses the benefits of privatization.
They saw an opportunity to make money by conspiring with prison owners. Such an opportunity would not exist if the owners of the prison were not paid more for holding more prisoners.
Originally posted by Bosse de NageThat risk exists in public prisons, too. Look at the numbers of inmates being freed by DNA testing.
Well, the prison farming story shows that private prisons pose a risk to non-inmates -- the risk of being wrongfully sent to prison.
For hospitals, I guess it all depends on the particular environment. On a global scale, there is everything from Walmart sized hospitals (notably in Thailand, where many Americans who can't afford healthcare back home ...[text shortened]... nt -- at making a profit, not providing healthcare (which is unaffordable to the majority).
Originally posted by Bosse de NageMy point is that the temptation for corruption exists regardless of the system. Discouraging criminal activity (although I'm not sure what law a PR firm working for Gaddafi is violating) can be done effectively under any system.
Assuming that the fiction labelled 'free market' exists -- of course it does.
A very good example would be the PR companies employed by Libya's Gaddafi and Equatorial New Guinea's Obiang: precisely because there is a market for spinning evil into acceptable.
Originally posted by BartsYou haven't 'proven' anything. You asserted that private prisons get paid per prisoner and public prisons get allocated more money per prisoner but because the private system has 'specific owners' it is more likely to be corrupt. Tens of thousands of companies have owners but aren't corrupt.
[b]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
This is in no way a fundamental difference b ...[text shortened]... n market would likely not be a truly competitive market and thus not efficient either.[/b]
Originally posted by spruce112358You haven't 'proven' anything. You asserted that private prisons get paid per prisoner and public prisons get allocated more money per prisoner but because the private system has 'specific owners' it is more likely to be corrupt. Tens of thousands of companies have owners but aren't corrupt.
You haven't 'proven' anything. You asserted that private prisons get paid per prisoner and public prisons get allocated more money per prisoner but because the private system has 'specific owners' it is more likely to be corrupt. Tens of thousands of companies have owners but aren't corrupt.
Suing government institutions is harder.
Open it up to free market forces and see.
Originally posted by spruce112358What are these benefits in this particular case?
Criminal activity can be discouraged in lots of ways. Converting whole institutions from private to public operation is just a little bit of overkill to achieve that. On top of which, one loses the benefits of privatization.
Originally posted by KazetNagorra"Or perhaps a splendid argument against privately run detention centers."
Or perhaps a splendid argument against privately run detention centers.