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!
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 go for operations: the cost barrier actually drives business away from US hospitals) to family clinics (there's one up the road from me who charges higher fees than a private hospital and is doing very well). These exist in multiple regulatory environments.
Private hospitals are driven by profit and are not prevented by regulation from doing so. I don't see your beef with regulation. I simply question the 'efficiency' argument. Yes, private hospitals are more efficient -- at making a profit, not providing healthcare (which is unaffordable to the majority).
Originally posted by spruce112358Assuming that the fiction labelled 'free market' exists -- of course it does.
The free market doesn't 'provide' incentives for corruption.
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 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!!!
This is in no way a fundamental difference between the two types of systems. It is perfectly possible to hold a government-run prison to the same standard as a private one;
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."
It exists everywhere, but that doesn't mean it will flourish to the same degree in all environments. I have given reasons why it will be more prevalent in a private prison sector, you fail to give any counterarguments except for platitudes about corruption being everywhere. I guess you concede the point ?
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...
I believe you missed the point I was making. I do not deny that there is inefficiency in the current government run prison system, nor that a perfectly competitive market would do away with part of that inefficiency. My point is that, due to a number of factors, a private prison market would likely not be a truly competitive market and thus not efficient either.
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).
Car manufacturers, airlines, grocery stores -- all are driven by profit. All are forced to be more efficient because numerous companies must compete with one another. My beef with regulation is that, the more regulation, the higher the barrier to start-ups and innovation. To me, that is what has made health-care unaffordable. Not privatization, certainly.
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]
Suing government institutions is harder.
Open it up to free market forces and see.
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.
That is 2 strawmen in one argument. I haven't claimed to prove anything. I have simply given logical arguments for my side and explicitly invited counterpoints. You just fail to give them. I have also never claimed that every private business is corrupt, I haven't even made any claims about anything to do with corruption of any kind outside of the prison industry. If you are extrapolating what I say to other sectors, then that is entirely up to you.
Let's break it down for you. 1. Corruption is more likely when someone has a clear incentive to be corrupt. 2. When locking people up becomes a for profit operation, an incentive is created to lock up as many people as possible, including the innocent.
Suing government institutions is harder.
Just going to repost what I said last time : "This is in no way a fundamental difference between the two types of systems. It is perfectly possible to hold a government-run prison to the same standard as a private one. " If you are arguing to move to a private prison industry because at the moment government institutions are harder to sue, then I say you are throwing out the child with the bathwater. To me it's an argument to simply change the law so government prison are equally accountable.
Open it up to free market forces and see.
Use your brain and try to figure out what the results will be before undertaking the experiment.
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.
Strawman spotted. These two creep judges are caught and going to jail. The argument that private enterprise is at fault might be valid, if we didn't know that State run institutions including jails have been centers of corruption for as long as they've existed.