Palin Speaks

[Winstonm]

"There is a lot of disinformation about service done to our country by the troops at Gitmo, spanning from insensitivity to outright torture. These rumors often travel just below the surface via chain emails or through casual conversation. Since we can't keep track of all of them here at the White House, we're asking for your help. If you get an email or see something on the web, [or hear something in casual conversation] about our fight against terror that seems fishy, send it to flag@whitehouse.gov."

 

would it still have been okay? would you have been equally as blase`, as less horrified? i doubt it

 

I believe you have made a false comparison between attempts to identify and discredit disinformation (Obama) and attempts to control the release of accurate information (Bush).

[luke warm]

"There is a lot of disinformation about service done to our country by the troops at Gitmo, spanning from insensitivity to outright torture. These rumors often travel just below the surface via chain emails or through casual conversation. Since we can't keep track of all of them here at the White House, we're asking for your help. If you get an email or see something on the web, [or hear something in casual conversation] about our fight against terror that seems fishy, send it to flag@whitehouse.gov."

 

would it still have been okay? would you have been equally as blase`, as less horrified? i doubt it

 

I believe you have made a false comparison between attempts to identify and discredit disinformation (Obama) and attempts to control the release of accurate information (Bush).

labeled disinformation by whom? labeled inaccurate information by whom?

[hrothgar]

Tracking emails is a great way to (eventually) identify the source of all this *****.

and once the source is identified? i think you are an incurable hypocrite... if that quote had come from the bush white house you'd have had plenty to say... imagine this quote:

 

"There is a lot of disinformation about service done to our country by the troops at Gitmo, spanning from insensitivity to outright torture. These rumors often travel just below the surface via chain emails or through casual conversation. Since we can't keep track of all of them here at the White House, we're asking for your help. If you get an email or see something on the web, [or hear something in casual conversation] about our fight against terror that seems fishy, send it to flag@whitehouse.gov."

 

would it still have been okay? would you have been equally as blase`, as less horrified? i doubt it

I don't see anything wrong with that. In fact I don't understand why you have a problem with that. This is very similar to what the Obama campaign did with the "fight the smears" website during the campaign. The e-mails just helps them judging which misinformation is so widespread that it warrants a public response.

Would you have less of a problem with this if this was handled by the DNC instead of the White House?

this isn't a campaign, this is the government, and the "misinformation" is labeled so by the ones with the power... my above reply applies equally to you

And who is it from? Who is at flag?

try here

Obama versus Bush is completely the wrong lens to apply. Things might make more sense if, instead, you frame it as follows:

 

Who is telling the truth

Who is lying out their ass

 

If you'd like, I'd be happy to detail

 

1. The long list of lies that the Bushies provided about Gitmo and the detainees

2. The long list of lies that the Republicans are pushing regarding health care reform

[Winstonm]

labeled disinformation by whom? labeled inaccurate information by whom?

 

Disinformation is an anti-fact. Inaccurate information is determined by comparing it to the facts, not by labeling.

[hrothgar]

"There is a lot of disinformation about service done to our country by the troops at Gitmo, spanning from insensitivity to outright torture. These rumors often travel just below the surface via chain emails or through casual conversation. Since we can't keep track of all of them here at the White House, we're asking for your help. If you get an email or see something on the web, [or hear something in casual conversation] about our fight against terror that seems fishy, send it to flag@whitehouse.gov."

 

would it still have been okay? would you have been equally as blase`, as less horrified? i doubt it

 

I believe you have made a false comparison between attempts to identify and discredit disinformation (Obama) and attempts to control the release of accurate information (Bush).

labeled disinformation by whom? labeled inaccurate information by whom?

This Washington Post, to start with:

 

BTW, quick hint: You might want to actually read the responses that people post.

Otherwise, you risk look really stupid...

 

For convenience, I'll repost a message one page page in the current thread.

 

There is an excellent piece in yesterday's Washington Post discussing a closely related issue.

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...9080603854.html

 

The opening paragraph reads as follows

 

 

As a columnist who regularly dishes out sharp criticism, I try not to question the motives of people with whom I don't agree. Today, I'm going to step over that line.

 

The recent attacks by Republican leaders and their ideological fellow-travelers on the effort to reform the health-care system have been so misleading, so disingenuous, that they could only spring from a cynical effort to gain partisan political advantage. By poisoning the political well, they've given up any pretense of being the loyal opposition. They've become political terrorists, willing to say or do anything to prevent the country from reaching a consensus on one of its most serious domestic problems.

 

There are lots of valid criticisms that can be made against the health reform plans moving through Congress -- I've made a few myself. But there is no credible way to look at what has been proposed by the president or any congressional committee and conclude that these will result in a government takeover of the health-care system. That is a flat-out lie whose only purpose is to scare the public and stop political conversation.

 

If you prefer, you could always look at the Tweet that kicked off this thread where Palin is talking about Obama's "Death Panel". David Brooks labeled this a "lie" not a minute ago on Meet The Press...

[Lobowolf]

what is she talking about?

Government rationing of health care (taken to a (hypothetical) extreme).

From my days in Atlanta, I remember an Alabama bridge player sentenced to death because he could not pay for the transplant he needed to save his life. Area bridge players worked hard to raise the money (Grant Baze played a big part in this), but the player died before the full amount was gathered.

 

Personally, I'd like to see the government step in to regulate the health care rationing that already exists in the US.

You think he'd have gotten one in time under a government program? The main effect on rationing will be who gets to decide. The government's not going to be passing out free hearts to everyone who needs them.

For sure - he had close relative willing to donate the organ he needed for the transplant. He just didn't have the $275K.

 

Of course not every heart patient will get a free transplant, but otherwise healthy people will not die for lack of money when a crucial organ is readily available.

 

Sure people will no longer be sentenced to death just to increase the profits of an insurance company. But there will still be tough decisions to make, and we'll constantly be looking at (and arguing about) how the government makes those decisions.

 

A much better scenario, in my view. And, happily, I won't have to spend so damned much time dealing with employees' insurance.

People won't be "sentenced to death to increase the profits of an insurance company," but that doesn't mean they won't be sentenced to death to maintain the financial viability of the system. We'll see what happens, but I don't expect the government to be rubber-stamping the requests (especially the time-sensitive ones) of everyone who needs an operation, but is just short a few hundred grand.

[Lobowolf]

If you'd like, I'd be happy to detail

 

 

The long list of lies that the Republicans are pushing regarding health care reform

That would be great. Thanks.

[hrothgar]

If you'd like, I'd be happy to detail

 

 

The long list of lies that the Republicans are pushing regarding health care reform

That would be great. Thanks.

http://factcheck.org/ has any number of germane articles

 

Here's a current list from the site's front page:

CPR Administers Bad Facts, Again

The group says premiums could nearly double for those who buy their own insurance. Experts we consulted disagree.

 

The latest ad from the group Conservatives for Patients’ Rights claims that “new rules could hike your health insurance premiums 95 percent.” That’s misleading. The claim in the ad refers to only 5 percent of Americans who have health insurance – those who buy it on their own. The claim comes from an analysis by a group that advocates for

 

Surgery for Seniors vs. Abortions?

Family Research Council says abortions will trump care for the elderly in public plan.

 

A new TV ad sponsored by an anti-abortion group shows a white-haired man fretting that under a federal health plan, “They won’t pay for my surgery, but we’re forced to pay for abortions.”

 

“Will this be our future?” the ad asks, merging the fears of seniors …

 

False Euthanasia Claims

The claim that the House health care bill pushes suicide is nonsense.

 

On former Sen. Fred Thompson’s radio show, former lieutenant governor of New York Betsy McCaughey said that the House’s proposed health care bill contained a provision that would institute mandatory counseling sessions telling seniors how “to do what’s in society’s best interest … and cut your life short.” House Minority Leader John Boehner made a slightly more measured …

 

Canadian Straw Man

More ads claim that Congress is pushing a Canadian-style health care bill.

 

Two ads from related independent groups make claims about an overhaul of the health care system, saying Congress wants a government-run health care system. One ad claims that “Washington wants to bring Canadian-style health care to the U.S.” But the health care bills moving through Congress don’t call for a single-payer system like Canada’s …

 

The website also has a critique of some of Obama's claims during his latest Town Hall meeting.

 

http://healthcarefactcheck.com/ is another site with a lot of useful information.

[PassedOut]

People won't be "sentenced to death to increase the profits of an insurance company," but that doesn't mean they won't be sentenced to death to maintain the financial viability of the system. We'll see what happens, but I don't expect the government to be rubber-stamping the requests (especially the time-sensitive ones) of everyone who needs an operation, but is just short a few hundred grand.

Agreed.

 

But everyone will be insured, and what is covered by that insurance will be known and standardized. Political pressure, not bottom-line profit pressure, will determine how extensive the coverage is.

 

In the bridge player's case that I remembered, if government insurance coverage didn't permit a young man to live because his operation would cost $275K, voters would react strongly and negatively.

[kenberg]

A sample from http://healthcarefactcheck.com/

 

 

MYTH: "Government-Encouraged Euthanasia"

House Republican Leader John Boehner claimed the House bill "may start us down a treacherous path toward government-encouraged euthanasia."

 

FactCheck.org: The claim is "nonsense."

The bill never requires anyone to discuss end-of-life care. Rather, the bill ensures medical professionals who do offer this type of counseling at the patient's request are reimbursed for their time, just as they would be for other types of counseling or medical services.

 

 

Alternatively, here is a piece from one of the editorial staff at the Washington Post (not normally seen as a source of rightwing insanity):

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...9080703043.html

I found this more useful.

 

I hope that the supporters of the Obama health plan will consider the following: Most of us want this to end well. We are capable of dismissing Sarah Palin's formulation as quackery but that is not the same as saying that we have complete faith in Mr. Obama. At the site http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/Facts-Are-Stubborn-Things/

suggested earlier, it is said that Linda Douglass will "addresses one example that makes it look like the President intends to "eliminate" private coverage, when the reality couldn’t be further from the truth.". What she does is to replay some of Mr. Obama's statements. For those of us who are not so sure things are quite as simple as Mr. Obama makes them sound, this repetition of sound bites doesn't help.

 

 

As I understand it, the "health care plan" is still a work in progress and there have been some notable efforts from the center to create something that could muster at least some Republican support. The Post has put out several articles and op-ed pieces, many with concrete ideas and a minimum of histrionics.

 

Generally I am very pessimistic about large scale changes with very powerful interests at play. My first thought when I heard that Harry and Louise were supporting this was uh oh, where is the catch that we missed? But maybe this can be done well. If so it will be a very great accomplishment by a number of people, and I expect we will have some courageous Republicans to count among those deserving our thanks.

[hrothgar]

Alternatively, here is a piece from one of the editorial staff at the Washington Post (not normally seen as a source of rightwing insanity):

The Post has a decent news division, however, the editorial board is start raving mad:

 

Hiatt, Krauterhammer, Kristol, Kagan...

 

The Neo-Con nut jobs just keeping going, and going, and going

[luke warm]

labeled disinformation by whom? labeled inaccurate information by whom?

 

Disinformation is an anti-fact. Inaccurate information is determined by comparing it to the facts, not by labeling.

winston, having read most of your posts for the past year or two i honestly think you, as well as richard, would have had a lot to say if the bush w.h. had come out with

 

"There is a lot of disinformation about service done to our country by the troops at Gitmo, spanning from insensitivity to outright torture. These rumors often travel just below the surface via chain emails or through casual conversation. Since we can't keep track of all of them here at the White House, we're asking for your help. If you get an email or see something on the web, [or hear something in casual conversation] about our fight against terror that seems fishy, send it to flag@whitehouse.gov."

 

if the actual quote from an administration official doesn't bother you, so be it... disinformation and untruths abound on all sides, but asking for names (by the gov't, no less) is at least a little bit scary... i'd still like to see a big grassroots push demanding that fed gov't employees, including the congress and administration, have whatever health care they presently have substituted for the final version congress passes... wanna bet you never see that? why not, do you think?

[hrothgar]

if the actual quote from an administration official doesn't bother you, so be it... disinformation and untruths abound on all sides, but asking for names (by the gov't, no less) is at least a little bit scary...

On the subject of disinformation: Linda Douglas (the spokeswoman for said program) has been very adamant that they are not tracking the names of individuals who are posting information. Then again, its not like we actually expect you to fact check any to the crap you parrot...

 

This isn't something I agree with. I think that these names should be tracked (I believe that the source of information has a major impact on its credibility)

 

As for the following:

 

i'd still like to see a big grassroots push demanding that fed gov't employees, including the congress and administration, have whatever health care they presently have substituted for the final version congress passes... wanna bet you never see that? why not, do you think?

 

I agree. We'd never see anything like this. The main reason is that the health care reform acts that are currently being pushed doesn't specific a single type of health care.

 

What type of health care are you going to require that the congress critters take?

 

A health care co-operative?

Private plans (Still allowed)

The "public option"? Who knows if this will even make it into the plan?

 

Moreover, given the amount of money most members of congress make, I don't think any of them have to worry about health care, regardless of what silly little perqs they might get

[Winstonm]

labeled disinformation by whom? labeled inaccurate information by whom?

 

Disinformation is an anti-fact. Inaccurate information is determined by comparing it to the facts, not by labeling.

winston, having read most of your posts for the past year or two i honestly think you, as well as richard, would have had a lot to say if the bush w.h. had come out with

 

"There is a lot of disinformation about service done to our country by the troops at Gitmo, spanning from insensitivity to outright torture. These rumors often travel just below the surface via chain emails or through casual conversation. Since we can't keep track of all of them here at the White House, we're asking for your help. If you get an email or see something on the web, [or hear something in casual conversation] about our fight against terror that seems fishy, send it to flag@whitehouse.gov."

 

if the actual quote from an administration official doesn't bother you, so be it... disinformation and untruths abound on all sides, but asking for names (by the gov't, no less) is at least a little bit scary... i'd still like to see a big grassroots push demanding that fed gov't employees, including the congress and administration, have whatever health care they presently have substituted for the final version congress passes... wanna bet you never see that? why not, do you think?

It appears to me this attempt at comparison between Obama and Bush with its either/or overtones is somewhat like a variation on false dilemma.

 

It seems your argument is that Richard and I do not object to the current situation simply because it is Obama and not Bush, which if not false dilemma is surely close to creating a straw man argument.

[Al_U_Card]

Chains you can be left in....

 

Partisanship creates a polarity that causes the breaking of parity in equitable relationships.

 

Maintaining the status quo when that means allowing a polarized situation to endure is not being equitable.

 

Taking advantage of the situation to promote an agenda or create a false sense of security (indignation etc.) is similar.

 

Turns out the "new" sheriff in town is just the same boss, different lackey. A nice, polished, intelligent lackey, but lackey nontheless.

 

Homeland security.....from who and what exactly?

[kenberg]

I decided to conduct an experiment. I sent the url (see below) for the Post article that I mentioned to flag. I mentioned that I thought it was ok but that I had been assured that it actually was written by a neo con nut job. If you don't hear from me in the next few days, forward my mail to Gitmo.

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...9080703043.html

[luke warm]

On the subject of disinformation:  Linda Douglas (the spokeswoman for said program) has been very adamant that they are not tracking the names of individuals who are posting information.  Then again, its not like we actually expect you to fact check any to the crap you parrot...

you call a statement from the spokesperson in charge of this to be 'fact checking'? okay

This isn't something I agree with.  I think that these names should be tracked (I believe that the source of information has a major impact on its credibility)

i think everyone who reads the wc knows you'd go ballistic if a conservative (more or less) administration did anything similar

As for the following:

 

i'd still like to see a big grassroots push demanding that fed gov't employees, including the congress and administration, have whatever health care they presently have substituted for the final version congress passes... wanna bet you never see that? why not, do you think?

 

I agree. We'd never see anything like this. The main reason is that the health care reform acts that are currently being pushed doesn't specific a single type of health care.

 

What type of health care are you going to require that the congress critters take?

 

A health care co-operative?

Private plans (Still allowed)

The "public option"? Who knows if this will even make it into the plan?

 

Moreover, given the amount of money most members of congress make, I don't think any of them have to worry about health care, regardless of what silly little perqs they might get

"silly little perqs"... i suggest that the final version they pass be the exact same plan they have... who would object to that? (the hint would be they'd not pass one if it had to be the same one they have)

It appears to me this attempt at comparison between Obama and Bush with its either/or overtones is somewhat like a variation on false dilemma.

you'd be wrong

It seems your argument is that Richard and I do not object to the current situation simply because it is Obama and not Bush, which if not false dilemma is surely close to creating a straw man argument.

explain how... this should be interesting

Turns out the "new" sheriff in town is just the same boss, different lackey. A nice, polished, intelligent lackey, but lackey nontheless.

 

Homeland security.....from who and what exactly?

exactly right

[Winstonm]

if the actual quote from an administration official doesn't bother you, so be it... disinformation and untruths abound on all sides, but asking for names (by the gov't, no less) is at least a little bit scary...

 

You are making an unproven assertion (disinformation and untruths abound on all sides) and then drawing from that unproven proposition a false conclusion that one lying side deciding to clamp down on untruths of the other lying side should be considered scary.

 

For a guy with an excellent knowledge of logic I would expect more - your arguments in this case seem to me at best weak and at worst totally invalid.

 

I'm really unconcerned about these efforts. The aspects of the Obama administration that are truly scary are the efforts to continue the Military Commissions, Clinton as Secretary of State, and Gates as Secretary of Defense.

[hrothgar]

i'd still like to see a big grassroots push demanding that fed gov't employees, including the congress and administration, have whatever health care they presently have substituted for the final version congress passes... wanna bet you never see that? why not, do you think?

 

I agree. We'd never see anything like this. The main reason is that the health care reform acts that are currently being pushed doesn't specific a single type of health care.

 

What type of health care are you going to require that the congress critters take?

 

A health care co-operative?

Private plans (Still allowed)

The "public option"? Who knows if this will even make it into the plan?

 

Moreover, given the amount of money most members of congress make, I don't think any of them have to worry about health care, regardless of what silly little perqs they might get

"silly little perqs"... i suggest that the final version they pass be the exact same plan they have... who would object to that? (the hint would be they'd not pass one if it had to be the same one they have)

When I originally parsed what you had written, I assumed that you were suggesting that the congresses existing health plan would be replaced with whatever gets passed in the Health Care reform bill.

 

From the sounds of things, you're actually suggesting the private citizens have the option of subscribing to the congressional health care plan.

 

What you are, in fact, describing is the so-called "public option". You are tying this to a very particular Health Care plan, however, a govern sponsored plan is the essence of the public option. I will note that most progressives are very much in favor of the public option. (The ones who aren't prefer much more radical options like single payer). I would have no objection to a requirement that congressional employees use one of the plans included in the public option. However, as I noted earlier, I consider this largely symbolic.

 

If "public option" fails, it simply reflects the fact that the progressives didn't have the political clout to achieve their goals.

[Winstonm]

It seems your argument is that Richard and I do not object to the current situation simply because it is Obama and not Bush, which if not false dilemma is surely close to creating a straw man argument.

 

explain how... this should be interesting

 

I say I am unconcerned about this flag website to track disinformation. You create a hypothetical comparison (the straw man) and then use that hypothetical as evidence to argue that my disagreement is based solely on bias.

 

You are much more expert on logic arguments. Perhaps straw man is not the correct term. But your argument is not a good one, regardless.

 

you'd be wrong

 

If this is the appeal to authority you got me - again, I agree that you are the expert and I am the novice in these matters about logic.

[PassedOut]

The propaganda campaign against health care reform has been in full swing, as in this piece from Investor's Business Daily: How House Bill Runs Over Grandma

The U.K.'s National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) basically figures out who deserves treatment by using a cost-utility analysis based on the "quality adjusted life year."

 

One year in perfect health gets you one point. Deductions are taken for blindness, for being in a wheelchair and so on.

 

The more points you have, the more your life is considered worth saving, and the likelier you are to get care.

 

People such as scientist Stephen Hawking wouldn't have a chance in the U.K., where the National Health Service would say the life of this brilliant man, because of his physical handicaps, is essentially worthless.

I found this quote after reading Paul Krugman's short article in the NY Times (Broken tubes) that pointed out how crazy Obama's health care opponents are.

 

Seems to me that, in this case anyway, the writer must have been joking around, expecting an editor (or proofreader or publisher) to catch and correct the Hawking stupidity. And it's quite amazing that no one did!

 

I do think it's right for the white house to fight the nonsense, as it has started doing here: Health Insurance Reform Reality Check

[hrothgar]

The propaganda campaign against health care reform has been in full swing, as in this piece from Investor's Business Daily: How House Bill Runs Over Grandma

The U.K.'s National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) basically figures out who deserves treatment by using a cost-utility analysis based on the "quality adjusted life year."

 

One year in perfect health gets you one point. Deductions are taken for blindness, for being in a wheelchair and so on.

 

The more points you have, the more your life is considered worth saving, and the likelier you are to get care.

 

People such as scientist Stephen Hawking wouldn't have a chance in the U.K., where the National Health Service would say the life of this brilliant man, because of his physical handicaps, is essentially worthless.

I found this quote after reading Paul Krugman's short article in the NY Times (Broken tubes) that pointed out how crazy Obama's health care opponents are.

 

Seems to me that, in this case anyway, the writer must have been joking around, expecting an editor (or proofreader or publisher) to catch and correct the Hawking stupidity. And it's quite amazing that no one did!

 

I do think it's right for the white house to fight the nonsense, as it has started doing here: Health Insurance Reform Reality Check

Just to be clear:

 

What makes this particularly ludicrous is that Stephen Hawking is British.

He was born in the UK and used said health services since his birth.

[se12sam]

The propaganda campaign against health care reform has been in full swing, as in this piece from Investor's Business Daily: How House Bill Runs Over Grandma

The U.K.'s National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) basically figures out who deserves treatment by using a cost-utility analysis based on the "quality adjusted life year."

 

One year in perfect health gets you one point. Deductions are taken for blindness, for being in a wheelchair and so on.

 

The more points you have, the more your life is considered worth saving, and the likelier you are to get care.

 

People such as scientist Stephen Hawking wouldn't have a chance in the U.K., where the National Health Service would say the life of this brilliant man, because of his physical handicaps, is essentially worthless.

I read the linked article (Investor's Business daily). This is a poor editorial because it appears the writer has no clue on what NICE is and/or NICE does.

 

It is true that one of the roles of NICE is to determine permissible drugs etc by considering "cost vs. benefit" analysis. It is much more subjective and qualitative than the phrase sounds.

 

And in any case, I wonder how many treatments for serious illnesses in the USA are turned down by the Insurance Cos --- with stated reasons like "experimental", "pre-existing condition", "not covered by insurance", "not valid treatment" etc. If this is a common enough occurrence in the US, then the so-called problem with NICE should be the least of the concerns for an average American.

[awm]

It does seem like the pro-health-reform folks might benefit from demonizing the insurance companies a bit more.

 

The health-care opponents keep bringing up things like rationing, government deciding which treatments are allowed, government deciding who is worth saving, and so forth. All of these things sound awful, but the status quo in the US is that big health insurance companies routinely make these same sorts of decisions for their customers.

 

Most Americans don't have a whole lot of choice about their health care now. Insurance companies are often a regional monopoly, and even if not our employers typically choose which insurer to contract with, and attempting to sign up for an alternative private plan when the employer offers something else is incredibly expensive (lose the tax benefits of employer-provided plan, and the employer typically won't raise the salary to compensate for declining employer-provided plan, so basically you pay out of pocket and get taxed for it).

 

So we already have a system where there is rationing, where some bureaucrat decides which treatments are allowed, and so forth. Essentially all the bad things the right wing is charging government with wanting to do are already done in this country by private industry.

 

Obviously no one wants some bureaucrat getting between them and their doctor. But that's not the choice. The choice is between a corporate bureaucrat whose goal is to maximize profits at the insurance company and who is likely given substantial financial incentives to "save money" by kicking expensive people off the insurance or declining expensive treatments... versus a government bureaucrat who really has no financial interest one way or the other and whose incentives are probably to "minimize complaints" (and thus lost votes for the government) by making sure everyone is reasonably well taken care of.

[Lobowolf]

versus a government bureaucrat who really has no financial interest one way or the other and whose incentives are probably to "minimize complaints" (and thus lost votes for the government) by making sure everyone is reasonably well taken care of.

It does seem like the pro-health-reform folks might benefit from demonizing the insurance companies a bit more.

I'm not sure it's possible, but if it is, I agree that it would help.

 

 

 

The health-care opponents keep bringing up things like rationing, government deciding which treatments are allowed, government deciding who is worth saving, and so forth. All of these things sound awful, but the status quo in the US is that big health insurance companies routinely make these same sorts of decisions for their customers.

 

 

Agree entirely.

 

 

 

versus a government bureaucrat who really has no financial interest one way or the other and whose incentives are probably to "minimize complaints" (and thus lost votes for the government) by making sure everyone is reasonably well taken care of.

 

Disagree entirely. My experience (and I do have a fair amount of it) is that those government bureaucrats, even those in publice service departments, are every bit as bottom-line conscious as anyone in the private sector. For the most part, they don't have the option of creatively raising revenue, so they watch what gets spent. They'll spend everything you give 'em (You don't get rewarded for coming in under budget; if you didn't spend it, you must not have needed it, so next year's budget will probably be smaller), but if they go too far over, it's reduced services for others, cost-cutting layoffs, etc. There's always a department head who most assuredly DOES have a financial interest, and whose incentive it to not lose his job because he came in way over budget, and he's surrounded by policy wonks who are all on the same page.

 

As you point out, in this respect, that doesn't make them any worse than the private sector folks doing the same thing, but it doesn't make 'em better, either. Private security corporations have budget projections, contigency plans for bad budget years, cost-cutting measures, a heirarchy of if-needed layoffs, etc. So does every police chief this side of Mayberry. Ditto any other department head that provides goods and services that are available in both the public and private sectors.