[JerryLove]

Ronald Reagan worked for some large corporations as their spokesman. He listened to boards and CEOs spout how the only thing wrong with America was that government was stopping corporations from doing the good and benevolent things they were really trying so hard to do.

He believed it, and pushed for industry self-regulation. I could discuss the 1987 crash, or Enron, or Anderson, or the more recent... but I think there's a more succinct comparison to our debate on healthcare.

I work for a health insurance company. They spend a lot of time telling me, their employee, how they are doing what's best for the people we proved coverage for and how the government does a horrible job.

Mind you, I live with a nurse who specializes in billing, and who tells me how hard it is to get the same provider to approve necessary care.

Well: it seems the same debate came up over processed foods and child obesity. The food industry has said many of the same things that healthcare has said, and they went ahead and created a system of "healthy choice" labels to target people at healthy foods.

What got the check-mark?

Well. Froot Loops did, as did Sugar Frosted Flakes (41% sugar by weight).

So are frosted flakes healthy? Should we trust industry on pollution or healthcare?

[Hopeful]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

So are frosted flakes healthy? Should we trust industry on pollution or healthcare?

Another way I look at the dilemma is: can I trust the politicians in DC or State and local government with anything?

[JerryLove]

Originally Posted by Hopeful

Another way I look at the dilemma is: can I trust the politicians in DC or State and local government with anything?

Well. The real question is: who is more likely to be helpful.

To my mind, the government isn't actively out to screw me. Certainly we seem happy with the fire department more than the insurance industry.

[Hopeful]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

Well. The real question is: who is more likely to be helpful.

To my mind, the government isn't actively out to screw me. Certainly we seem happy with the fire department more than the insurance industry.

On the other hand, The Cato Institute reports that, after adjusting for inflation, funds spent on public schools have doubled since 1970, with no improvement in education performance and a decrease in graduation rates. Maybe it's not the government per se that is interested in screwing you, but the politicians don't mind.

[JerryLove]

Originally Posted by Hopeful

On the other hand, The Cato Institute reports that, after adjusting for inflation, funds spent on public schools have doubled since 1970, with no improvement in education performance and a decrease in graduation rates. Maybe it's not the government per se that is interested in screwing you, but the politicians don't mind.

My health insurance has increased more than that, and I believe longevity is actually on the decline.

It's also worth noting that the population has increased 50%.

And its worth noting that the number of kids in school is higher.

And its worth noting that there are more costs (computers come to mind)

Finally: graduation rates are not a great indicator. An increase in standards lowers graduation but not necessarily education.

[nolidad]

My health insurance has increased more than that, and I believe longevity is actually on the decline.

Actually the opposite is true.
Americans Are Living Longer Than Ever Thanks to Healthier, Active Lifestyle - AARP Bulletin Today

And its worth noting that there are more costs (computers come to mind)

As with the health industry costs (multi million dollar MRI's)

But if you spend twice as much after adjusting for inflation and no demonstrable improvemetn - what does that say? Money doesn't buy intelligence.

And its worth noting that the number of kids in school is higher.

People using health facilities have skyrocketed as well.

An increase in standards lowers graduation but not necessarily education.

So then all that rhetoic from the left is just that rhetoric? If being ableto make change without a computerized register telling you how much change to give is any indication- then education has dropped.

Finally: graduation rates are not a great indicator

But if they can't get past high school- they won't get naything better than a minimum wage job for the most part. Graduastion speaks to discipline and stability.

[Hopeful]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

It's also worth noting that the population has increased 50%.

And its worth noting that the number of kids in school is higher.

And its worth noting that there are more costs (computers come to mind)

Finally: graduation rates are not a great indicator. An increase in standards lowers graduation but not necessarily education.

So, the costs increase by 100% (adjusted for inflation) while the population increased by 50% - does not pencil out to me. And your last comment really proves my point - the government increases standards so that our kids can't graduate. That really makes sense.

[JerryLove]

Originally Posted by Hopeful

So, the costs increase by 100% (adjusted for inflation) while the population increased by 50% - does not pencil out to me. And your last comment really proves my point - the government increases standards so that our kids can't graduate. That really makes sense.

No. It doesn't "pencil you out", to shows that the number to address is 33% rather than 100% increase. I then went on to address possible reasons for that.

As to standards (again an example, not an assertion), your sarcasam seems misplaced. Would the school system be more effective if we just handed graduations to everyone at birth? Certainly graduation rates would be 100% and costs would be near-zero.

As I said, graduation rates alone are not a good indicator.

[JerryLove]

Originally Posted by nolidad

Actually the opposite is true.
Americans Are Living Longer Than Ever Thanks to Healthier, Active Lifestyle - AARP Bulletin Today

I stand corrected but not surprised.

Medical News: American Life Expectancy May Top Out - in Public Health & Policy, Public Health from MedPage Today

As with the health industry costs (multi million dollar MRI's)

Yet there are higher life expectancies in countries with hald the costs.

But if you spend twice as much after adjusting for inflation and no demonstrable improvemetn - what does that say? Money doesn't buy intelligence.

1) I've already proven that the costs (per student) have not doubled. It's dishonest to repeat the claim they have.

2) Just because you have not listed an improvement does not mean no demonstrable improvement exists.

People using health facilities have skyrocketed as well.

As have people using schools. Your double-standard is odd.

So then all that rhetoic from the left is just that rhetoric? If being ableto make change without a computerized register telling you how much change to give is any indication- then education has dropped.

I've no idea what you are talking about. Perhaps you could address the topic or things I've said? Though I'm dubious.

But if they can't get past high school- they won't get naything better than a minimum wage job for the most part. Graduastion speaks to discipline and stability.

Someone must do minimum wage jobs. Better that person didn't waste time and money on a college degree when they are illiterate.

Speaking of which, how are the illiteracy rates?

[Hopeful]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

No. It doesn't "pencil you out", to shows that the number to address is 33% rather than 100% increase. I then went on to address possible reasons for that.

As to standards (again an example, not an assertion), your sarcasam seems misplaced. Would the school system be more effective if we just handed graduations to everyone at birth? Certainly graduation rates would be 100% and costs would be near-zero.

As I said, graduation rates alone are not a good indicator.

How do you get 33%? Anytime a number is doubled, it is a 100% increase! Please prove it to me as a mathematical formula - my mind sees it better that way.

Jerry, you give me too much credit when you say "sarcasm". It is cynicism that I express because I don't trust our politicians and many bureaucrats. Therefore, while your example above points out the craziness in the corporate world, I would trust them more. You asked and that's how I feel. Now, what if you compared the IRS (rather than the fire dept.) to the insurance industry?

Also, I highlighted a comment you made that is totally unrealistic and is not what I think at all.

[slap_j]

Originally Posted by Hopeful

It is cynicism that I express because I don't trust our politicians and many bureaucrats. Therefore, while your example above points out the craziness in the corporate world, I would trust them more.

Do you feel like you have more accountability from the private sector than from government? Because I think of things like private military companies and private judiciaries and feel that I'd prefer some sort of government in charge of those things. And that highlights this tension I feel between the mistrust I have for the government and the mistrust I have for big business.

[Epaphras]

Interesting question. I would say that yes, self-regulation is effective, but what 'effective' means is relevant. 'Effective' from the company's perspective may not align with what 'effective' means from the customer's perspective. That is the role of government regulators, as I see it: making sure the public's interest aligns with corporate interest.

I would also say that true, customer-serving self-regulation is extremely rare, and we have yet to see a perfect example of it. So I'm not willing to completely dismiss it yet.

In other words: corporations that exist to provide for their customers and employees, and ultimately the public, not merely the bottom line, is the ideal. Corporations that exist for their own bottom line, who commit as much injustice as they can get away with, unaccountable to government or anyone else, with a revolving door between government regulators and corporate executives, is the ultimate nightmare.

[Hopeful]

Originally Posted by slap_j

Do you feel like you have more accountability from the private sector than from government? Because I think of things like private military companies and private judiciaries and feel that I'd prefer some sort of government in charge of those things. And that highlights this tension I feel between the mistrust I have for the government and the mistrust I have for big business.

The answer is a qualified "yes". There are some industries with more government oversight than others so it is not all the same. But, in theory, if the company is a publicly traded company, it must abide by generally accepted accounting principles, Sarbanes Oxley, SEC regulations, etc. It must also be accountable to the Board of Directors AND its shareholders. Problems arise if the concentration of power is held by a few shareholders and owners. Situations like this exist, which generate a lot of press when there are failures and fraud since we tend to view these issues at the macro level.

However, what is it like at the micro level? There are all the small corporations, LLC's, partnerships, etc. that have popped up that fill a void that is not serviced by large corporations. In 2006, private industry workers numbered 109.5 million vs. 18.5 million government workers. So it is likely that most of us work for private industry. Of those private industry workers, slightly less than half work for companies with more than 500 employees. The remainder work for companies with less than 500 employees and about 40.5 million of these were employed by firms with 100 or less employees. This is where the talent pool lies, not within government. I hope this answers your question.

[JerryLove]

Originally Posted by Hopeful

How do you get 33%? Anytime a number is doubled, it is a 100% increase! Please prove it to me as a mathematical formula - my mind sees it better that way.

P = population
X = expenditure on schools.

Per capita spending in 1970 = X / P = 100%
Per capita spending now = 2X / 1.5P = 133%

[slap_j]

Originally Posted by Hopeful

There are some industries with more government oversight than others so it is not all the same.

Presumably this is bad because the government isn't as trustworthy as the businesses it's trying to regulate?

But, in theory, if the company is a publicly traded company, it must abide by generally accepted accounting principles, Sarbanes Oxley, SEC regulations, etc. It must also be accountable to the Board of Directors AND its shareholders.

What I'm not understanding is why this is more accountability than a nation of voters.

I hope this answers your question.

It's a start. I have lots. Thanks.