[ExI] government corruption

[Stathis Papaioannou]

2009/2/28 painlord2k at libero.it <painlord2k at libero.it>:

> Was any government's Nursing Home or Hospital closed, their employees
> all dismissed, because they failed to comply with standard regulations?

Yes, although there are more small privately run nursing homes so
statistically they are more likely to have problems. If there is a
scandal with a private institution often as not the public outcry is
against the government, for not regulating the industry properly. If
there is a scandal with a government institution the outcry is even
greater.

>> Interestingly, this regulation of private operators by the
>> government is demanded by the paying public, who don't derive a lot
>> of comfort from the idea that if their operation is screwed up they
>> can always go somewhere else.
>
> Again, the "paying public" demand the same regulation only for "private
> operators" or for "all operators"? The fact that there are only "private
> operators" or the controllers of the public operators are other public
> operators disinclined to rock the boat is not prove of anything against
> the private.

Why would the standards and regulations for private be stricter than
for public? It's as if you think the regulators are selectively trying
to make the government's customers suffer, just for the fun of it.

> I worked in an hospital in the past, so they trained us to fire security
> (what to do, what don't). To teach us there actual, public official,
> fire-fighters. When the lesson ended, they tell us clear and plain that
> would be useless to tell them that the Hospital was not in comply with
> the security rules. They knew it; they had the hospital clean up the
> bigger problems, but to fix them all would be impossible and they could
> not cause a major public hospital to close.

And of course, such a thing would never happen in a private hospital.

>> As for efficiency, medical care in the US costs about twice as much
>> as in any comparable country, with outcomes such as infant mortality
>> and life expectancy near the bottom of the OECD list.
>
> In many countries the infant born and died would not be born, so they
> would not count on. So, if people abort a child with a severe pathology
> it don't count as infant mortality, where if they don't and it die after
> a few weeks it count.  Also, the US population is very diverse, so it is
> to expect to have very diverse life expectancies. People with very
> different IQ is to be expect to have different life expectancies. EU or
> Japan were, until a few years ago, very homogeneous. You can not compare one
> with the other without looking at the differences.

So the US is full of retarded unhealthy immigrants who won't abort
their deformed foetuses.

>> This infuriates supporters of private health care, who advance
>> various arguments to explain what they see as an anomaly, eg. that
>> Americans are less healthy to begin with, or that the problem is
>> that the system is only partially privatised.
>
> The fact they could be infuriated don't prove that the explanations are
> wrong. Usually they are not.
> Statistics can be read in many ways, usually wrong ways, if you don't
> understand how they are computed.
> Like the linking of pirate activity and global warmings.

This is my point: you *know* there must be something wrong with the
evidence. It's like a religious conviction.





-- 
Stathis Papaioannou