Quote:
Originally Posted by BoLevi
Well, your question was worded in a way that wasn't useful if you were looking for a specific answer. You asked if there were countries with "zero socialst policies". I take it that you meant zero social programs.
Healthcare is a good example. We know that the best way to deliver necessary services to your people is through a competition based system (let's call it capitalist). The challenge with healthcare appears to be ensuring that that system isn't corrupted. People erroneously use the US as a model for market based healthcare, but it's a straw man. The US healthcare system is highly funded by the public coffers, and the remainder of it is captured by any number of interests - usually using the long arm of gov't to enforce various rent-seeking policies. The "socialized" alternative, like Canada's also does a poor job: mostly because of administrative capture, labour union excesses, and a general lack of motivation (ie incentive), to deliver.
I think there is good data to show that social safety nets can have a positive impact on entrepreneurism, and I believe that is likely the case. The flipside is that capitalism and socialism aren't just systems, they are moods. It's harder to have the benefit of capitalism if the citizenry aren't into it. Is a citizenry that is very into social programs the same citizenry that is interested in the go hard or go home attitude that makes capitalism work?
We are probably better off when gov't spending was predominantly on infrastructure, defence, etc. instead of the current version which is predominantly on services and little on infrastructure. The former creates a public good(s), and the latter does not.
|
Id argue Health is a terrible example of something that is optimized by capitalism. (I think diagnostics and facility medicine have opportunity)
Health Care is opaque, it’s difficult to evaluate the quality of service provided
Health care is not something you frequently use so your ability to shop around is limited
Healthcare is something you need in crisis so you don’t have time to shop around.
So all of the aspects of the ability to create the competition motive in the consumer are constrained.
On the capacity side you want to pay for excess capacity to do nothing in a perfectly funded system. You don’t want just in time logistics here. To incentivize spare capacity in the private sector requires subsidy. And when you have to subsidize you might as well have the government do it
Also on the capacity side high barriers to entry prevent competition from forming
Take something like lab services in Alberta. The private sector failed miserably to deliver services. When privatized a monopoly was created because there aren’t many suitable providers of the service. People had no suitable alternative.
The things that make capitalism effective at optimization of resources don’t work in improving the cost or availability of health care. It is successful at focusing health care resources on those with the ability to pay.