Hacker News Reader

Yes, sorry but as another EU citizen, I have to say I'm not sure we should have accepted Romania into the EU before this problem is fixed.

Do you think it's helping against corruption or is any incentive now gone? Do you think it's getting better with rising income? (this was not meant against romanians it's just that EU institutions are pretty far away from EU projects and are usually terrible at detecting corruption)

> I'm not sure we should have accepted Romania into the EU before this problem is fixed.

If I lived anywhere else, I'd have the same opinion :)

> Do you think it's helping against corruption or is any incentive now gone?

Actually, it's helping, since we are monitored and we get warnings and sanctions now and then ... one of the main concerns being corruption. I don't think that the end-result can be predicted though, we'll see ... although since we entered the EU, I can see things improving.

Unfortunately with this economic crisis, we're back to square one.

> it's just that EU institutions are pretty far away from EU projects and are usually terrible at detecting corruption

My impression is that they are pretty good :-) ... I've heard of reports more accurate than what is published in our media.

I just saw something related in the news, apparently corruption in Afghanistan is on the scale of 23% of GDP. I can imagine that changing an economic system with that much corruption to something better is hard, since everyone depends on how things are now. Imagine what would happen if everyone's salary was suddenly cut to three quarters...

Actually, that's more or less what's happening in the Baltic countries now. The economic crisis has hit hard there, and the government is taking rather drastic measures to handle it.

Sources: http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2010/01/20/Corruption-biggest... and http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,4320882,00.html

Fortunately honesty seems more prevalent in the Baltic countries.

Sorry, but as another EU citizen, I have to say that applying your criteria lot of countries (beginning with mine - Italy) should not have been accepted either. I'm afraid that EU simply can't be that much selective without losing any change of counting for something on the world scene.

The stick of non-inclusion did as much good as it could at the time. Already the politicians were at a point where any more pressure would have made them balk.

Last couple of years I haven't followed the political life, so I don't really know where they're headed. I don't think it's gotten any much better, or that it will soon. But things should be viewed in context. We're a functioning and fast developing economy. We _are_ a functioning democracy - we have little to choose from, but we do choose our politicians. A past of communism left us well educated and disciplined - you won't find terrorists of civil wars here any time soon. The only bit of public violence we had in the past 20 years (the mineriads) were actually very organized political movements, and their time has passed. Overall we're a good addition to EU. Not to mention that the only other choice we'd have had was Russia, which would have been worse for both of us.

Romania is actually one of the fastest growing countries in Europe and is upper middle income.

In my country (South Africa), 2/3rds of the population voted for a president who is known to be corrupt. He is on the verge of giving his friend (who organized him a bribe) a presidential pardon.

What is shocking for me is not that the president is corrupt - but that he has the support of 66% of the population. The majority of the population approves of his corruption. Is there anything redeemable in a country if the majority thinks corruption is okay?

In our case all candidates are reasonably corrupt. Most current politicians started their careers in the chaos following the '89 revolution, when a lot of the public wealth was sold for ridiculous prices. The current president is pretty well known for involvment in selling the state commerce fleet. What we do know for sure is that he's a pretty good manager, and the other guy is a lot more corrupt. So we voted for him, twice.

The biggest problem I think is a bit different. I'm very very scared by the politicization of public institutions. Top management is always chosen based on party, and automatically so is middle management. This breeds a brand of bureaucracy interesting more in politics than in getting things done, and the more it lasts the lower the mindset seeps.

There are some striking similarities.

> In our case all candidates are reasonably corrupt.

Our previous batch of rulers at least had the decency to try and hide their corruption. This president is pretty open about it.

> What we do know for sure is that he's a pretty good manager,

Our president not. He has grade 3 and is just seen as a populist.

> The biggest problem I think is a bit different. I'm very very scared by the politicization of public institutions. Top management is always chosen based on party, and automatically so is middle management. This breeds a brand of bureaucracy interesting more in politics than in getting things done, and the more it lasts the lower the mindset seeps.

This is extremely similar. In my country it is called “cadre deployment” and is an official position. The ruling party employ their members (cadres) at all public institutions to follow the ruling party’s will. This includes but is not limited to all branches of national, provincial and local government, including places such as hospitals and government owned companies (such as electricity utilities).

So, these people are employed on the basis of where they are in the ruling party – and not based on competence. They then also ensure that the whole institution is politicised.

---

There are two other things, which I do not know if it happens in Romania. The first is an extremely well politically connected oligarchy which are members of the ruling party. They get government contracts (and are favoured by government policy) while they give money to the ruling party and members. Does this happen there?

Another thing we have is the ruling party’s “investment arm” (Chancellor house) which holds stake in many tenders given by government. (The government therefore give tenders indirectly to the ruling party).

> In my country it is called “cadre deployment” and is an official position. The ruling party employ their members (cadres) at all public institutions to follow the ruling party’s will

Well, on a more positive note about Romania ... my father was the general director of such an institution, and when he was removed from his position based on political reasons, he sued the ministry.

Such actions can be taken because as I said, almost everyone is more or less corrupt and can be caught with a hand in the cookie jar :) ... but in the case of my father (which is either clean or smart :)), he got justice and had to be reinstated.

He's now a senator working in 2 commissions ... and I'm really proud of him for having big balls :)

For example, we have a public health system, and while I paid something like $15000 last year in taxes (a big amount for us), my wife got pregnant, she's having problems ... and we've had to bribe a doctor to even speak to us, not to mention they demand big bribes for doing a clean caesarean section, and my wife needs it. The poor souls that don't have money for bribes simply get fucked.

How is that not the government? If there weren't a public health system, there would be more doctors and they wouldn't be able to bribe you. You could just go to someone else.

> How is that not the government? If there weren't a public health system, there would be more doctors and they wouldn't be able to bribe you. You could just go to someone else.

It doesn't work like that, the system is more relaxed than in other countries ... you can go to any doctor you want.

Surely, competition seems like the answer, but there's something larger at play here ... I once heard of a woman in labor that lost her child because her doctor was out of town, and the others doctors from the hospital refused to intervene ... you see, they are very territorial. Of course, such tragedies don't happen so often, but they do happen.

And we've also got private health insurances and clinics (it's not like the government prohibits it) ... the problem is that those are only useful for your periodic consults ... but in case of an emergency, you want a good doctor not an incompetent one, and those tend to work in public hospitals.

No really, we have a mostly working democracy and capitalism ... not helping much ;)

>>No really, we have a mostly working democracy and capitalism ... not helping much ;)

In a few decades this will probably be formalized and down to a science, with advice etc:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_governance

But by that time, technical development will have created totally new sets of problems. :-)

We have a mixed (and reasonably good) system. You can go to any private clinic you want. It will be expensive, but a much more pleasant experience.

Or you can stay with the public system, but in this case you will definitely encounter bribes. The cause is pretty simple: the salaries in public health are way lower then they should be. Most pacients understand that and view the bribes as a normal form of compensation.

The system is mixed in more ways than one. Many good doctors work both ways. They spend time in the public hospitals to gather pacients, which they then bring to their private clinic.

Also the numbers mentioned by the grandparent seem a bit large. I'd say the average daily income is below $15. AFAIK, a good birth in a private hospital is around $1500, so he probably should have gone this way from the beginning.

> the salaries in public health are way lower then they should be

I understand that, but the way I view it ... it's not my fault they got into this. And while it's mostly a functional system (AFAIK, the US health system is horrible), it kind of bothers me that I pay lots of taxes without getting a return.

> AFAIK, a good birth in a private hospital is around $1500, so he probably should have gone this way from the beginning.

Well, my wife is having complications ... we first went to a private clinic, and the doctor consulting us just shook his head with no advice for us, other than "wait and see what happens" ... and in a private clinic, it's more like $2000 for a normal birth ... and I've heard of a case when the doctor demanded a bribe anyway.

So to get proper treatment in this case ... we've had to go to the hospital in Giulesti, which has some of the best doctors available.

Now, of course, the doctor we ended up with (Puia Sorin in case you are interested :)), which is renowned for "delivering babies" :) ... treats his patients equally, the only problem being that he's too busy to take on new patients (fortunately, there are still some decent people left).

Yes, this is a problem. The best doctors tend to be in the public system... or maybe they're the most networked? There should be plenty of good doctors working from their own offices, but they're probably a lot harder to find / evaluate.

Not all problems can be solved by competition. This specific one could be best solved by a strong medical association, backed by strong laws, enforcing ethical behavior.

Oh, competition could still help. Interestingly, you can have some forms of competition, even with a public health care system.