Or one could accept that for essential things it is a very bad idea to hope that the market will provide and instead the state could provide them itself, which could guarantee a steady supply.
The excess food is stored, and if it's not needed is sold (or sometimes given) to other countries. This is criticised as farmers in those countries might be left unable to compete.
Hmmm ... based on what I've read, that might be the main rationalization. The reason is that the agricultural industry demands subsidies and has the political power to obtain them (as in many countries).
Sometimes I wonder how much the rest of the world benefits from the US's capitalist-ish healthcare policies. How much do drug companies rely on their ability to charge US customers insane amounts of money to help recover their costs of developing new treatments?
Let me sum up my thoughts this way - if single payer insurance saves money overall, that money is coming from somewhere. As it's been explained to me, that money is most likely coming out of the pockets of pharmaceutical companies and private insurance providers. Obviously saving money is great for everyone - except the pharmaceutical companies and private insurance companies. If that money dries up, is it possible that will stifle innovation?
I don't know the answer, and I'm not using this as an argument directly against single payer insurance. I see the value of single payer insurance. I'm just curious about side effects.
EDIT: Just to be totally clear, I'm not crying any tears for drug and insurance companies losing money. If we can get people the treatments they need at a lower cost I'm all for it. I'm just mildly curious about the macro effects of these types of changes.
I think its a complicated question. Most of the money spent by drug companies is on advertising and not R&D. If they are in an environment where profits are guaranteed via government contracts, and advertisements are banned, then where else can they spend their money except admin and R&D.
Will people invest as much into drug companies if they aren't seen as volitile anymore?
R&D costs are primarily because of having to navigate the legal structure of drug trials. If the government is more involved in the industry, how will this change? If for instance, the government foots the bill then costs go down, and the only downside is that time-to-market is increased due to government bottlenecking and inefficiencies.
If I have to decide between a company which is guaranteed to not be motivated by my well-being and a government which is at least partially motivated by that (unfornately only partially due to issues[1]) I know what to choose.
[1] Mainly lobbyism and greed. Where people are there is greed, where there's greed there's potential for misbehaviour.
False premise. The dead can't buy their products, and the so much as merely pissed off will be motivated to take their business to the competition. Both of these hurt profit.
> and a government which is at least partially motivated by that
What do you base this on? The warm fuzzy feelings by bureaucrats? Employees are people too, with their own fuzzy warm feelings. What makes government employees special?
Regarding your point of reading up on USSR etc.: I've talked with people who lived in these countries at that time, thanks. They don't see it as black and white as you do. Which kind of makes my point.
These services generally function relatively well in the U.S. and other wealthy countries.
You consider NHS to be an example of a well run nationalized system, and yet the NHS deals with chronic rationing [0] [1], has queues for many things (and actually lets you pay to jump place in line) [2]. I'd hardly call that efficient or well run - instead, I'd call it symptomatic of central planning. During the 90s and 00s I thought that perhaps China's simultaneous transition from poverty and shortage to (relative) wealth and abundance (which was driven by their transition from state control to capitalism) would have finally put this 'the state could eliminate shortages and give everybody everything' nonsense to rest, but it seems that people have very short memories indeed (or just weren't born yet when the major experiments in nationalization were underway).
To give you a preview of the links, this quote is particularly poignant:
"Rationing is nothing new, of course. When waiting lists stretched to many months and even years, treatment was often rationed simply by the patient dying before they reach the operating table."
[0] http://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/dec/08/nhs-rationing...
[1] http://www.theguardian.com/healthcare-network/2015/apr/24/ra...
[2] http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-3104106/NHS-charge...
Many people would rather have to wait for treatment rather then pay $10,000 a year for a policy and still be completely unable to get treatment because they can't afford the copay, since their policy doesn't kick in until after they shell out an additional $5,000, and even then only pays half.
At least it is possibly to cut back your use of toilet paper without dire consequences so long as you have clean water. It might not be pretty or wanted for most of us, but it is possible while still keeping clean. Bidets might get more popular, if available, and others would learn from the folks that use cloth diapers and real washclothes on their babies.
This situation isn't as easy to fix when you replace toilet paper with medication or health care. It isn't like one can simply make do if they are out of medicine.
The actual point is that nationalization tends to have mismanagement and shortages as an outcome, and private markets do not (at least not to the same extent). You consider NHS to be an example of a well run nationalized system, and yet the NHS deals with chronic rationing [0] [1], has queues for many things (and actually lets you pay to jump place in line) [2]. I'd hardly call that efficient or well run - instead, I'd call it symptomatic of central planning. W/ regard to people using bidets, cloth diapers, and washclothes - in a system with chronic shortages, people don't have those either. During the 90s and 00s I thought that perhaps China's simultaneous transition from poverty and shortage to (relative) wealth and abundance (which was driven by their transition from state control to capitalism) would have finally put this 'the state could eliminate shortages and give everybody everything' nonsense to rest, but it seems that people have very short memories indeed (or just weren't born yet when the major experiments in nationalization were underway).
[0] http://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/dec/08/nhs-rationing... [1] http://www.theguardian.com/healthcare-network/2015/apr/24/ra... [2] http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-3104106/NHS-charge...
No system is perfect. My experience with private care has been in the US, and my experience with nationalized is in Norway. I've tried to go to doctors both places with waiting lists of weeks, and the waiting is a bit longer for specialists here than there. Give and take. I'd still prefer to actually be able to get health care when i need it regardless of having the finances to do it. I actually prefer to have a mix of the two - strong national care with an option to be private.