Exactly! Every one of the "losing" categories are somehow subsidized, regulated or "helped" by inefficient and inept government interference and those left unencumbered by government "assistance" have thrived. When will we learn?
I mostly agree with this, with the exception of healthcare. Not to say the government is helping any, but the for-profit model for healthcare doesn't seem to align itself with overall wellbeing.
I totally disagree. The lack of competition and undue administrative burden on practitioners is the problem. The collusion between government, pharmaceutical and insurance interests has driven up prices and worsened health outcomes. Removing the profit motive would only worsen the problem. There are hundreds of things that can be done to improve healthcare before resorting to socialization.
Good points, and I am not arguing for socialization. I desire a bare bones government option for everyone. As long as the government can prevent monopolies and collusion between big insurance and big pharmaceutical, that side of the private market can work. There is no working equation where a competent government isn't part of the solution, and right now we have two warring factions - one who hates any government and one who thinks it is the answer for everything. Edit: I guess to your point this is a limited form of socialization, albeit with private sector playing the majority of the role.
If your idea relies on a "competent" government, I'm afraid we are out of luck. I've not seen anything resembling competence from government. There are things that only the government can do, but in those cases the best we can hope for is "good enough" and we just have to live with the inevitable abuses and failures. ANYTHING that markets can do will be better than a government alternative if given the right incentives. Right now in healthcare, the markets are distorted due to outsized influence of special interests. The government should incentivize companies to act in consumers' best interest, rather than share holders. Simple things like removing financial incentives earned by practitioners, removing pharmacy benefit managers as middle men, force pharma to tell the truth about risk/benefit in their advertising, allow the purchase of pharmaceuticals internationally, allow the purchase of health insurance across state lines, allow properly researched drug/device approvals from other countries (reciprocity), etc. They have built a system that benefits the purveyors rather than the consumers. There's a LONG list of things that can be done.
I just don't think the incentives line up for government, because we have shown we won't vote for reasonable solutions. I agree with everything you said about the things that government can do to help with this situation, but I don't think the general public would ever vote for this.
Our government is a reflection of us. Only about 15% of people approve of Congress currently, but about 95% of incumbents who ran in the 2024 general election were reelected.
The problem is that if we don't have a competent government, there will be fraudsters to take advantage of that, and right now who in the hell would want to work in government if they have other options? It pays poorly and is always the easiest scapegoat if things aren't working.
Exactly! Every one of the "losing" categories are somehow subsidized, regulated or "helped" by inefficient and inept government interference and those left unencumbered by government "assistance" have thrived. When will we learn?
As expected, 4 of the top 5 most inflated categories see significant government interference in the market.
I mostly agree with this, with the exception of healthcare. Not to say the government is helping any, but the for-profit model for healthcare doesn't seem to align itself with overall wellbeing.
I totally disagree. The lack of competition and undue administrative burden on practitioners is the problem. The collusion between government, pharmaceutical and insurance interests has driven up prices and worsened health outcomes. Removing the profit motive would only worsen the problem. There are hundreds of things that can be done to improve healthcare before resorting to socialization.
Good points, and I am not arguing for socialization. I desire a bare bones government option for everyone. As long as the government can prevent monopolies and collusion between big insurance and big pharmaceutical, that side of the private market can work. There is no working equation where a competent government isn't part of the solution, and right now we have two warring factions - one who hates any government and one who thinks it is the answer for everything. Edit: I guess to your point this is a limited form of socialization, albeit with private sector playing the majority of the role.
If your idea relies on a "competent" government, I'm afraid we are out of luck. I've not seen anything resembling competence from government. There are things that only the government can do, but in those cases the best we can hope for is "good enough" and we just have to live with the inevitable abuses and failures. ANYTHING that markets can do will be better than a government alternative if given the right incentives. Right now in healthcare, the markets are distorted due to outsized influence of special interests. The government should incentivize companies to act in consumers' best interest, rather than share holders. Simple things like removing financial incentives earned by practitioners, removing pharmacy benefit managers as middle men, force pharma to tell the truth about risk/benefit in their advertising, allow the purchase of pharmaceuticals internationally, allow the purchase of health insurance across state lines, allow properly researched drug/device approvals from other countries (reciprocity), etc. They have built a system that benefits the purveyors rather than the consumers. There's a LONG list of things that can be done.
I just don't think the incentives line up for government, because we have shown we won't vote for reasonable solutions. I agree with everything you said about the things that government can do to help with this situation, but I don't think the general public would ever vote for this.
Our government is a reflection of us. Only about 15% of people approve of Congress currently, but about 95% of incumbents who ran in the 2024 general election were reelected.
The problem is that if we don't have a competent government, there will be fraudsters to take advantage of that, and right now who in the hell would want to work in government if they have other options? It pays poorly and is always the easiest scapegoat if things aren't working.
I noticed that inflation-adjusted prices seemed to increase most for services that are heavily regulated by the government.
How does price of energy (household & business premises electricity) show up in this data?