Cafe Hayek - Latest Comments in A Lesson from Passport Control

Re: A Lesson from Passport Control

Wojtek G — Mon, 30 Jul 2007 13:03:35 -0000

Nope, not Santa Monica, Toronto, and boy am I glad of THAT.

Re: A Lesson from Passport Control

Tom — Mon, 30 Jul 2007 12:37:32 -0000

Brad,

Of course there is hostility to NCLB. The teachers are not used to accountability, and are chaffing under it. It has improved test scores.

I don't like federal involvement and would favor vouchers; but if we are spending federal dollars, I want to see accountability.

"NCLB is Tayloristic while those of us with careers have already realized it's an anachronistic and dehumanizing way to manage."

I don't care about the teachers' complaints. NCLB is a minimum. These kids should be able to pass without a problem. When teachers have a problem about teaching the basics, a tougher stance is necessary. I find nothing anachronistic about a child learning math and english or expecting a teacher to do his job.

The need for more funds is also a farce. NCLB is a way to verify the money we are spending isn't being wasted.

Re: A Lesson from Passport Control

I_am_a_lead_pencil — Mon, 30 Jul 2007 12:25:47 -0000

Wojtek G,

You live in Santa Monica?

http://www.lalatimes.com/ne...

Even the folks at the DMV might give quicker service if they were given hefty commissions based on transactions processed.

It is all about incentives....

Re: A Lesson from Passport Control

Wojtek G — Mon, 30 Jul 2007 10:17:32 -0000

Something I noticed recently:

While we wait for five hours to get our passport picture taken, six to seven hours in emergency to see a doctor, two months for an MRI of a stroke, three years for a transplant, and almost never receive knee replacements, my car does not wait but TWO minutes after my parking meter has run out before a government official runs up to it to charge me $30 for the offense of not dropping coins into a post on time.

I received six tickets last month, with an average of 3.3 minutes infraction. Whoever said you need a profit motive to guarantee great service is a dolt.

Re: A Lesson from Passport Control

Brad — Mon, 30 Jul 2007 10:13:04 -0000

Tom, NCLB further federalizes education. It adds expense to an already expensive system at precisely the wrong level. It demands scientific validation of methods in a field (teaching) that is much more art than science. Improving teaching is generally much more of a marketing exercise than a physics experiment. You have to get the teachers excited, not the electrons. Same with the kids. NCLB is Tayloristic while those of us with careers have already realized it's an anachronistic and dehumanizing way to manage. It's funny how most of us wouldn't accept this kind of BS at work, and yet our federal government imposes it on our kids at school.

But here's the real rub about No Child Left Behind. It doesn't even work. I live in a pretty wealthy suburb in South Orange County, CA. And I know three kids in the 10 to 13 age range who are being dragged behind the bus so as not to be left behind. They get shuffled on without skills just like before, except in a way that doesn't screw up their schools' test scores. Many teachers and administrators have come to the conclusion, and other than as a source of money, there is a lack of enthusiasm and even some hostility for renewing NCLB.

If you want accountability, you need vouchers. The parents of the kids I know don't want their kids to grow up and have to compete with undocumented aliens for space digging through neighborhood garbage bins, but they have no control over what happens at school.

Re: A Lesson from Passport Control

Sudha Shenoy — Mon, 30 Jul 2007 09:31:38 -0000

Re American Airlines: the US govt 'protects' US airlines against foreign competition. Nor are foreigners permitted to buy 'US' airlines.

Re: A Lesson from Passport Control

cpurick — Mon, 30 Jul 2007 08:57:40 -0000

Look at Boudreaux's take on Hayek. Don quotes some of the same passages.

If we apply Hayek as explained by Boudreaux, free universal health care falls under "absolute security." Under such a plan, an individual expects to consume health care without becoming poorer, maintaining his standard of living and relative wealth. Those

Personally, I don't view the need for health care as an "uncertainty;" I see it as an eventual certainty for each of us. I'm not sure it's an insurance problem at all as much as it's an investment problem. As such, I'm not even sure a health care plan qualifies as "limited security" in Hayek's terms.

I'm pretty sure that if you wanted a government health care assistance that Hayek would not consider tyranny, it would have to be something means-tested -- a true safety net. Hayek believed the government could (not should) safely protect poor people from having to die because they couldn't afford catastrophic medical problems.

It's quite a stretch to get from there to claiming that Hayek would have supported universal health care.

Re: A Lesson from Passport Control

Jon — Mon, 30 Jul 2007 08:52:13 -0000

On the contrary, as I remember, those questions have been delt with on this blog before as I specifically remember the discussion involving the act of incorportation.

The more correct question to ask is "Why shouldn't we allow organizations to off-shore their accounts to avoid being raped by the gov't?"

As to patents... meh, it's largely a much less relevent question than the issue of healthcare and whether or not we should socialize it.

You are trivializing matters here by trying to play philosophical games of give and take. I hate to break it to you but it isn't going to fly.

Re: A Lesson from Passport Control

Sam Grove — Mon, 30 Jul 2007 08:34:00 -0000

Muirgeo threatens the foundations of minarchy. Where do we stop and why stop there?

Let us propose a no income tax state...as before 1913 and let the government be funded from non-specific tariffs.

Let the people, as individuals and in voluntary collective associations, accumulate their rightfully earned wealth, that it not be squandered in maintaining an empire of influence, so that we can control our expenditures on health care, etc., and we can form associations to provide charity hospitals to provide for those who are unable to accumulate the wealth to care for themselves, among other worthy projects we care to contribute to both profitable and charitable.

Chasten those that believe we cannot accomplish worthwhile objectives whithout pointing the collective guns at people.

Re: A Lesson from Passport Control

muirgeo — Mon, 30 Jul 2007 08:13:04 -0000

"Why should taxpayer funds keep this Darwin Award candidate "alive"?"

True_liberal

I think that is a perfectly legitamate question. Just as legitamate as my questions as to why we should allow for corporate charters, why should we have to pay for a patent office, why should we set up rules to allow corporations to off shore their accounts and avoid paying taxes?

Until you realize your question is no more legitimate then the ones I've asked you can hardly be said to be consistent in any position you hold on the purpose of government in a democracy.

Re: A Lesson from Passport Control

Tom — Mon, 30 Jul 2007 07:57:04 -0000

"No Child Left Behind is Bush's baby. And it's arguably a bigger failure than just throwing less money with fewer strings at education like we were prior to NCLB."

Bizarre statement. Where else would having at least minimal accountability be considered bad? The fact that scores seemed to have responded well to the testing suggests it has been the best money spent in public education in many years.

Re: A Lesson from Passport Control

Eric — Mon, 30 Jul 2007 07:31:18 -0000

Muirgeo,

What Hayek is talking about in that passage is TRUE health insurance, not the kind of system we have today in which routine medical expenses are paid for by third parties.

I do not believe that Hayek's statement in this case supports government-provided health care.

Re: A Lesson from Passport Control

True_liberal — Mon, 30 Jul 2007 07:31:03 -0000

The government's interest legitimately extends to public health issues wherein a single virus or contaminant can affect large numbers of its citizens.

But when a motorcyclist causes himself grevious injury (either by his actions or his failure to protect himself), is that not his own personal behavior that makes him perhaps a permanent invalid? Why should taxpayer funds keep this Darwin Award candidate "alive"?

Re: A Lesson from Passport Control

muirgeo — Mon, 30 Jul 2007 06:42:42 -0000

Here is a chance for all readers to witness an actual case of cognitive dissonance. Read cpuricks explaination of what he claims Hayek to have said then read the full quote.

From The Road To Serfdom, Chapter 9 Security and Freedom page 133-4

"Nor is there any reason why the state should not assist the individuals in providing for those common hazards of life against which, because of their uncertainty, few individuals can make adequate provision. Where, as in the case of sickness and accident, neither the desire to avoid such calamities nor the efforts to overcome their consequences are as a rule weakened by the provision of assistance-where, in short, we deal with genuinely insurable risk- the case for the state's helping to organize a comprehensive system of social insurance is very strong."

Re: A Lesson from Passport Control

Sam Grove — Mon, 30 Jul 2007 06:31:35 -0000

Muirgeo is simply attempting to use a common source for free market advocates to either counter their stance or discredit their source.

Of course, those of us with actual experience with government health care, such as the Canadians that speak here, could not hope to match their actual experience with muirgeo's assertions for the superiority of bureaucratic health care.

Now, where do the stats for supposed costs of political management of health care come from?

What do they actually measure and are those the only costs associated with government management of health care?

One of the costs we can associate with government provided anything is the rest of the system, for if government can be thought of as our medical savior, it will also be thought of as our nutritional, employment, disaster, external threat, whatever savior. We'll see this when the dems take over when they aspire to have the government provide health care but will also perpetuate U.S. military dominance around the world. You don't get one without the other. They won't be satisfied with control of just one area of our lives, they must manage it all.

Should we ask old people in government managed systems what they think of their system when they are deemed no longer worth the expenditure of public funds?

My friends mother experienced a taste of this under medicare when it was suggested to her that her use of the resources was takingaway from other, younger participants.

Sometimes I begin to wonder if there are moles who come to sites such as this whose purpose is to undermine opposition to the bureaucratic state.

Re: A Lesson from Passport Control

Dave — Mon, 30 Jul 2007 06:24:53 -0000

The same argument is used by Michael Moore: The Government works when it wants to, ie. That Social Security Check comes on the same day every month like clockwork. If the Government can be that good at doling out and collecting cash, it should also be good a running a social program.

All hail free markets and competition!

Re: A Lesson from Passport Control

Continuum — Mon, 30 Jul 2007 06:05:12 -0000

I'm not sure using anything dealing with travel on airplanes is a good example.

I regularly flew American Airlines out of Kansas City, a relatively small airport, before any of the additional security checks.

I knew to allocate at least another hour to check in at the American desk. Their line always wound around the terminal, and was usually staffed by only 2 clerks. The clerks said that they had made the home office in Dallas aware of the problem (for years), but never seem to have any change.

Similarly, try checking into DeGaule on American for any flight. The lines go on for hours. Again, this is prior to any security checking. For the last 10 years, at least, this has been a nightmare.

Private enterprise has its own problems with meeting consumer demands.

Re: A Lesson from Passport Control

cpurick — Mon, 30 Jul 2007 05:02:37 -0000

muirgeo, (mis)quoting (read: paraphrasing poorly) Hayek:

" Nor is there any reason why the state should not assist the individuals in providing for the common hazards of life....Where, as in the case of sickness and accident,.....- the case for the state's helping to organize a comprehensive system of social insurance is very strong."

Hayek's very point was that if government attempted to structure a health care program such that the afflicted would be assured that they could fight devastating

illness without risk of personal bankruptcy, then in that case freedom would have been forfeited.

Since you advocate such a system you are in fact misrepresenting Hayek, who -- I can assure you -- would not be on your side in this matter.

Re: A Lesson from Passport Control

John Dewey — Mon, 30 Jul 2007 04:29:34 -0000

muirgeo: "Likewise they add administrative cost of as much as 25 cents for each dollar of health care you pay out compared to the bureaucratic systems with administrative cost of as little as 5%."

Do you really believe that bureaucratic systems are more efficient than socialism? Do you honestly believe that?

Please show me the facts that support this belief.

Re: A Lesson from Passport Control

Alvin — Mon, 30 Jul 2007 04:19:29 -0000

Just curious, did you also have to pick up your bags in New York (from Bucharest) or were they checked all the way through to Washington DC? And did you have to go through security again at JFK before getting to your gate to fly to Washington DC? That would take a lot of extra time. In Chicago O'hare, you leave the International Terminal and go through security again in the domestic terminal.

Re: A Lesson from Passport Control

Dale — Mon, 30 Jul 2007 03:48:02 -0000

The gov't health care system already in place, the Veteran's Administration health care system, is already broken. And...it only serves a small portion of this country's population. Extrapolate that to the broader population...

Re: A Lesson from Passport Control

muirgeo — Mon, 30 Jul 2007 00:18:22 -0000

Ben,

Sorry but you are the one who is wrong. Those "middle men" are experts at controlling cost while quality is a secondary issue. They too work with a fixed budget and the most effective way to increase your profits is to cut your cost. These statistician middle mens company value comes from figuring how best to deny a claim. Likewise they add administrative cost of as much as 25 cents for each dollar of health care you pay out compared to the bureaucratic systems with administrative cost of as little as 5%.

Re: A Lesson from Passport Control

ben — Mon, 30 Jul 2007 00:04:18 -0000

Muirgeo, more mistakes:

I say a single payer system will work fine by cutting cost by eliminating the health insurance middle man while still allowing for competition as people get to choose which health care provider they want to see.

Actually this is backwards, at least in New Zealand. Under centralised funding, you get a fixed budget each year, that's your lot. So each extra patient you get adds costs but not revenue. For hospitals in NZ, doing a good job and growing your customer base actually makes your life harder.

The middle men you complain about actually have an especially important role to play in health, because information about quality and benefits per dollar spent are hard for laymen consumers like me to understand. Having people specialise in that area is likely to add value, provided there are differences in quality between hospitals for any give procedure (as undoubtedly there are), and information is hard to obtain or understand.

Re: A Lesson from Passport Control

muirgeo — Mon, 30 Jul 2007 00:00:07 -0000

muirgeo: why do you think Hayek is never wrong? I think he's wrong in spots.

Posted by: Russell Nelson

I don't know? I just read his book and I mostly agree with him.

The book IMO is an affirmation of some of the arguments I've made here and yet have been attacked for by supposed Hayekians.

Hayeks views seem more conflicted with the Republican party's current course then with the Democratic Party. Although I understand he would be disgusted with the Democratic micromanagement I think he would today have to concede that 60+ years after his book was written none of the regulatory trends and "managed" economies have devolved into serfdom (totalitarianism).

I think he would be horrified more by this administration because he seemed to believe the road to serfdom could as easily be paved by the conservative right as by the "liberal" left.

Re: A Lesson from Passport Control

ben — Sun, 29 Jul 2007 23:57:28 -0000

Muirgeo

The evidence in the other 30 developed nations suggests it works well and the cost is much less.

New Zealand has a centralised health care system which rations access to medicine by queueing. You can literally wait years to get a hip replaced. You can literally sit on a waiting list for six months, then get bumped and sent to the back of the queue if your condition is deemed not to be too serious. You are unlikely to die while waiting, but the point is that the cost of waiting - all the extra suffering of the patient - is ignored by beaureaucrats.

Do not pretend for even one second that centralised health care is automatically better - those who cannot afford to go private and therefore pay for their health care twice (once via taxes, then again with private insurance) pay for your healthcare with loss of quality of life rather than dollars.