Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.
Break up Big Tech?
Comments
-
Yes, managing health Care is different than deciding whether a tech business is a monopoly. And?GrundleStiltzkin said:
You said, "health Care and tech businesses."2001400ex said:
Those businesses had similar traits that made the government want to break them up. So I'm not sure how they come into the conversation of Government run medical insurance.GrundleStiltzkin said:
You mean like Bell, Standard Oil and Microsoft?2001400ex said:
I know that makes a nice headline. But it's almost like health Care and tech businesses are completely different things.GrundleStiltzkin said:Opposes alleged tech monopolies.
Supports single-payer healthcare.
What's your poont? -
First point) What do you base this assumption on? What evidence do you have that a state monopoly is either more efficient or different from a private monopoly?HHusky said:
Many things are done more efficiently through a state monopoly or a state granted monopoly than by a lightly regulated market. Single payer is markedly more efficient than what we have now.UW_Doog_Bot said:
Go on, elaborate.HHusky said:
Opposing private monopolies and supporting public monopolies aren’t in conflict.GrundleStiltzkin said:Opposes alleged tech monopolies.
Supports single-payer healthcare.
A private monopoly may be highly efficient and provide a good value to the customer, but the price we pay may also be measured in the suppression of competition by other innovators. Innovation being a hallmark of capitalism, you must agree that suppressing innovation isn’t good for our society.
Second related point) Why do you think a state monopoly doesn't also suppress innovation? -
Third related point - How is a government bureaucracy/monopoly able to deliver lower cost and more customer centric services than a for profit company in a competitive environment?UW_Doog_Bot said:
First point) What do you base this assumption on? What evidence do you have that a state monopoly is either more efficient or different from a private monopoly?HHusky said:
Many things are done more efficiently through a state monopoly or a state granted monopoly than by a lightly regulated market. Single payer is markedly more efficient than what we have now.UW_Doog_Bot said:
Go on, elaborate.HHusky said:
Opposing private monopolies and supporting public monopolies aren’t in conflict.GrundleStiltzkin said:Opposes alleged tech monopolies.
Supports single-payer healthcare.
A private monopoly may be highly efficient and provide a good value to the customer, but the price we pay may also be measured in the suppression of competition by other innovators. Innovation being a hallmark of capitalism, you must agree that suppressing innovation isn’t good for our society.
Second related point) Why do you think a state monopoly doesn't also suppress innovation? -
I was comparing a state monopoly to the private sector. One source for medical reimbursement is markedly more efficient than multiple sources. Medicare is very efficient, for example. Canadian doctors don’t have to devote huge layers of administration to getting paid.UW_Doog_Bot said:
First point) What do you base this assumption on? What evidence do you have that a state monopoly is either more efficient or different from a private monopoly?HHusky said:
Many things are done more efficiently through a state monopoly or a state granted monopoly than by a lightly regulated market. Single payer is markedly more efficient than what we have now.UW_Doog_Bot said:
Go on, elaborate.HHusky said:
Opposing private monopolies and supporting public monopolies aren’t in conflict.GrundleStiltzkin said:Opposes alleged tech monopolies.
Supports single-payer healthcare.
A private monopoly may be highly efficient and provide a good value to the customer, but the price we pay may also be measured in the suppression of competition by other innovators. Innovation being a hallmark of capitalism, you must agree that suppressing innovation isn’t good for our society.
Second related point) Why do you think a state monopoly doesn't also suppress innovation?
A state monopoly could suppress innovation, though its motivation to do so is much more diffuse. And We the People could eliminate a state monopoly that no longer served its purpose. We’ve done so at times with mixed results. -
only in America are these 2 things seen as even close to the same.GrundleStiltzkin said:Opposes alleged tech monopolies.
Supports single-payer healthcare. -
Is that supposed to pejorative?dhdawg said:
only in America are these 2 things seen as even close to the same.GrundleStiltzkin said:Opposes alleged tech monopolies.
Supports single-payer healthcare. -
Damone! So many big words. Are you trying to sound smart or just pandering for upvotes??!!MikeDamone said:
Third related point - How is a government bureaucracy/monopoly able to deliver lower cost and more customer centric services than a for profit company in a competitive environment?UW_Doog_Bot said:
First point) What do you base this assumption on? What evidence do you have that a state monopoly is either more efficient or different from a private monopoly?HHusky said:
Many things are done more efficiently through a state monopoly or a state granted monopoly than by a lightly regulated market. Single payer is markedly more efficient than what we have now.UW_Doog_Bot said:
Go on, elaborate.HHusky said:
Opposing private monopolies and supporting public monopolies aren’t in conflict.GrundleStiltzkin said:Opposes alleged tech monopolies.
Supports single-payer healthcare.
A private monopoly may be highly efficient and provide a good value to the customer, but the price we pay may also be measured in the suppression of competition by other innovators. Innovation being a hallmark of capitalism, you must agree that suppressing innovation isn’t good for our society.
Second related point) Why do you think a state monopoly doesn't also suppress innovation?
Imagine caring about this!! -
Just admit you’re wrong and I will gladly have a larger conversation about this.jecornel said:
Damone! So many big words. Are you trying to sound smart or just pandering for upvotes??!!MikeDamone said:
Third related point - How is a government bureaucracy/monopoly able to deliver lower cost and more customer centric services than a for profit company in a competitive environment?UW_Doog_Bot said:
First point) What do you base this assumption on? What evidence do you have that a state monopoly is either more efficient or different from a private monopoly?HHusky said:
Many things are done more efficiently through a state monopoly or a state granted monopoly than by a lightly regulated market. Single payer is markedly more efficient than what we have now.UW_Doog_Bot said:
Go on, elaborate.HHusky said:
Opposing private monopolies and supporting public monopolies aren’t in conflict.GrundleStiltzkin said:Opposes alleged tech monopolies.
Supports single-payer healthcare.
A private monopoly may be highly efficient and provide a good value to the customer, but the price we pay may also be measured in the suppression of competition by other innovators. Innovation being a hallmark of capitalism, you must agree that suppressing innovation isn’t good for our society.
Second related point) Why do you think a state monopoly doesn't also suppress innovation?
Imagine caring about this!! -
Is that a commentary on the competitive environment health insurance companies currently operate in? Because single payer is demonstrably more efficient than what is going on in the US right now.MikeDamone said:
Third related point - How is a government bureaucracy/monopoly able to deliver lower cost and more customer centric services than a for profit company in a competitive environment?UW_Doog_Bot said:
First point) What do you base this assumption on? What evidence do you have that a state monopoly is either more efficient or different from a private monopoly?HHusky said:
Many things are done more efficiently through a state monopoly or a state granted monopoly than by a lightly regulated market. Single payer is markedly more efficient than what we have now.UW_Doog_Bot said:
Go on, elaborate.HHusky said:
Opposing private monopolies and supporting public monopolies aren’t in conflict.GrundleStiltzkin said:Opposes alleged tech monopolies.
Supports single-payer healthcare.
A private monopoly may be highly efficient and provide a good value to the customer, but the price we pay may also be measured in the suppression of competition by other innovators. Innovation being a hallmark of capitalism, you must agree that suppressing innovation isn’t good for our society.
Second related point) Why do you think a state monopoly doesn't also suppress innovation? -
No. It’s not. The government has made sure it’s not a competitive environment.HHusky said:
Is that a commentary on the competitive environment health insurance companies currently operate in? Because single payer is demonstrably more efficient than what is going on in the US right now.MikeDamone said:
Third related point - How is a government bureaucracy/monopoly able to deliver lower cost and more customer centric services than a for profit company in a competitive environment?UW_Doog_Bot said:
First point) What do you base this assumption on? What evidence do you have that a state monopoly is either more efficient or different from a private monopoly?HHusky said:
Many things are done more efficiently through a state monopoly or a state granted monopoly than by a lightly regulated market. Single payer is markedly more efficient than what we have now.UW_Doog_Bot said:
Go on, elaborate.HHusky said:
Opposing private monopolies and supporting public monopolies aren’t in conflict.GrundleStiltzkin said:Opposes alleged tech monopolies.
Supports single-payer healthcare.
A private monopoly may be highly efficient and provide a good value to the customer, but the price we pay may also be measured in the suppression of competition by other innovators. Innovation being a hallmark of capitalism, you must agree that suppressing innovation isn’t good for our society.
Second related point) Why do you think a state monopoly doesn't also suppress innovation?
I’m surprised you didn’t know that.
