Peter Hume: "The USA health system is characterized by intensive and extensive governmental intervention at all levels. It is a classic example of government failure, not market failure: see http://blog.mises.org/archives/010466.asp"

By the sound of it the woman in that video could be your alter ego Peter. Unfortunately I don't have a clue as to what specific incident she was referring to, so it is difficult hard to check her claims. They are extraordinary claims, because the US health care is mostly in private hands. Here is a quote from a source I can trust, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_in_the_United_States :

"Health care in the United States is provided by many separate legal entities. Health care facilities are largely owned and operated by the private sector. Health insurance is primarily provided by the private sector"

And the outcome of that? From the same source:

"The USA's life expectancy lags 42nd in the world, after most rich nations ... just after Chile (35th) and Cuba (37th). ... Among adults surveyed in the U.S., 37% reported that they had foregone needed medical care in the previous year because of cost ... the rate was even higher— 42%—among those with chronic conditions. The study reported that these rates were well above those found in the other six countries surveyed: Australia, Canada, Germany, the Netherlands, New Zealand, and the UK."

Note the last 6 countries mention have far higher government involvement in their Health Systems. So what does the USA pay for its mostly privately run health system?

"Current estimates put U.S. health care spending at approximately 16% of GDP, second ... among all United Nations member nations. ... 19% of U.S. adults surveyed reported serious problems paying medical bills, more than double the rate in the next highest country."

And I notice you didn't try to address the other 3 issues I raised.

On reflection, Peter Hume, I find your entire, pseudo-libertarian position highly suspect.

>>The only way it appears to be a benefit is because people, like Pericles, can’t or won’t understand the smoke-and-mirrors economics of forced taking and free handouts.<<

That's merely sloganeering. It doesn't actually mean anything, does it?

>>It only appears to be a benefit to the old person for government to run a bus service, if we ignore the fact that government has, through taxes and the sneak-tax of inflation, taken 50 to 70 percent of everything he earned during his life.<<

You fail to explain the relationship between the provision of a bus service, and a lifetime of taxpaying.

Especially as the bus service I referred to does not actually exist.

The benefit to the oldie is mobility, which they could otherwise not afford. There is no benefit to a commercial bus company, because the route would make a loss. The community however, may actually prefer to provide the service.

Where is your problem with that?

>>The belief that government provides beneficial services is irrational, once we take into account... the role of government in causing the original problem of capital consumption, and consequential poverty...<<

The logic here would appear to be that governments deliberately create poverty. Otherwise, if it was not deliberate but accidental, it is only logical that they should make up for it by providing "beneficial services".

But in any case, I dispute your claims for "the role of government in causing the original problem"

>>the costs... are *always* higher when government provides the service<<

My point has always been that while this is so often the case, it need not be.

After all, when private enterprise takes over, it makes profits sufficient to pay shareholder dividends.

With better management in the public arena, there is no reason why a balance could not be achieved, where a) the public purse is not raided and b) the price of the service does not reach "gouging" proportions.

I fully accept that this state of affairs is rare. But I am simply arguing the principle here.

Whilst the solution is obvious the misconceptions on the USA proliferate, because people opinions are influenced by those that should know better.
I would suggest that you all pack up and take a holiday to the United States
http://www.united.com/
It’s cheaper than a trip to Uluru and stays in cheaper than ozz accommodation.
Be treated like a human being instead of a meal ticket then you could go to the local
‘Deli’ and buy oranges from Australia cheaper than you can from Australia but not as cheap the local product.
Then you could go to a gourmet vegetable shop and buy Aussie wine cheaper than you can buy it in oz but also get Californian wine cheaper again
Then you could buy specialty vegetable again cheaper than you could in oz.
If you need to conserve money however you could go to large supermarket and buy a gallon of milk that 4.55 liters to you ossies for $1.99 locally buy any brand of butter for 2 bucks a pound that’s 500 grams to you ossies . Then you could go to a butcher and buy local Angus beef at half price that you would pay in ozz.
Of course if you need medical assistance in the USA you wouldn’t buy a policy from the airlines associated insurers at $1100 per month you would go to the local group that sells accessory insurance a $160 a month that covers your hospital stay for $100 a day premium if you remember how medibank worked.
Then of course you would need a car to travel around in which would cost you $40 a day for say a corvette and fuel at $2.65 gallon which we paid today on filling up.
Then you have the gall say that the USA is in trouble financially, what’s around the corner from Australia then?

Pericles
"With better management in the public arena, there is no reason why a balance could not be achieved, where a) the public purse is not raided and b) the price of the service does not reach "gouging" proportions.

I fully accept that this state of affairs is rare. But I am simply arguing the principle here."

Okay, but in principle, and putting aside any question of corruption etc., *how* would government be able to manage the particular public service better, when the whole point of the exercise is to displace the operation of profit and loss? By what means would they figure out which is the more economical way of doing something?

Governments don't deliberately intend to cause poverty. But they deliberately intend to do the things they do, and the things they do cause poverty.

The distinction between goods and services is irrelevant for purposes of the discussion whether government could be run as a business.

No-one is arguing against roads, bridges, provision for the sick etc. The question is only whether it is more a) ethical or b) practical to provide them by way of compulsory confiscations based on a monopoly of coercion, or by competing providers and voluntary exchange based on individual freedom and private property. Nothing you have said has shown any reason for compulsory monopoly. You merely use a double standard - assuming that by resorting to compulsory expropriation as a means of funding goods or services, we are somehow going to get some net benefit that would not otherwise be available. But no interventionist ever explains *how*. It is not "sloganeering" to point out that this is mere confusion or irrationality.

Taxation by definition is a non-consensual transaction. The community is not a decision-making entity. All decision-making and action takes place by and through individual human beings. There is no evidence that government represents the people, more than the people.

rstuart:
http://mises.org/daily/2946 ?

I spotted a couple of possible questions buried in your infomercial for the Austrian School, Peter Hume, I'll do my best to answer what I think they might be.

>>*how* would government be able to manage the particular public service better, when the whole point of the exercise is to displace the operation of profit and loss? By what means would they figure out which is the more economical way of doing something?<<

The "better" here is in fact the presence, as opposed to the absence, of a service (buses used by old folk).

So it is not a matter of being "more" economical; by definition, its existence will cost more than its non-existence, when measured in terms of financial profitability.

But from the old folks' point of view, it is "priceless".

>>The question is only whether it is more a) ethical or b) practical to provide them by way of compulsory confiscations based on a monopoly of coercion, or by competing providers and voluntary exchange based on individual freedom and private property.<<

You are asking why roads should be built by governments, funded by taxation, rather than by private enterprise, and run at a profit, yes?

Because the value they bring to the community at large is greater than the value they bring to the entrepreneur, I guess.

The various tunnels we've built in Sydney recently should provide a clue. The "enterpreneurs" included in their agreement with the government that surrounding roads - that is, roads that had already been built from the public purse - should be closed, simply in order to drive traffic to their tollgates.

http://www.maths.usyd.edu.au/u/geoffp/melfinrv.pdf

"The Contract for the Cross City Tunnel also included road closures affecting alternative routes to the Cross City Tunnel. These conditions aroused public resentment..."

And...

"The NSW Government had made one of the terms of the contract that it would reduce Epping Road from three lanes each way to one lane each way"

Ok, now tell me again about "compulsory confiscations based on a monopoly of coercion".

Is it somehow more acceptable to you when perpetrated by a private company?

Pericles
Assuming your good faith, your argument is so circular that I can’t see how you can’t see it.

It is invalid to argue “it is considered” that a service should be provided by government. The question is *what reason there is to consider* that government should provide a particular service. Else your argument is just a circular appeal to absent authority.

Obviously it can be said of any expenditure, private or governmental, that it may provide a benefit that would not otherwise exist. That’s not the issue, which is, *how are to know governmental provision is preferable; how are we to know that the resources confiscated to provide a particular benefit, will not be withdrawn from an employment that was still more beneficial?* You have not addressed, but merely assume what is in issue: more circular argument.

It is false to claim that people consent to taxation. If they consented, there would be no need to obtain the funds by taxation, would there?

The implication of compulsory expropriation is that whatever the government is going to use the money for, is necessarily of a higher priority than whatever the owner was going to use it for, otherwise how could they justify taking it to spend on a lower priority?

But how could anyone reason so without circular reasoning that whatever were taken, must be for a higher priority?

We already know that is false, otherwise the people would have paid voluntarily.

And if it’s true, then you haven’t answered the question: why don’t we get government to provide “priceless” pizza, socks, sex – in fact everything?

The example of NSW roads is one of governmental control and price-rigging, not the absence of it, and, assuming your good faith, simply shows your confusion over what is in issue.

Rstuart
It is vain to consider the respective factual benefits of private versus governmental provision of health care, while ever the advocates of government are permitted the unfair advantage, or the irrational belief, of assuming government can provide something for nothing, or disregarding the costs and detriments of governmental interventions.