From: DGS4@psuvm.psu.edu
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.drugs
Subject: Re: Bleeding-Heart Libertarianism (was Legalizing drugs)
Date: 12 Dec 92 14:55:44 GMT
 <92346.134257DGS4@psuvm.psu.edu> <VEAL.558.724113917@utkvm1.utk.edu>
Organization: Penn State University

In article <VEAL.558.724113917@utkvm1.utk.edu>, VEAL@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal)
says:
>
>In article <92346.134257DGS4@psuvm.psu.edu> <DGS4@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
>
>>In article <PA146008.556.724089241@utkvm1.utk.edu>, PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu
>>(David Veal) says:
>>>
>>>In article <92346.095057DGS4@psuvm.psu.edu> <DGS4@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
>>>
>>>>People keep claiming that private charity could get the job done, but they
>>>>offer no evidence for this claim.  I wish someone would try and post this.
>>>
>>>       Please note the phrasing "practical alternative."  It is possible for
>>>voluntary charity to not "get the job done," depending on how you define
>>>"get the job done," because it's (get this) voluntary.
>>>       Private charity is not a perfect option.  But because it is a
>>>practical option, we should make it word rather than constantly bleat that
>>>somebody, somewhere isn't suffering their fair share for the poor.
>>
>>Is that "make it work??"  Maybe if you could explain what you mean
>>by "practical alternative" it would help.
>
>       "Practical alternative":  Alternative which can be made to function
>in the Real World.
>
>>I took it to mean that
>>private charity could replace the social service operations of
>>government in a reasonable fashion, without the detrimental effects
>>of big government and coercion, at the same or lower costs.
>
>       Well, since at least some of the "social service" operations of the
>government I think we can do away with entirely, it isn't necessary that all
>of these be taken over privately.  Some of them should simply go away.  But
>that's a matter of differing definitions.
>
>>If that's a reasonable interpretation,
>>I'd like to see some proof of it.  Most of the private charities I know
>>about spend 25-40 percent of the monies collected on advertising and
>>administration.  Medicare spends less than 5 percent of total monies
>>collected on admin. costs.
>
>       25 - 40 percent sounds about accurate for private charities.  Five
>percent for medicare doesn't sound like its even in the ballpark,
>unless they're doing something bizarre with the reporting, such as
>requiring the doctors to pay for paperwork.

All insurers, including the private ones, "require" doctors to pay
for paperwork in the sense that they have to fill out forms to get
their money.

>
>       Where exactly is this 5% figure from?

From the Annual Supplement to the Social Security Bulletin, which
publishes data on most of the social service functions of the
government.  The number for administrative costs in Canada's public health
insurance system is even smaller, about 1 percent.

>       To be honest, it doesn't sound like you have the slightest interest
>in being convinced.  And I'm not entirely sure where to start with
>evidence that you wouldn't just dismiss out of hand.

I am perfectly willing to be convicned.  It is just that I get tired of
people claiming that private charity could do the job and offering
no evidence to support that claim.  I've looked around and I've seen
private charities doing wonderful work.  I've yet to see any evidence that
they are more efficient than government in large scale operations, such as
feeding the poor, insuring the sick, or other such social service
operations.


>       But hell, at this point I'm not even gung-ho to eliminate government
>charities.  If they'd just stop adding more I'd be satisfied.

Dennis G. Shea, Penn State
<<DISCLAIMER>>
Ain't nobody's bizness but my own. I'll be happy to accept all
the credit for anything I've written.  It's funny, however, how
employers only acknowledge the profitable ideas.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,soc.motss,alt.sex