People Power

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chuck34

What proportion of the protesters at OWS are Democrats and what proportion Republicans?

---

I have no idea — just as I assume you have no idea about the answer to the question I posed, hence your non-answer. The difference seems to be that I am willing to admit that I don't know.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

Really? In every case? Experience tends to show otherwise. And given that you're always on at many of us to go into details, define 'better'.

---

What experience? Where is there a free market for education and healthcare?

For education I would define "better" as smarter, getting higher marks on standardized tests, heck in the US I'd settle for everyone graduating High School to be able to read all at a lower cost.

For healthcare I would define "better" as quicker access to doctors and treatments, lower cost treatments, etc. all at a lower cost.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

I have no idea — just as I assume you have no idea about the answer to the question I posed, hence your non-answer. The difference seems to be that I am willing to admit that I don't know.

---

I also do not know. I'm willing to admit that. Obviously at a T.E.A. party more people will self identify with the Republican party. Just as the opposite is true at OWS. However, you were implying that the T.E.A. Party was some arm of the Republican party. It is not, it has been in many cases co-opted by Republican politicians. The exact same is the case with OWS and the Democrat party. They are two sides of the same coin in that way, and that is my point.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chuck34

What experience? Where is there a free market for education and healthcare?

---

I was referring to other areas in which we have seen privatisation in the UK, such as, to mention it again, public transport.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

I was referring to other areas in which we have seen privatisation in the UK, such as, to mention it again, public transport.

---

And to mention it again, was that system truly a free market or was it a privatisation where private companies provided a specific service at the specific direction of the government?


So to address your question more precicely then ... To define "better" in the transportation market would mean getting me from point A to point B faster and at a lower cost.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chuck34

And to mention it again, was that system truly a free market or was it a privatisation where private companies provided a specific service at the specific direction of the government?

---

It was a privatisation in the sense that the running of all passenger trains was passed to private companies. I do not know the details of the extent to which they were obliged to provide certain service levels, but such is only sensible when providing public transport. In any case, many of the companies concerned were utterly crap at it. So much for the inherent superiority of the private sector.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chuck34

So to address your question more precicely then ... To define "better" in the transportation market would mean getting me from point A to point B faster and at a lower cost.

---

Well, the privatised railways in the UK have not done that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

It was a privatisation in the sense that the running of all passenger trains was passed to private companies. I do not know the details of the extent to which they were obliged to provide certain service levels, but such is only sensible when providing public transport. In any case, many of the companies concerned were utterly crap at it. So much for the inherent superiority of the private sector.

Well, the privatised railways in the UK have not done that.

---

You said it yourself, the privitized transportation was "obliged to provide certain service levels". That is not a free market. So you can not draw any conclusions about the superiority or lack thereof of the private sector from this example.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chuck34

. . .
I suggest that perhaps those in Occupy Wall Street are occupying the wrong street. They might want to try Pennsylvania Ave. Or maybe instead of Zuccotti Park they should camp out on Capital Hill. Hmmm.... something to think about maybe?

---

I was at Zuckotti park this weekend and it was relatively empty . . . it's job has been fulfilled and now a different phase is in the making.
This is one of the events that is coming up:

Quote:

---

Dear MoveOn member,
Last week, a committed group of 99% protesters, with tired feet and exhilarated souls, arrived in Washington after a 230-mile march from Occupy Wall Street.

Next week these few marchers are getting some serious reinforcements, because we're joining with a coalition of community groups, unions, occupiers, and more to "Take Back the Capitol" from December 5 – 9.

By bus, plane, car, and train, thousands of unemployed and underemployed people, students, community activists, union members, healthcare advocates, and occupiers from coast to coast are coming to Washington for an incredible week of action.

From fanning out to visit congressional offices to swarming the offices of the K Street lobbyists who helped roll back taxes on corporations and the 1%, each day next week will involve a targeted action for the 99% to take back our government from the corporations.

We've seen the kind of attention and impact the 99% can have in cities across the country. Now we need to take that energy to the heart of political power. Click below to sign up for this exciting week of action targeting our political leaders and the K Street lobbyists, and we'll connect you with the organizers in your area helping get people to Washington:

---

pretty cool. :s mokin:



http://gallery.me.com/emeseditorials...&bgcolor=black


http://front.moveon.org/the%2Dsingle...316489-0bGnhHx

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chuck34

In the short term, you are correct, there may not be any improvement. But over the long term there will be improvement. And no, poor education and poor healthcare will never go away no matter the system.

---

I was university educated in a state-run and owned university and when I tore my ACL, I was operated on in a state-run and owned hospital at zero end user cost to me. The country I live in does not have poor education and poor healthcare; quite on the contrary.

I live in a country that also happens outrank the United States in terms of life expectancy, literacy rates, quality-of-life index etc. The United States also happens to be the worst of the industrialised nations when it comes to infant mortality rates.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chuck34

For education I would define "better" as smarter, getting higher marks on standardized tests, heck in the US I'd settle for everyone graduating High School to be able to read all at a lower cost.
For healthcare I would define "better" as quicker access to doctors and treatments, lower cost treatments, etc. all at a lower cost.

---

So then to summarise. Using your criteria: the country I live in is better at providing education and healthcare. Your position based on the free-market providing better outcomes is therefore bunk.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chuck34

However over the long term those designing men will tend to go bankrupt as people turn away from their poor schemes, and develop better alternatives. Therefore in the long term, the system will work itself out to provide better service at a lower cost.

---

No. The system will produce a more profitable system and totally neglect anything which does not turn a profit.