Are you saying a Presidential candidate shouldn’t be held to as high a standard as a doctoral student?
Sure it is. Romney is implying that competition in private industry drives innovation by using the analogy of the streamlined ordering system at Wawa, but that federal government is not capable of that and instead relies on an antiquated paper system mired in red-tape. He’s wrong, of course, as my analogy indicates.
But your argument works just as well.
NY Times article today on the massive failure of health insurance companies, doctors and hospitals to provide comprehensible and fair billing to patients.
Some snips:
Ask Jean Poole, a medical billing advocate, about her work helping people navigate the bewildering world of medical bills and insurance claims, and the stories pour out. There’s the client who was billed almost $11,000 for an 11-minute hand surgery. The cancer patient who was charged $9,550.40 for a round of chemotherapy he never received.
And then, there’s the tale of the woman who came to Ms. Poole with a large rolling suitcase stuffed with bills for her 68-year-old husband, who had gone to the emergency room after he fell getting out of bed. The hospital’s doctors discovered a series of problems — kidney failure, blood and urinary tract infections, and a blood clot. Ultimately, he ended up staying in the hospital for two months and being transferred to a nursing home for rehabilitation.
Though the couple had two insurance policies — one through Medicare and a secondary policy at Blue Cross Blue Shield — they still received more than $25,000 in medical bills and another $65,000 from the nursing home. And some of them threatened collections if they weren’t paid within days.
**
(she) simply wanted to figure out how much she really owed.
**
Ms. Poole’s detective work ultimately reduced his out-of-pocket costs by more than $22,000, which left him responsible for about $3,915.
**
She uncovered the savings in various places — there were charges for brand medications when the patient ordered generic, services that were double-billed, as well as charges for a private room that the patient did not request; he was only there because no other rooms were available. In another instance, a surgeon belatedly submitted his $4,400 bill to the insurance company, so the claim was denied. That wasn’t the patient’s fault, but he was billed anyway. She lobbied the billing department to drop the charges, and they did.
Then, when the $132,000 hospital bill came, the patient was told he owed $9,200 and it had to be paid in 10 days. As it turns out, only one of the insurers had paid its share, which was hard to decipher from the bill. Ultimately, the patient only owed $164.99. “There were three explanation of benefits from Blue Cross Blue Shield, each with an different amount due,” she said, ranging from about $164 to $81,900. “How’s that for confusion?”
**
With the exception of Medicare and Medicaid, experts say, the amount paid for services — or the price your insurers pay — is based on the market power of the insurance company on the one side and the hospitals and providers on the other . . .
President Obama’s Affordable Care Act, the health care overhaul law passed in 2010, tries to make some improvements . . . Starting in September, health insurers and group health plans must provide consumers a comprehensive summary of their plan’s benefits and coverage in plain language.
Now we have a fair comparison to work with in this thread.
I liked your post, but Romneyists will consider your analogy flawed.
Bad paperwork by government is the result of lazy workers suckling at the public teat, while the overbilling you describe is the intelligent work of Job Creators. It is only by deceiving the stupider people into overpaying that the Best Americans can get maximal benefit from the Free Market Liberties that have made our Country so Great. Why do you hate success?
No. I’m saying that a stump speech in which a candidate tries to make a larger point while also making it locally relevant shouldn’t be subjected to the same level of scrutiny as a doctoral thesis. Do you disagree?
Why, when you put it that way, it seems so simple!
He was making a simple point. He took one example from the private sector and one from the federal government. He held up the former as the what happens when the completive forces of the private sector come to bear on something as simple as ordering a sandwich. He contrasted that with an example from the federal government, which is not the product of such pressure. They’re both relatively simple things: ordering a sandwich and changing ones address to which check will be sent. They need not be the same thing. You might want to look up Miller’s Analogies and see how apparently disparate things can be compared. I doubt WaWa’s in engaged in anything nearly as complex as 99% of the stuff the federal government is engaged in. But they were able to take a little aspect of their business and simplify it. Surely the federal government could do that with a change of address form that is 34 pages long. See, that’s how the comparison works. A is to B as X is to Y.
What’s laughable on its face is how you insist that the things cannot be compared because one has an inherently greater level of complexity than the other. That’s the joke. Surely you understand that two things that are worlds apart can be simplified, or improved. A bicycle helmet and a fighter jet can both be made more streamlined. A car and a beverage can can both be made more environment-friendly. An Olympic gymnast and a 80-year-old non athlete can both do things to become stronger. And…you guessed it: a Medicare provider change of address form and a sandwich ordering system can both be simplified.
But maybe I’m wrong. Maybe those facts do elude you. You’ll have to tell me.
Maybe because you’re mistaking having a point with tap-dancing. You might as well have randomly spouted “brown cow four legs; table four legs”. Romney’s examples were to support a particular point of view—one shared by most people—that although the federal government and the private sector each have their roles, that the private sector is generally much more efficient. And that is due to the competition that encourages them to be so.
So, unless your example was shared to demonstrate a larger point, it’s simply random observations. So, ONCE AGAIN, what is the larger point you were trying to make by your observation. The logical one, based on its content, would be that you think that the federal government is inherently, or usually, MORE efficient than the private sector. That would make you counter-example make sense. So, do you believe that? And if you do, WHY do you think that is the case. Romney (and most of the world) would say that the reason the private sector is more efficient is due to the competition that surrounds them. To what mechanism do we ow this greater efficiency theta you (seemingly) claim is present in the federal government?
Or, were you just offering an empty observation that really should not be taken seriously? As you were not trying to make a larger point the way Romney was?
Well, it’s up to you if you’re insulted by being asked to defend an argument with apparently so little substance. But you should ask yourself, “Who is at fault for that?” What I’ve been saying is perfectly allowed in GD. I’m questioning and criticizing your argument, not you. What you said, not who you are. Or, as it’s usually put, attacking the post not the poster. I don’t know, if you feel insulted in having to defend something you’ve said, perhaps you shouldn’t have said it. Perhaps you should rethink what you’ve said. It’s never too late. Of course, you are fully within you’re rights to continue digging, too. Though I think you might need a pick axe about now.
It’s not a change of address form. It’s a Medicare supplier enrollment form that also happens to be used for address changes. Is the form the guy had to fill out 34 pages long? Sure. However, the guy had to fill out about 5 pages of it. Big fuckin’ deal.
By drawing a parallel, Romney is disingenuously suggesting that a government-run sandwich shop might also require a 34-page form, or that a privatized Medicare might come up with a keypad based address form or something.
The point is much simpler: the government is generally not as efficient as the private sector. I can’t believe anyone would argue with this proposition. It also shouldn’t be surprising, a company has to battle for it’s own survival. The government has no commensurate pressure bearing upon it. Personally, I don’t even agree that a touch pad is the height of efficiency. I’d much rather walk up and tell someone what I want. But it is indicative of the lengths business will go to to streamline. A 34-page form, or even a 5-page form from the government is not going to be simplified as if it was designed by Apple. I think that’s a safe bet to make. Hell, I’ll bet that I could simplify it myself.
So, your argument is based on your assertions, which are founded on the rock solid basis of your opinion.
Have you ever filled out a form in your doctor’s office? Have you ever filled out the form a second fucking time? Or a third? Or a twentieth?
Your doctor is a private businessman, working with a variety of private insurance companies. You’d imagine (I would, anyway) that when I walk into his office for my appointment, I might get asked “Same same address, insurance, marital status? Yes? Okay, here’s your form–review it, please,” but no, instead, I have to fill out my fucking address, which hasn’t changed in seventeen years, and my name TWICE (as both the patient and as the policy-holder), remind THEM what my policy number is–all of this is information that they (damn well better) already have on file. Is this your idea of efficiency? I find it hilarious that you would hold up private business as your model of efficiency. I’d switch doctors, except that every other doctor operates the same exact way—so much for the value of ruthless competition.
You do know that a significant portion of the documents, as well as the language, are specifically required by the government, right?
Here’s a partial list of the forms the Feds require to be filed with every mortgage loan…
You do know that most of these regulations are for your protection, right?
I mean, you’re not the sort of jackass who wants the bank to lend money to just anyone who claims to be you, and then comes looking for you to pay the loan back, are you? And you want the bank to make sure you have the ability to repay the loan, don’t you, so that everyone doesn’t have to chip in when your unemployed ass defaults on the loan, right? The bank will be happy to lend you money with whichever additional charges and fees can be hidden in fine print, only the government requires them to spell out the limit of their fees–you don’t want them to be able to do that, right?
Etc.
I would.
Corporations have to make a profit to maintain their existence. Governments do not. So a government can theoretically do something at cost while a corporation cannot afford to do that.
Suppose the absolutely most efficient way to deliver a letter from Boston to Seattle costs forty cents. The government can charge you forty cents to deliver that letter. They don’t have to make a profit. But if a private company tried to deliver that letter for forty cents it would end up going broke. In order to stay in business, a private company would have to charge you forty-one cents so it could make a profit off every letter it delivered. And no matter what new ideas you invent that need for profit will always be there.
What! Sir, are you suggesting that profit creates an inherent inefficiency? May the Free Market forgive you! (Blessings and peace be upon it…)
You keep saying this as if it is supposed to mean something. The government is not “more efficient” because that is not typically a goal of government or a metric by which it should logically be judged. It’s like saying the human body is not efficient because you are born with an appendix and two kidneys. I mean, why should we lug around an extra kidney, it’s inefficient. If the human body were designed with private sector efficiency in mind, it might would fail the user far more often even if it was more “efficient” for the average person.
Similarly government is “inefficient” for a number of legitimate, intrinsic reasons. The most important reason being that inefficiency exists because private sector failure rates and outcomes are usually not acceptable. Sixty percent of restaurants fail in the first 3 years. How comfortable would you be if the IRS, FEMA, or the FBI completely blew up every few years?
Second, even in situations where the private and public sectors perform similar jobs, many externalities do not count against the company’s bottom line. A private company might be able to run a DMV cheaper than the government, but they don’t have to pay cops to enforce the laws, nor do they need to maintain and create roads that incentivize people to drive in the first place. The government provides a web of services that cannot easily be differentiated, or measured on a profit and loss statement.
Third, government is guided by principles that often preclude efficiency. Is it efficient for each state to have 2 senators and several representatives? Of course not, but our constitutional principles dictate that we must in order to fulfill our obligations to our citizens. Republics are not efficient. Checks and balances are not efficient. Elections are not efficient. Jury trials are not efficient. Dictatorships are. That’s not to say there is no middle ground, but our system is in part designed to be inefficient in accordance with our principles.
Fourth, government is obligated to step in to situations where the private sector has failed. They cover medical bills for the poor, provide insurance to people who cannot otherwise get it, and spend money to conduct unprofitable scientific research. The government often steps in when potential profit does not provide enough of an incentive for the private sector to act. Government must work for those who fall through the cracks. Cracks that often exists because the private sector decided that filling them was bad for business.
For all those reasons and many more, I wish you would really stop with this nonsense about government inefficiency relative to the private sector. They are generally not comparable, and acting as if they are just to make a rhetorical point is dishonest.
wawa wasn’t in mass. christy’s was the wawa of mass. note the word “was”. the stores have been sold to seven eleven. perhaps that is why he adds the “s”.
wawa has closed locations in philly, they have become old nelson’s.
To expand a bit on brickbacon’s post, government and private enterprise have different standards of success and different tools they can use to get there. If a private company decides it isn’t profitable to deliver to some remote addresses, it doesn’t have to. Look at the coverage map for any cell phone provider. They achieve their efficiency by neglecting some people. We wouldn’t accept that from a federal agency like the Post Office. In two places, they still deliver by mule.
According to their website, they still have several locations in Philly.
Second, I didn’t say there are Wawas in Mass. I said that a guy living there, especially one who was a self-described pro-business governor, should know the ins and outs of any private business of that size, that close to his home state. Furthermore, given that they are pretty common just a couple states away, it’s surprising that he seems to be unaware of the brand. Honestly, do you think the governor of Colorado has never heard of In-N-Out Burger? Do you think the governor of Virginia has heard of White Castle? Has the governor of N. Carolina heard of Wegman’s? I would bet money they have. And if any of those people started talking about those companies like they were some scrappy upstart shaking up the business, I think they should rightfully be called out for their tone deafness.