Hello There, Guest!

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
How do you see bus. working under diff. political systems?
#31
Bridgett Wrote:Charities do a better job, whether they be faith-based or not.


For something that is often claimed and discussed, I'm finding it extremely difficult to find any evidence to back up this claim, or the reverse.

I suspect that as a blanket claim it's just too broad. I've found examples of charaties that spend $1.33 for every $1.00 raised ... terribly inefficent. I've also found others that apparently spend less than 30% on admin costs - pretty good. Yet I'm also finding government programs, like Food Stamps, with similar spending (28% on admin).

It seems to me that it really depends on the charity ... however an interesting thought did arise - the majority of charities use an awful lot of volunteer labour. I'm suspecting that if they didn't, and it had to be costed, governments would tend to win hands down.

So I'm leaning towards government's actually being far more efficient, but charities being more cost-effective since they avoid major costs.
 Reply
#32
ibofightback Wrote:So I'm leaning towards government's actually being far more efficient


:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
 Reply
#33
data is data. I went into the research not really having a clue either way, but with a bias towards believing the charities were more efficient. What I've found so far is that it clearly varies dramatically depending on the charity and probably does depending on the project. Nevertheless, given staffing is one of the greatest expenses of any business, or government, if the cost figures are even remotely close to eachother, then if you take into account volunteer hours that the government may "win" more often than not.

If you've got some data to throw into the mix, I'd love to see it rather than just silly responses.
 Reply
#34
note again, this is in terms of efficiency, not cost effectiveness.
 Reply
#35
ibofightback Wrote:It seems to me that it really depends on the charity ... however an interesting thought did arise - the majority of charities use an awful lot of volunteer labour. I'm suspecting that if they didn't, and it had to be costed, governments would tend to win hands down.

So I'm leaning towards government's actually being far more efficient, but charities being more cost-effective since they avoid major costs.


Yep, it absolutely depends on the charity and why I think resources like <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.CharityNavigator.org">http://www.CharityNavigator.org</a><!-- m --> are so important.

And volunteer labour is the key difference in ATTITUDE and MOTIVES between charities and government.

Volunteers WANT TO HELP, WANT TO SERVE. They are for the betterment of the people.

But now, because, like I said, there is SO MUCH CASH AND BENEFITS for politicians, their motives are OFF.

And since we've got a large number of politicians who are also lawyers, legally (technically) they can get away with lining their pockets, but ethically...please.

Example, that town I was talking about, the reporter would sit in the town meetings and thought that the board of trustees were so foolish in what they said and did, because they kept getting lawsuits brought against the town.

But then the reporter discovered that the town's law firm was none other than a former Chicago alderman, with quite a colorful history. A firm that received over a million dollars a year from the town for their services. In other words, yes, the law firm earned the fees they charged the town. But did the town really need to use TAX PAYER MONEY TO PURPOSELY GET SUED???!!!

This is the "civilized" corruption I am talking about. Rather than handing over cash in brown paper bags in dark alleys, this is how we do it in America. :good:

Rather than executing someone in their homes, we just smile and laugh as we subtlely threaten them as they know full well that there are enough crooked people in authority to make them "disappear" if need be. (Drew Peterson most certainly knows what kind of chemicals to use to make a body decompose quickly and "efficiently"). :good:

To be clear though, seriously, I would not wish to live anywhere else but America. With all it's warts and ugliness, it's beauty does outshine it all, because there are wonderful Americans who are not like the people I described above. :hug:
 Reply
#36
Bridgett Wrote:Yep, it absolutely depends on the charity and why I think resources like <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.CharityNavigator.org">http://www.CharityNavigator.org</a><!-- m --> are so important.


Yes, that's one of the places I've been getting data from.

Quote:And volunteer labour is the key difference in ATTITUDE and MOTIVES between charities and government.

Perhaps the most cost effective method might by volunteers working with government programs? Other data suggests the most effective programs might actually be fully commercial enterprises.

Either way, I've still seen no evidence supplied that backs up the claim that charities are more efficient than the government, which is what has been claimed here.

Quote:But now, because, like I said, there is SO MUCH CASH AND BENEFITS for politicians, their motives are OFF.

I can't speak for the US data as I haven't looked at it, but there's often an argument made that we end up with crappy politicians because the pay is *poor* compared to the private sector.

Quote:This is the "civilized" corruption I am talking about. Rather than handing over cash in brown paper bags in dark alleys, this is how we do it in America. :good:

How do you attract ethical people in to government? Or perhaps the question is - how do you get them elected? (and hopefully remaining ethical)

Quote:To be clear though, seriously, I would not wish to live anywhere else but America. With all it's warts and ugliness, it's beauty does outshine it all, because there are wonderful Americans who are not like the people I described above. :hug:

Every country has pluses and minuses. The US has a lot more pluses than minuses!
 Reply
#37
Interesting perspective on government run health care in today's Wall Stree Journal:

Born and raised in Canada, I once believed that government health care is compassionate and equitable. It is neither.

My views changed in medical school. Yes, everyone in Canada is covered by a "single payer" -- the government. But Canadians wait for practically any procedure or diagnostic test or specialist consultation in the public system.

The problems were brought home when a relative had difficulty walking. He was in chronic pain. His doctor suggested a referral to a neurologist; an MRI would need to be done, then possibly a referral to another specialist. The wait would have stretched to roughly a year. If surgery was needed, the wait would be months more. Not wanting to stay confined to his house, he had the surgery done in the U.S., at the Mayo Clinic, and paid for it himself.

Such stories are common. For example, Sylvia de Vries, an Ontario woman, had a 40-pound fluid-filled tumor removed from her abdomen by an American surgeon in 2006. Her Michigan doctor estimated that she was within weeks of dying, but she was still on a wait list for a Canadian specialist.

Indeed, Canada's provincial governments themselves rely on American medicine. Between 2006 and 2008, Ontario sent more than 160 patients to New York and Michigan for emergency neurosurgery -- described by the Globe and Mail newspaper as "broken necks, burst aneurysms and other types of bleeding in or around the brain."

Only half of ER patients are treated in a timely manner by national and international standards, according to a government study. The physician shortage is so severe that some towns hold lotteries, with the winners gaining access to the local doc.

Overall, according to a study published in Lancet Oncology last year, five-year cancer survival rates are higher in the U.S. than those in Canada. Based on data from the Joint Canada/U.S. Survey of Health (done by Statistics Canada and the U.S. National Center for Health Statistics), Americans have greater access to preventive screening tests and have higher treatment rates for chronic illnesses. No wonder: To limit the growth in health spending, governments restrict the supply of health care by rationing it through waiting. The same survey data show, as June and Paul O'Neill note in a paper published in 2007 in the Forum for Health Economics & Policy, that the poor under socialized medicine seem to be less healthy relative to the nonpoor than their American counterparts.


http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124451570546396929.html
 Reply
#38
Curious the author didn't mention 5-year cancer survival rates were even better in Cuba! And that of the top 15 countries for each type of cancer, all but the US had socialised medical systems of some variety or another, and in only 1 of 4 most common types of cancer does the US have the best rates (prostate) - beaten by socialised medicine in the other 3 types (source)

I haven't yet dug up his other statistics, but when someone misuses the very first ones he's citing, I'm not hopeful he's done much better ...

In any case, every system has it's pluses and minuses, anyone expecting otherwise is living in fantasyland.
 Reply
#39
It is just as curious that you didn't mention this study.


A Closer Look at Cancer Survival Rates

Following the release of the largest study of cancer ever for Europe, we previously compared the U.S. and Europe with regard to five-year cancer survival rates for all types of cancer, but that left open two big questions:

What about Canada?
What about different kinds of cancer?

[Image: five-year-cancer-survival-rates.JPG]

The chart above shows the breakdown of five year cancer survival rates between men and women for patients diagnosed with the condition between 2000 and 2002. The data for the European nations and the U.S. comes from the Eurocare-4 study, and is ranked according to the percentage of women who, after being initially diagnosed with cancer, have survived for at least five years.

The chart reveals that the U.S. ranks at the top when it comes to surviving cancer...


http://politicalcalculations.blogspot.co...chive.html

Americans also are not used to waiting long periods of time to be seen by a doctor.

[Image: Slide%20Image.gif]
 Reply
#40
MichMan Wrote:It is just as curious that you didn't mention this study.


Huh? I guy quotes a study to backup a point, I look up the study and find it doesn't back up his point at all - and you think it's curious I didn't mention some other study??

Someone certainly IS living in fantasy land ....

MichMan Wrote:[color=#4000FF] A Closer Look at Cancer Survival Rates


This actually isn't "a closer look" ... it's a further away look than the earlier one, which broke it down by types of cancer. In that data US men lead by a long way in prostate cancer survival rates. From what I've read on this area before, that may at least be partially due to differences in diagnosis rates. It seems virtually all men are destined to get prostate cancer if they live long enough, but most of the time it goes away without treatment. If you have more diagnosis, this means your survivial rates will be higher.

Quote:What about Canada?

In women the survival rates between US and Canada were virtually the same, unlikely to be significantly different. Again this area is problematic because of the influence of breast cancer, where it appears there's a lot of overdiagnosing going on.

Quote:What about different kinds of cancer?

The chart you gave didn't address this at all. The link you gave shows them comparing "Europe" to the US, and it's post the introduction of many eastern european countries to Europe. Again, not a "closer" look at all, but a further away one. When broken down by country most of the top performers were (Western) European.

Quote:Americans also are not used to waiting long periods of time to be seen by a doctor.

You're misquoting the data. It's waiting times to see a specialist, not just "a doctor". If you look at the same studythey actually report on waiting time to see a doctor, and the US is ranked the worst alongside Canada! Much higher percentages get a same day appointment, and 3rd worst for having to wait 6 days or longer (page 11).

I'll assume you're just regurgitating someone elses reporting and not being deliberately dishonest yourself.

Going further in the study, the US was worst/second worst for getting after hours care (page 12) and second worse for patients using ER when a regular doctor would have been just fine (page 13)

US was best in speed to seeing a specialist, but note for all of the findings above, this was talking about a group of chronically ill patients. I absolutely agree that for this particular area in particular an economic incentive driven system is likely to produce better results. Having said that I'd like to see more on the methodology. In countries like Australia for example there is an excellent private system in parallel to the public system. If I have private insurance or can otherwise afford it, there's the same service incentive for private specialists as in the US.
 Reply

 
Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)