Education reform: Government to unveil new technical qualification in bid to ease UK skills shortage

[notcool]

It basically looks like healthcare costs grew rapidly... Because people actually starting using them.

Kind of how the increase in the amount in the amount of people driving cars or flying led to an increase in the cost, huh? Or people buying Apple products, for example. Oh no, so many customers! I'll charge more instead of trying to expand my supply to meet the demand and make even more money! I'm such a greedy businessman! And all of those products got better over the years too - that's the improvement in service.

But you've osculated something important. Restricting the supply of something will increase the cost. And that's what the AMA (American Medical Association) does when it restricts the amount of physicians on the market by only approving certain medical schools.

Spoiler: Medical school applicants vs. Physician fees

Do you see how those two things mirror each other? Would-be students responded to the demand (as i've said before: people don't need the government to tell them what to do and are much better at meeting the demand than the government is) but the amount of medical schools/accepted applicants didn't go up. This drove up physician fees, which is passed on to the patient. Again, not the free market.

 

[Bobcat]

It doesn't matter if they are anarcho-capitalists. If you are are in favour of socialised medicine like the NHS, that doesn't make you biased when you present arguments if favour of that.

Did you see the graph?

So are businesses. If you lower prices, you get more customers. It happens with cars, phones and lots of other things. The only difference between that and medicine is that the government gets involved to try to help people.

You are severely misinformed when it comes to Shkreli. He bought the rights to a drug for Toxoplasmosis, which is a complication of HIV (and cancer and maybe some other illness, I can't recall). The demand for this drug is way less than for HIV both because the amount of people who contract it each year is significantly less and because you only need one course of pills, whereas HIV suffers need to take medication over their whole lifetime.

Patents are something which are uncompetitive. Shkreli was able to raise the prices on because he had a monopoly on the drug? Why do we have patents? That's correct: the government.

I don't know too much about the Epipens but if someone else wants to make them, they can. If no-one make them for less then that is their true price.


That sounds like crony capitalism, not actual capitalism. People lobbying the government and getting a favour means they don't have to compete. The problem isn't the business side of things, it's the government side of things. Leave healthcare alone and the only way people offering healthcare will be able to get an advantage on their competitor is lower prices.

Most of what you have said is an argument for less government involvement. And i'll repeat: it's not a bad thing that healthcare providers are looking to make as much money as they can. That's the way it works with every other business and it helps to keep prices low. You might say that there's something different about healthcare which stops lower prices from happening and i'll agree: it's the government. It's not because healthcare has been operating in a free market: it's because it hasn't been operating in a free market.

1. I'm inherently skeptical to any "think tank" that leans to much to either side politically.

2. There is a HUGE difference between providing a medical service and say selling hamburgers. The former is not a consumer good we enjoy because we feel like it, it's a (often life dependent) necessity and the latter is not. Also as bad as HMO's in the US are, they are in the current system a necessary evil because there is no way in hell a regular person could foot an hospital bill on their own. An average sized hospital in Norway had a wage-bill at around 1 billion£ and treated around 600.000 patients, that means each patient (on average of course) had to pay 1,600£ for a hospital visit and that only covered WAGES. This is of course a ridiculous hypothetical and if you went to the hospital with a sprained ankle, then yeah you would probably be better off, but say if you had to have invasive surgery with a long recovery time, things could get really, really expensive.

People buy insurance because their house might burn down, not because they like paying for insurance, it's the same with medical care. Most people luckily won't "need" their insurance because they won't get really ill or have their home destroyed, but they need insurance in case it happens, because they can't handle those expenses on their own.

Also, i feel like you are missing the larger point here. I don't pay taxes because i like paying them. But because i firmly believe a society should take care of those who need it, and having free/affordable healthcare is a vital part of that

3. You are not seriously defending Shkreli are you? No matter how you angle it, hes a grade-a c*nt

4.

"I don't know too much about the Epipens but if someone else wants to make them, they can. If no-one make them for less then that is their true price."

People with diabetes are completely dependent on these things and could in worst case die without them, so yeah, there is demand alright. The issue here is that the price has soared the last couple of years, making a completely necessary and life saving drug much more expensive than it should be. The cost of producing them are the same, it's just that the company that made them decided they wanted a bigger profit

5.

"it's not a bad thing that healthcare providers are looking to make as much money as they can. That's the way it works with every other business and it helps to keep prices low."

. Yes that IS a bad thing. It's a terrible thing. Are you familiar with Maslow's hierarchy of needs? At the very bottom there is the most basic of human physiological needs (water, food, medicine) that we need to survive at the most fundamental level. Opening this up for monetary gain is reprehensible. And i'm not a cretin, i know "food costs money", but people in developed countries are hardly starving to death

Say if we abolished the states and sold our water supplies to a private company. Suddenly they could start demanding money for water out of your tap. "Are you thirsty you bastard? What is that, dying of dehydration? Well you better pay up then". Hyperbole i know, but it's not that far away in principle.

You model could only work in a world where everyone was a healthy, working adult. The reality is, there are loads of sick and old people (inconvenient i know) who needs a lot of medical aid. Flying a plane or buying a car is not the same as having surgery. The introduction of removable parts and the moving assembly line DID make for tremendous cost cuts in consumable goods, but it's not how medicine works

Maybe one day soon they invent the medical assembly line where you put sick people on a conveyor belt, robots heal them and they come out the other side fit as a fiddle, but until then i can't imagine a lazzise faire model like that ever working

 

[notcool]

There is a HUGE difference between providing a medical service and say selling hamburgers. The former is not a consumer good we enjoy because we feel like it, it's a (often life dependent) necessity and the latter is not.

Like food is a necessity. Why aren't food costs so high? The necessity doesn't matter, what matters is competitiveness. If someone offers me a life saving drug for £20 and someone else offers me the same drug for £200. I'm not gonna choose the latter because the drug is necessary.

3. You are not seriously defending Shkreli are you? No matter how you angle it, hes a grade-a c*nt

I'm not defending him, I'm saying that someone is allowed to do that because of regulation. If you don't have patents, someone else will come in and make that drug for less.

People with diabetes are completely dependent on these things and could in worst case die without them, so yeah, there is demand alright. The issue here is that the price has soared the last couple of years, making a completely necessary and life saving drug much more expensive than it should be. The cost of producing them are the same, it's just that the company that made them decided they wanted a bigger profit

And if another company can sell them at a better price, they will sell them at a better price. There will be a price war and the product will be sold at whatever price makes it a good return on the investment made to produce the pens.

Are you familiar with Maslow's hierarchy of needs?

Are you familiar with any of the arguments i've made so far? There is a check on trying to make as much money as you can and that's 'the other guy will sell for less than I will'. You don't need the government to get involved to implement checks and in fact all they've done is got rid of the checks that have kept prices low. They guaranteed insurance which stopped patients caring about the cost anymore. And they allowed the AMA (American Medical Association) to approve medical schools and so restricted the amount of physicians on the market.

Say if we abolished the states and sold our water supplies to a private company. Suddenly they could start demanding money for water out of your tap. "Are you thirsty you bastard? What is that, dying of dehydration? Well you better pay up then".

Just one company? That would be a monopoly. If there were a few companies, they wouldn't be able to do that.

it's not how medicine works

If they make money they can invest that in trying to cure/treat diseases. Then they will be able to sell that and make more money. That's how things get better.

 

[berbatrick]

You are severely misinformed when it comes to Shkreli. He bought the rights to a drug for Toxoplasmosis, which is a complication of HIV (and cancer and maybe some other illness, I can't recall). The demand for this drug is way less than for HIV both because the amount of people who contract it each year is significantly less and because you only need one course of pills, whereas HIV suffers need to take medication over their whole lifetime.

Patents are something which are uncompetitive. Shkreli was able to raise the prices on because he had a monopoly on the drug? Why do we have patents? That's correct: the government.

I don't know too much about the Epipens but if someone else wants to make them, they can. If no-one make them for less then that is their true price.

.

I'd like to see a libertarian system run without patents. Drug discovery is finished right out of the gate.

 

[Akshay]

I'd like to see a libertarian system run without patents. Drug discovery is finished right out of the gate.

Funny then that pharmaceutical research in Germany dates back to the 1880s while patents were introduced in 1967. In Japan such law was introduced in 1976 when pharmaceutical research had been booming since the end of the war. Pharmaceuticals like to say they'd be finished if they couldn't patent their drugs, the truth is like any other industry they'd rather have favourable legislation than adapt.

 

[x42bn6]

Kind of how the increase in the amount in the amount of people driving cars or flying led to an increase in the cost, huh? Or people buying Apple products, for example. Oh no, so many customers! I'll charge more instead of trying to expand my supply to meet the demand and make even more money! I'm such a greedy businessman! And all of those products got better over the years too - that's the improvement in service.

Did you even read the link?

Coverage became more widely-available, which meant that people started spending more on healthcare, because it suddenly became an option. Not the same as the latest iPhone - you can always use the older version.

The reforms under FDR and continued under his successors intended to fix a lot of the ills in society - ills that the free market created. Many war veterans could not be cared for and faced massive healthcare bills. The Civil Rights Movement was in full swing and the racial inequalities had to be addressed. Or, I guess, to put it in terms you understand - there is a social cost to all of this.

It's not even clear that there is a free market in healthcare, anyway. Free markets depend on transparent information, but there is a reason why getting a medical qualification is so expensive, time-consuming and requires, well, a very intelligent brain. That information simply isn't available in a format for customers to understand. We as humans are also terrible at judging risk - especially medical ones. Even minor ailments could be the start of a terrible disease. So we arguably never price this in properly when we take out insurance or choose a treatment plan.

 

[notcool]

I'd like to see a libertarian system run without patents. Drug discovery is finished right out of the gate.

What about all the other industries that don't have patents? Why would these guys exist since someone else can just copy their technology?

Spoiler: make plane go fast

 

[Bobcat]

Like food is a necessity. Why aren't food costs so high? The necessity doesn't matter, what matters is competitiveness. If someone offers me a life saving drug for £20 and someone else offers me the same drug for £200. I'm not gonna choose the latter because the drug is necessary.

Jesus, so if you or a loved one got a serious illness, you would be happy to fork out whatever the market deemed it "worthy"? Fact of the matter is, a lot of people in the US (with market economy which you defend so vigorously) are getting skinned by the pharmaceutical companies, while we in Europe pay a small fee for necessary drugs or treatment.

I'm not defending him, I'm saying that someone is allowed to do that because of regulation. If you don't have patents, someone else will come in and make that drug for less. And if another company can sell them at a better price, they will sell them at a better price. There will be a price war and the product will be sold at whatever price makes it a good return on the investment made to produce the pens.

In this case its more about the rights to sell it rather than a patent. I'm not saying you are wrong, but a system where some rich arse can get even richer by exploiting the ill is not something i would defend. No matter how many times you repeat your market mantra: Private healthcare will always cost the citizens more than universal healthcare. Is universal healthcare free? Hell no, it costs boatloads of money, but the point here is that the wealthy and the big companies carry the brunt of the burden so that the not so fortunate still can get medical help without becoming drowned in dept

Are you familiar with any of the arguments i've made so far? There is a check on trying to make as much money as you can and that's 'the other guy will sell for less than I will'. You don't need the government to get involved to implement checks and in fact all they've done is got rid of the checks that have kept prices low. They guaranteed insurance which stopped patients caring about the cost anymore. And they allowed the AMA (American Medical Association) to approve medical schools and so restricted the amount of physicians on the market.

No need to get snide here. Your only argument really is based on classical market theory where competition in the market drives prices down to the benefit of the consumer, but when it comes to something like medicine this is unfeasible for three main reasons
1. If you get really unlucky and say, get cancer, things could get monumentally expensive in such a system. So if you don't end up dead you will end up on the streets instead.
2. Putting a price tag on medical help and life saving drugs are morally wrong. As a society we have a responsibility to each other. In such a system the divide between the haves and the have-nots would be even bigger. Hell, just look at the US right now and the way they are heading. After they headed further right economically (more free market, less government) the gap between rich and poor has widened even more.
3. Those private hospitals and clinics you want so badly already exists, plenty of them, because it's not like it's one or the other. Having a decent state option does not mean there is no place for private enterprise

 

[berbatrick]

Funny then that pharmaceutical research in Germany dates back to the 1880s while patents were introduced in 1967. In Japan such law was introduced in 1976 when pharmaceutical research had been booming since the end of the war. Pharmaceuticals like to say they'd be finished if they couldn't patent their drugs, the truth is like any other industry they'd rather have favourable legislation than adapt.

The nature of the industry has changed drastically. I'm sure you're aware that the cost of brining a new drug to the market (discovery, trials, approval) is >1bn. You will of course argue that part of that is due to the stringency of govt regulations regarding trials, and you're right, and you're free to try snake oil if that works for your illness. But there's another reason for cost increase: antibiotic resistance, the reduction in drug-able targets, and the generally tougher nature of the drugs that we are trying to make now. (Indeed, because of the absence of effective regulation, farm-based antibiotic resistance is a ticking clock of doom over us all).
No company can spend a billion in R&D and hope to recoup it when the actual medicine can be made at a fraction of the cost by any half-decent group of synthetic organic chemists (what Ranbaxy et al do).
That is without even considering the huge indirect subsidy that pharma gets via NIH spending, which often discovers these targets and possible mechanisms of drug action before the search for the actual drug starts in pvt industry.

I also have a lot of issues in this easy separation of "pure" capitalism from "crony capitalism", but that'll take a lot of reading and a lot of long posts which I don't want right now.

@notcool
There are many other countries, and hence many control examples for any theory regarding healthcare costs.
UK has very high govt interference in healthcare, and spends about 30-40% of the US per capita with universal coverage. Germany, with a state-subsidised pvt system, spends half. South Korea has social health insurance and spends a fourth of the US.
So obviously there is something specific about the US system that causes govt expenditure to have the effect that Mises says it did.

The reason you need patents for healthcare is because the R&D cost is very high but the manufacturing is both cheap and easily done (much lower barrier for entry than airplane engine design) (Also interesting that the aircraft industry, apparently the product of free competition, has led to a duopoly ) (See also Standard Oil)

And I see you chose not to respond to the fact that the market does value humanities degrees.

@Bobcat
You should check Mises' writings on sexual slavery, they're great people...No human right is fundamental except the right to property.

 

[Bury Red]

What about all the other industries that don't have patents? Why would these guys exist since someone else can just copy their technology?

Spoiler: make plane go fast

All other industries do have patents, if an idea is novel and inventive you are perfectly free to file a global patent for it and if the assessors agree that it is something new they will grant you a patent that can cover you in specific territories or worldwide as you see fit. I'm fairly clear on the terminology of the novelty and inventiveness as I sat in a 2 hour meeting yesterday with our patent attorney and my fellow applicants on the final stage appraisal of one of the two patents I have in my name that relate to road and runway building, not medicine. A patent is a limited time related protection that ensures that the time and money you have spent developing and proving a new technique is not immediately putting you at a disadvantage as your rivals go ahead and copy your idea without bearing that same cost, it grants you protection only for the unique elements of your invention and lasts for 20 years at which time it becomes common knowledge unless you can continue innovating.

There are markets where having a patent is effectively worthless as Intellectual Property is largely ignored (try working in China, if you don't innovate on every job you die as you soon find that your good ideas are being copied well at half your price) or where patents are deliberately ignored for the benefit of society like India where medical patents are regularly ignored for the sake of cheap generic treatments but in most of Europe, North America, Asia, Australia and the Middle East patents are well enforced and worthwhile and have nothing at all to do with government regulation as they are overseen by independent patent bodies working under WTO rules.

Those guys will not have a patent because Concorde did it back in the 1970s, that it was a commercial flop due to the expense is the reason they are facing little competition. FYI the jet engine was patented by Frank Whittle, Concorde refiled with an amendment based on the air inlet necessary for supersonic travel whilst Boeing have a new jet engine patent filed a couple of years ago for a laser and nuclear driven jet engine. Over 6 million individual patents have been issued since the system was first devised in 1790.

 

[ivaldo]

I'm an L5 training advisor for the training provider Positive Outcomes and I've found out this morning I will more than likely be losing my job.

Due to the levy changes and significant reduction in SFA funding and contract sizes coupled with the change in the way apprenticeships are to be delivered my employers can't realistically adapt to survive. There is a chance another provider could purchase Pos Out but it's unlikely. They'll only realistically be after the learner contracts and would we see mass reductions anyway.

I imagine we will see a fair few providers throw in the towel in the near future.

Poor me!

 

[Bury Red]

I'm an L5 training advisor for the training provider Positive Outcomes and I've found out this morning I will more than likely be losing my job.

Due to the levy changes and significant reduction in SFA funding and contract sizes coupled with the change in the way apprenticeships are to be delivered my employers can't realistically adapt to survive. There is a chance another provider could purchase Pos Out but it's unlikely. They'll only realistically be after the learner contracts and would we see mass reductions anyway.

I imagine we will see a fair few providers throw in the towel in the near future.

Poor me!

Sorry to hear that , it sucks that for all the talk about streamlining education to fill the skills gap, providing vocational training for the less academic student and supporting apprenticeships to produce a more industry ready workforce when it comes to actually funding and backing these programmes the government screws them over every time. They did the same thing with construction apprenticeships a couple of years ago which pulled the ladder out from under a large number of youngsters who were learning on the job in the construction industry and ensured the skill gaps they left would most likely be filled by imported labour despite that flying completely in the face of everything the government parrots.

I'm sure it was all the EU's fault though, thank god we've got the tories from here on out to protect our industries and interests.

 

[ivaldo]

Sorry to hear that , it sucks that for all the talk about streamlining education to fill the skills gap, providing vocational training for the less academic student and supporting apprenticeships to produce a more industry ready workforce when it comes to actually funding and backing these programmes the government screws them over every time. They did the same thing with construction apprenticeships a couple of years ago which pulled the ladder out from under a large number of youngsters who were learning on the job in the construction industry and ensured the skill gaps they left would most likely be filled by imported labour despite that flying completely in the face of everything the government parrots.

I'm sure it was all the EU's fault though, thank god we've got the tories from here on out to protect our industries and interests.

Thanks bud. I could see it coming, our CEO stepping down just over a month ago was a bit of a give away!

Although the funding cuts are ridiculous I actually kind of support the change in how apprenticeships are to be delivered. As it stands (as with NVQs) the focus is on assessing and not training. I'd much prefer to see a trained workforce than a qualified one. Still, my empathy does little in the way of paying my bills!

 

[notcool]

Jesus, so if you or a loved one got a serious illness, you would be happy to fork out whatever the market deemed it "worthy"? Fact of the matter is, a lot of people in the US (with market economy which you defend so vigorously) are getting skinned by the pharmaceutical companies, while we in Europe pay a small fee for necessary drugs or treatment.

You don't seem to get that I believe that if the free market was allowed to operate, prices would be a lot lower. If food prices were 10 prices were a lot higher than they are now, you might call me heartless if opposed something that allowed people to pay for that food. But I would say you are looking at the problem as it presents itself and not the root cause, and in doing so wasting a lot of money. It's like your apartment being flooded over and over again, and everytime you pay the fix the damage that was done instead of fixing the plumbing system.

Your only argument really is based on classical market theory where competition in the market drives prices down to the benefit of the consumer, but when it comes to something like medicine this is unfeasible for three main reasons

It doesn't apply to healthcare because the government is involved. There is nothing inherent to healthcare that makes it so expensive.

No matter how many times you repeat your market mantra: Private healthcare will always cost the citizens more than universal healthcare. Is universal healthcare free? Hell no, it costs boatloads of money, but the point here is that the wealthy and the big companies carry the brunt of the burden so that the not so fortunate still can get medical help without becoming drowned in dept

If by universal healthcare, you mean the government is involved in healthcare insurance like it is now in the USA, then it's not the best way to pay for it. Medicare made premiums rise considerably and Obamacare made it worse. People would be still covered if those things didn't exist (because prices would be cheaper so everyone would be able to afford it easily) it's just the cost would go down. And those that didn't wouldn't be taken care of charitably (which would be much easier to do because insurance isn't so expensive).

 

[notcool]

Coverage became more widely-available, which meant that people started spending more on healthcare, because it suddenly became an option. Not the same as the latest iPhone - you can always use the older version.

I linked a price index. It wasn't that people were buying more stuff, it's that the stuff was more expensive.

The reforms under FDR and continued under his successors intended to fix a lot of the ills in society - ills that the free market created. Many war veterans could not be cared for and faced massive healthcare bills. The Civil Rights Movement was in full swing and the racial inequalities had to be addressed. Or, I guess, to put it in terms you understand - there is a social cost to all of this.

The free market didn't create those ills. Just like it wasn't the free market that caused the housing bubble in the US and everything that flowed from that.

 

[Bobcat]

You don't seem to get that I believe that if the free market was allowed to operate, prices would be a lot lower. If food prices were 10 prices were a lot higher than they are now, you might call me heartless if opposed something that allowed people to pay for that food. But I would say you are looking at the problem as it presents itself and not the root cause, and in doing so wasting a lot of money. It's like your apartment being flooded over and over again, and everytime you pay the fix the damage that was done instead of fixing the plumbing system.


It doesn't apply to healthcare because the government is involved. There is nothing inherent to healthcare that makes it so expensive.


If by universal healthcare, you mean the government is involved in healthcare insurance like it is now in the USA, then it's not the best way to pay for it. Medicare made premiums rise considerably and Obamacare made it worse. People would be still covered if those things didn't exist (because prices would be cheaper so everyone would be able to afford it easily) it's just the cost would go down. And those that didn't wouldn't be taken care of charitably (which would be much easier to do because insurance isn't so expensive).

Honestly, we could go back and forth on this, but i don't really think we are going to agree. You base this on the premise of the free market and how it ideally operates: Competitiveness drives prices down and increases quality to the benefit of the consumers, fair enough

My objection is that such a system has never existed regarding health care, so there is no empirical evidence for it actually working, just a theoretical one.

My biggest objection still is that health care should be accessible to absolutely everyone and in such a system it won't be. Therefore the wealthy and the big businesses fund it through taxes.

And the system in the US now is not Universal healthcare, far from it. It's like some fecked up hybrid.

 

[Carolina Red]

I'd like to add to this thread a few excerpts regarding the responsibilities of government by Adam Smith...

• the Navigation Acts, blessed by Smith under the assertion that ‘defence, however, is of much more importance than opulence’ (WN464);
• Sterling marks on plate and stamps on linen and woollen cloth (WN138–9);
• enforcement of contracts by a system of justice (WN720);
• wages to be paid in money, not goods;
• regulations of paper money in banking (WN437);
• obligations to build party walls to prevent the spread of fire (WN324);
• rights of farmers to send farm produce to the best market (except ‘only in the most urgent necessity’) (WN539);
• ‘Premiums and other encouragements to advance the linen and woollen industries’ (TMS185);
• ‘Police’, or preservation of the ‘cleanliness of roads, streets, and to prevent the bad effects of corruption and putrifying substances’;
• ensuring the ‘cheapness or plenty [of provisions]’ (LJ6; 331);
• patrols by town guards and fire fighters to watch for hazardous accidents (LJ331–2);
• erecting and maintaining certain public works and public institutions intended to facilitate commerce (roads, bridges, canals and harbours) (WN723);
• coinage and the mint (WN478; 1724);
• post office (WN724);
• regulation of institutions, such as company structures (joint- stock companies, co-partneries, regulated companies and so on) (WN731–58);
• temporary monopolies, including copyright and patents, of fixed duration (WN754);
• education of youth (‘village schools’, curriculum design and so on) (WN758–89);
• education of people of all ages (tythes or land tax) (WN788);
• encouragement of ‘the frequency and gaiety of publick diversions’(WN796);
• the prevention of ‘leprosy or any other loathsome and offensive disease’ from spreading among the population (WN787–88);
• encouragement of martial exercises (WN786);
• registration of mortgages for land, houses and boats over two tons (WN861, 863);
• government restrictions on interest for borrowing (usury laws) to overcome investor ‘stupidity’ (WN356–7);
• laws against banks issuing low-denomination promissory notes (WN324);
• natural liberty may be breached if individuals ‘endanger the security of the whole society’ (WN324);
• limiting ‘free exportation of corn’ only ‘in cases of the most urgent necessity’ (‘dearth’ turning into ‘famine’) (WN539); and
• moderate export taxes on wool exports for government revenue (WN879).

A quick look through that will show that even Smith felt that the "free market" had some areas where it should not be allowed. He advocates government responsibility over public health, over regulating numerous industries and businesses, over policing, fire prevention and fighting, delivering post, education, public works, etc.

 

[berbatrick]

I'd like to add to this thread a few excerpts regarding the responsibilities of government by Adam Smith...


A quick look through that will show that even Smith felt that the "free market" had some areas where it should not be allowed. He advocates government responsibility over public health, over regulating numerous industries and businesses, over policing, fire prevention and fighting, delivering post, education, public works, etc.

Same author

Wherever there is great property there is great inequality. For one very rich man there must be at least five hundred poor, and the affluence of the few supposes the indigence of the many. The affluence of the rich excites the indignation of the poor, who are often both driven by want, and prompted by envy, to invade his possessions. It is only under the shelter of the civil magistrate that the owner of that valuable property, which is acquired by the labour of many years, or perhaps of many successive generations, can sleep a single night in security. He is at all times surrounded by unknown enemies, whom, though he never provoked, he can never appease, and from whose injustice he can be protected only by the powerful arm of the civil magistrate continually held up to chastise it. The acquisition of valuable and extensive property, therefore, necessarily requires the establishment of civil government.

 

[Wibble]

The free market didn't create those ills. Just like it wasn't the free market that caused the housing bubble in the US and everything that flowed from that.

Erm?

Virtually unregulated, and when regulated unenforced, free market was the ultimate cause of the financial crisis.

 

[Wibble]

You don't seem to get that I believe that if the free market was allowed to operate, prices would be a lot lower.

Yet there is a very strong correlation between private health and cost. Places with virtually zero public health like the US have the highest costs and universal systems paid for by the government e.g. Germany are far cheaper. It isn't a coincidence. Private health is designed to deliver profit to shareholders thus the higher cost.

 

[Carolina Red]

Yet there is a very strong correlation between private health and cost. Places with virtually

zero public health like the US have the highest costs and universal systems

paid for by the government e.g. Germany are far cheaper. It isn't a coincidence. Private health is designed to deliver profit to shareholders thus the higher cost.

Indeed. A few sources to support you...
http://pnhp.org/blog/2013/07/24/why...ost-so-much-the-hidden-in-plain-sight-answer/

So the price of medical care is seldom discussed before being undertaken, and there is no effective countervailing force to the entrepreneurial drive, by all providers, to raise their incomes as high as they are able.

Nevertheless, the U.S. continues to treat health care as if it were a commodity to be purchased, rather than a service to be provided, and there are persistent efforts by the industry itself and by government officials, aided and abetted by numerous economists, to allow health care to continue to be treated as a market commodity.

The consequences of this can be seen, not only in the fact that health care costs in this country are far above those of any other advanced country, none of which allow their providers and suppliers to set their own prices, but the consequences can be seen as well in the complete irrationality of the prices of individual “items” of medical care amounting, in effect, to price gouging.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/02/h...ds-the-world-in-health-expenditures.html?_r=0

The high price paid for colonoscopies mostly results not from top-notch patient care, according to interviews with health care experts and economists, but from business plans seeking to maximize revenue; haggling between hospitals and insurers that have no relation to the actual costs of performing the procedure; and lobbying, marketing and turf battles among specialists that increase patient fees.

Average Price Comparisons
Angiogram
US: $914
Canada: $35

Colonoscopy
US: $1185
Switzerland: $655

Hip replacement
US: $40,364
Spain: $7,731

Lipitor
US: $124
New Zealand: $6

MRI Scan
US: $1,121
Netherlands: $319

https://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/07/25/why-markets-cant-cure-healthcare/

a significant number of Americans believe that the answer to our health care problems — indeed, the only answer — is to rely on the free market. Quite a few seem to believe that this view reflects the lessons of economic theory.

Not so. One of the most influential economic papers of the postwar era was Kenneth Arrow’s Uncertainty and the welfare economics of health care, which demonstrated — decisively, I and many others believe — that health care can’t be marketed like bread or TVs.

There are ... no examples of successful health care based on the principles of the free market, for one simple reason: in health care, the free market just doesn’t work. And people who say that the market is the answer are flying in the face of both theory and overwhelming evidence.
(Paul Krugman)

 

[berbatrick]

Free-market healthcare might "work" in a country which is both rich and relatively less unequal. The US, with its inequality (and also vast distances) is IMO not that country.

But @notcool surely you're aware that free markets leading to the most "efficient" outcome (note that in healthcare this can include a section of people dying without care) is subject to assumptions, and some industries by their nature can almost never produce those conditions? I have not studied economics besides literally a 101 course, but even there I was told about market failures. There are many of them. I'm sure you're also aware that what came before Teddy Rossevelt's progressive era- use of federal antitrust laws and introduction of income taxes - was giant monopolies generated by the free unregulated market...?

 

[Carolina Red]

I'm sure you're also aware that what came before Teddy Rossevelt's progressive era- use of federal antitrust laws and introduction of income taxes - was giant monopolies generated by the free unregulated market...?

Giant, unregulated, unsanitary meat packing factories... A giant, unregulated, quack "medicine" market... etc. also

 

[Nick 0208 Ldn]

Part of a broader theme but nonetheless:

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

For those who've been to uni, what were your recollections regarding dropout rates in the courses you studied?

 

[11101]

Part of a broader theme but nonetheless:

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

For those who've been to uni, what were your recollections regarding dropout rates in the courses you studied?

I don't really remember anyone dropping out of my course. I knew a few who dropped out of others but they were always there for the parties more than anything.

Reading that link most of the courses with the high drop out rates are the BS degrees that don't need to be encouraged.

 

[Adisa]

Part of a broader theme but nonetheless:

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

For those who've been to uni, what were your recollections regarding dropout rates in the courses you studied?

Same with the poster above. We were roughly 100 that started my course and I'll say about 100-120 graduated.

 

[jojojo]

Part of a broader theme but nonetheless:

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

For those who've been to uni, what were your recollections regarding dropout rates in the courses you studied?

Across a 3 year course, maybe 5 out of 180 - mostly health or drug related.

Lots of problems with those kinds of stats. Some students will be on the wrong course and the proliferation/apparent specialisation of course titles can be part of that. Computer games development sounds like playtime, it isn't. Just as Audio engineering isn't just tinkering with stage equipment.

Beyond that, the funding model encourages some bad recruitment - students being given unconditional offers for places on degree courses even though they may go crashing straight out again.

The fact students are building up massive debts may also make them drop out. It must add to the stress, it must make them question how financially worthwhile the degree is, and how maybe the reality doesn't match the dream. Again, maybe that's partly down to a lack of realism in the advertising pitch from the colleges.

 

[2 man midfield]

Why is it a problem if students drop out by the way?

Surely all it means is they've decided it isn't for them. It's their choice.

 

[12OunceEpilogue]

Across a 3 year course, maybe 5 out of 180 - mostly health or drug related.

Lots of problems with those kinds of stats. Some students will be on the wrong course and the proliferation/apparent specialisation of course titles can be part of that. Computer games development sounds like playtime, it isn't. Just as Audio engineering isn't just tinkering with stage equipment.

Beyond that, the funding model encourages some bad recruitment - students being given unconditional offers for places on degree courses even though they may go crashing straight out again.

The fact students are building up massive debts may also make them drop out. It must add to the stress, it must make them question how financially worthwhile the degree is, and how maybe the reality doesn't match the dream. Again, maybe that's partly down to a lack of realism in the advertising pitch from the colleges.

That's true, I've talked dismissively about 'non-degrees' and 'not worth the paper they're written on' etc. in the past without knowing the ins and outs of certain courses and have had to revise my opinion after learning a little more about them and what people who studied them went on to do. Dismissing a course out of hand because it isn't stem or traditionally academic from Oxbridge/Russell Group is asking for trouble.

That said since I graduated from a less than premier degree course from a less than premier uni (I don't regret it as the skills I learned and the path it put me on outweighed the bit of paper) I've taken an interest in the (I would argue) unsustainable growth of the uni sector and the corresponding shrink of good vocational options. I'm at work so can't source the relevant numbers just now but I think we have a clear imbalance in our post-highschool education/training, and though I wouldn't trust this government to paint my fence I hope their reforms will at least make a start in redressing the balance.

 

[2 man midfield]

That's true, I've talked dismissively about 'non-degrees' and 'not worth the paper they're written on' etc. in the past without knowing the ins and outs of certain courses and have had to revise my opinion after learning a little more about them and what people who studied them went on to do. Dismissing a course out of hand because it isn't stem or traditionally academic from Oxbridge/Russell Group is asking for trouble.

That said since I graduated from a less than premier degree course from a less than premier uni (I don't regret it as the skills I learned and the path it put me on outweighed the bit of paper) I've taken an interest in the (I would argue) unsustainable growth of the uni sector and the corresponding shrink of good vocational options. I'm at work so can't source the relevant numbers just now but I think we have a clear imbalance in our post-highschool education/training, and though I wouldn't trust this government to paint my fence I hope their reforms will at least make a start in redressing the balance.

What was your degree in out of interest? Do you think your grade mattered as much as some say?

 

[12OunceEpilogue]

What was your degree in out of interest? Do you think your grade mattered as much as some say?

I got a 2:1 in BA (Hons) Journalism from Liverpool JMU, and in doing so took a TV news module which led me to get hands-on with video production, which I happily practise now. I could and should have got a First but took the easy road to a 2:1, but I don't feel that held me back as much as my poor attitude upon graduating. I took longer than I should have to get going after foolishly and arrogantly thinking I was somehow owed a living in journalism and that appealing job opportunities would fall into my lap. I wasn't and they didn't.

From what I've experienced and heard from others a 2:1 in a relevant subject is acceptable for most employers in most sectors, so I would advise young people not to fixate on the numbers and instead be prepared to work hard, develop skills and get hands-on experience in work they may like to go into after training/education. My course did give me a chance to do this (which I squandered to some extent) but I fear others don't and have kids coming out of uni with a piece of paper and no clue of how to get employed.

I think a focus on proper vocational paths away from uni would be a good way of addressing this issue, so I'm cautiously optimistic about some of the noises coming out of government about the direction of travel though I accept the criticisms of the policy detail.

As for dropouts there were one or two, a lad I knew went in second year and a girl got seriously ill and had to bail, but the vast majority of people who started with me saw it through.