I gave one. If you buy innovation then you are not innovating. Iteration is irrelevant. That buying of innovation is what is aggregating the markets. The system is to blame.
All your company has to do to avoid seeing an investor come in and buy up a good chunk of it is to run it as a private operation, then the only way you get bought out is if it was done on your watch (it’s not as if Google sent threatening emails and armed thugs to companies like Boston Dynamics to strong-arm them into their fold). In some cases, it becomes beneficial to whatever technology is being developed because you now have a much wider pool of expertise and resources going into it.
Taking the company public has its own risks (you relinquish a good chunk of control and you put your own position at risk), but it can have potentially big payoffs as well in the form of raising billions in capital (for expansion, product development, and other areas). If you don’t want to risk losing control of your own company and you really want to ensure it is run your way, then don’t make it public and make it known that it’s not for sale.
Nice straw man. I said nothing about ‘free’ services provided by the government. I said there were some goods and services that a government provides more efficiently and effectively than can be done by private enterprise. Less expensive is not the same as free. And, since we must pay for the services anyway, why not go with the less expensive alternative?
Of course you’ve read stories like that, but that has more to do with what you choose to read than it does with the legislation itself. Have you bothered to read any of the statistics that have measured the actual effect of the ACA on the public, or will you continue to content yourself with cherry picked ‘stories’ from your favorite reading sources? I have a pretty good idea what those are, by the way, because that whole “let’s pass it so we can see what’s in it” meme only shows up in certain circles. Do you really think your representatives in Washington are so venal or incompetent to pass something without knowing what is in it? Especially after years of talking about it? If you wanted to say Louis Gohmert voted on it without reading it, I might agree with you, but Louis doesn’t strike me as someone who spends a lot of time reading.
Let’s look at how other state-run enterprises and services have done elsewhere in the world.
-The UK, health care is rationed at their state-run hospitals due to overall costs. In addition, their government owns the power grid and had the idea of running all of from sources such as wind energy and woodchips, which in turn is threatening a nightmare scenario where power is intermittent as in a third-world country.
-Canada, everyone has free healthcare, but I heard that people go to the doctor so frequently for a wide array of reasons that it equals long waits for those who need to see them due to a more serious issue.
-Venuzuela, the state-run oil company heading into disaster, the government essentially replaced the engineers with like-minded people who are more fit for politics than energy exploration.
Even here at some of the VA hospitals, there was a quote from a patient in the system who opined that the system seemed to be “deny, deny, until you die”. This type of story (especially the ones about waste and accountability lapses) is not just from Fox News and the like either (unless of course you’re a frequent viewer of outlets like MSNBC whose job seems to, in part, engage in apologetics for big government policies)
I thought this link might be germane… 
In addition, the ACA has also caused small businesses to be cautious about growing beyond 50 full-time employees, why, because they’ll all of a sudden have a massive expense heaped onto them in the form of giving them full healthcare services.
What to do then if you don’t want to go swimming in the countless regulations placed in the bill, you hire people as part-time workers instead. It’s plausible that it’s because of the bill that much of the job growth in the last few years is in part-time work (because all of a sudden, having full-time employees is a lot more expensive (once to grow it to a medium-sized enterprise with a few million dollars in revenue it comes down hard).
You might even say that the bill will speed up the move to have robots and other automated systems do more things in place of workers, I wouldn’t be surprised if many of the American hotel chains eventually go the route of the Japanese hotel mentioned at the beginning.
Either you are conflating apples and oranges, or your sources are. VA patients are not denied care. In addition to health care, the VA is also charged with adjudicating disability claims, sort of like worker’s comp for the military. This part of the VAs job is overburdened and underfunded, and takes their cue from their enabling legislation, which is mainly to force the veteran to prove any disability is both 1) actually disabling and 2) service connected. This is where chronic underfunding takes its toll, since they need people to process all the claims, and don’t have enough.
As far as VA HOSPITALS, where they take care of actual SICK and INJURED veterans:
When asked if they would use a VA medical center the next time they need inpatient care or outpatient care, Veterans overwhelmingly indicated they would (96 and 95 percent, respectively).
That’s 19 out of 20 people who actually experienced VA quality health care saying they would use it again next time they needed it. 19 out of 20 actual veterans. And it isn’t from MSNBC, either. Google “VA Satisfaction Survey” if you like.
The UK has indeed begun to ration care for things that are not emergencies or life threatening, such as hip and knee replacements. This is mainly because the British government has bought into the idea of austerity, and has not allocated enough funds to their system. If they put more money in, the rationing would go away. You get what you pay for.
Canada’s health care system triages, as does any system anywhere in the world, and emergencies and life threatening conditions are seen immediately. Where they have long waits is for elective, cosmetic procedures. Of course, both Canada and their neighboring United States have private clinics available for elective cosmetic procedures, should the Canadian not want to wait and be willing to pay the price.
Look, Ace, I’m not trying to be mean or anything, but your arguements are all quickly debunked by the most cursory google search. Maybe you should do a bit more investigation before repeating as gospel truth things you’ve read that turn out to not be so.
-The whole VA mess (and other accountability lapses elsewhere in government) are reported by the likes of CBS and ABC during their late-afternoon news casts (not as biased as a lot of cable outlets), it was in a minority of facilities, when it comes to the VA, many do indeed do pretty well, but the oversights in those facilities were pretty serious. Their stories (and others) are, in some cases, based on findings from the Government Accountability Office, a government which does everything right and efficiently at that would probably not even need such an office to begin with. By the way, one of those facilities with alleged questionable policies on records and getting people the care they needed was the one here in my hometown and was even reported on the local news stations.
-Also, if I remember right, the whole “let’s pass the bill to see what’s in it” quote came directly from the speaker of the house herself when it was passed. If she read the entire thing (and at 1000 pages is a lot to read), would she have said that?
-There’s been reports from actual people (not just news commentators) who did not like the fact that the ACA forced them out of their current insurance plans. Generally, the argument was that the plans they would get are better, but they didn’t like the fact that they were more expensive and contained things that they said they didn’t need. Some have even reported losing their doctors because their current one was no longer available under their new plan.
-It’s the same with some of the young people as well, some reports that their costs went up, and it’s going to become more widespread once the subsidies for low-cost plans expire (they say that socialism works, but only until you run out of other people’s money). Just ask Greece on how well their extensive social programs worked for them (it can’t work unless you have tax rates at the level where you can only keep a small portion of your income while the government takes the rest).
-Even with services which are very popular and have historically done a good job (the US Postal Service), there are some glaring inefficiencies. I once read an article on a package’s journey from one city to another a few hundred miles away and you can see why most companies use UPS or FedEx, the package stops at several different stations along the way even though the route isn’t that long, why have what appears to be so much redundancy in the way packages are handled? The distance that a package goes in a single USPS truck is quite a bit lower than an equivalent package in a commercial shipping truck.
In a final note, I wouldn’t really trust the government to be totally unbiased in their reports, especially if it involves programs that they have championed (a common practice by governing authorities worldwide is to make themselves look like they’re doing a good job at providing services and issuing policy). All I know is that the disastrous launch of the website (which cost a dubious amount of money to build and around 2 months to fix) does not give a good first impression and you can only hope that people’s healthcare experiences in the future will not be like that. Overall, I rarely hear anyone in power admit that they made a mistake somewhere or that there’s a glaring inefficiency or that there’s a glaring flaw in the system, not until it gets exposed and blared out on news stations nationwide.
Even in the area of government that you were directly involved in (defense), the military gets a lots of redundant weapons systems and hardware that they specifically say they do not need for war in today’s world (not to mention the billions of dollars lost in experimental systems that do no better than the lower-tech solutions available today, one that sticks out to me is the 2 billion poured into a bomb sniffing machine that in the end failed to beat the tried and true solution of using a dog).
Overall, there are some services that the government is naturally very good like (like Police and Fire departments), but by no means does that equate to the government being able to handily beat private enterprise in pretty much everything if they actually started a state-run service in that industry (all the way from healthcare to such things like pizza delivery and chimney sweeping?)
Speaker Pelosi did not say “let’s pass the bill to see what’s in it”. She said “We (meaning Congress) need to pass the bill so that you (meaning American citizens) can find out what’s in it.” The implication is that the general public would not appreciate the changes the bill would make until they actually took effect. It in no way implies that people in Congress did not know what was in the bill, or what they were debating and voting on, only that the American public would find out once the bill was law.
Since this is generally the case with any law that is passed (with the possible exception of naming Post Offices) this statement, at the time it was made, was not controversial, and did not become so until conservative news outlets discovered they could take a few words out of context, paraphrase them, and then spin it as if no one IN CONGRESS knew what they were doing. Again, Ace, this is two seconds of Googling.
Oh, yeah: another nice straw man…
Overall, there are some services that the government is naturally very good like (like Police and Fire departments), but by no means does that equate to the government being able to handily beat private enterprise in pretty much everything if they actually started a state-run service in that industry (all the way from healthcare to such things like pizza delivery and chimney sweeping?)
You like those straw men, don’t you?
All centralized systems have too many issues for them to be sustained whether it be socialistic solutions that are run by overwhelmed and thus inept governance or, by aggregated marketplaces that prevent the overall growth that the economic system requires.
Arguing for one over the other is moot, and the economic entities have always been more influential than governance. Having ones thumb over the resources yields more influence than legislation ever could. It’s basic Darwinian pressures at work.
The only path to a sustainable democratic system is to have a democratic resource distribution system. That has been the exception in monetary economics. Wealth tends to be aggregated due to the intrinsic scarcity.
The resource distribution system needs to be a distributed system itself.
Of course they knew what they were doing, but you can’t realistically expect the average congressman to actually know a good chunk of the smaller details and the hundreds of more obscure regulations spread throughout (and then commit all of that to memory, something which would almost be a given with a 1000 page document). Sure they might have their aids reading things through for them, but a bill that big requires a small army to completely parse it in the time they had.
Is it all of the smaller stuff and minutia in there that would be the thing crimping the growth of the private sector and hampering the continued growth of small businesses once they get to a certain size. Any system of regulation in general should be something that is minimal and simple to follow (yet strict), and not something that you need a metaphorical scuba diver for to make sure you’re following everything.
Political dogma is the discourse of choice. It’s much easier to blame than it is to change.