When the government provides something, who pays for it?

Question

Does the government just create it out of thin air or does someone have to pay for it? Who? Can we make the Iraqis pay for it? No? Well then who?

You mean US?

But isn't that what we're doing now????

So why would that be better?

Oh, because the government could potentially, through economies of scale, produce it more efficiently?

Well two questions, (1) how come that rarely happens - is that because of the absence of competition? and (2) in order to achieve these economies of scale, wouldn't that mean less variety, hence less choice?

The government could provide us all with FOOD, in theory slightly more cheaply than the economy does now. But that would require that we all eat the same food tonight.

What if you want Mexican, I want Chinese, and someone else wants Italian? At least two of us are SOL....

But healthcare is more important? Right! So that's even MORE reason not to create a government monopoly!

Ah but Cory Wal-Mart is answerable to the consumers 24/7/365 - the government, you vote people in once, they create a bureaucracy, and then there is very little accountability.

Cory, well yes, food stamps can be used only to buy certain food, so there IS a restriction of choice.

Trouble the rich get better police protection eh???? Well, who is out there mugging poor people????

Answer 1

We all pay for the inefficiencies of anything the Federal government tries to provide...........

Answer 2

Anything the govt pays for -- the money comes from one of two sources -- either taxes, or the govt borrows it (debt).

Efficiency of scale is one argument that sometimes works -- think Costco and Wal-Mart = mass sales make the individual prices cheaper.

And it's not rare -- compare the cost of hiring a private security force for your house, compared to the cost (in local taxes) for police. But yes, it does mean less variety, and it's based on statistical availability -- so you might get less individual service, but you are also paying much less.

That's why some things can be usefully done by group effort and some cannot. But your analogy for health care is not correct.

Example -- the govt gives out food stamps -- and that doesn't really limit the variety of food available -- just the total that each person can spend. Same with health care -- the govt collecting taxes and paying doctors doesn't limit health care any more than the private HMOs already do.

That being said, I oppose mandatory national health care programs. But for different reasons.

Answer 3

Only those people who can afford to pay for it .
Thats why rich people get better police protection and poor people get better persecution from the police . The poor do not pay for services and the rich know that the poor will steal or do what it takes to survive .
SO with the deck stacked against the poor they have no ability to pay for anything and just barely survive .