There is at least an opportunity to eliminate that margin in the public sector. If you opt to privatise, you choose a system that will inherently and always include the margin.
Yes but how difficult is it to eliminate such a margin in a public sector organisation and how little incentive is there to do so? I say it is better to privatise, pay the profit margin of the private supplier and let the private supplier drive down costs and increase efficiency in the pursuit of profit. Where they fail to do so you can always switch to a new supplier.
I believe the weight of history backs this assertion.
If the business class seats create this generous subsidy, why would AL have cut them out on everything except transatlantic? Why would Ryanair not be using these seats to subsidise passengers further? I'd love to see some backup for this claim? If (and its a big if) such a subsidy exists, surely the great panacea of the free
market competition is bound to eliminate this subsidy over time?
This particular aspect of microeconomic theory is known as
price discrimination. If I am a business I want to charge people according to their willingness to pay, as long as I can do so profitably. If Bill Gates walks into my shop with a headache, it probably makes little difference to him whether he pays €1,000 or €1 for aspirin. However, it might make a big difference to my business.
One means of discoverying what a customer is willing to pay (and some economists do not regard this as "true" price discrimination) is to offer some small additional frippery to your core product at an inflated cost over and above the worth of said frippery. Stewardesses that smile, a few inches of extra legroom and free drinks are not worth an extra €4,000 to most people - but "most people" are not the target market segment to which business class seats are sold.
One reason perhaps that Ryanair do not engage in such price discrimination (although they engage in plenty of other forms of it - see what it costs to buy a Ryanair ticket at the last minute) is that the people who fly BA 1st class would probably never be caught dead flying Ryanair anyway.
Do you consider the expectation that when your wife goes into hospital to deliver twins, both she and the twins will come out alive to be a 'whim'? [Check out last week's inquiry into the Tania McCabe case in Drogheda? Do you consider the expectation that when your elderly parents go into hospital in Ennis they will come
out in a more healthy state than they went in to be a whim? [Check out the reports of the fatal C.Diff infections in Ennis]. We are a long, long, long way from dealing with whims in the public health system.
You seem to be intent on working yourself up into a fit of self-righteous indignation without actually reading my post properly.
I don't want to bring my children up in a more Boston than Berlin society where the healthcare they receive depends on their wealth. Basic healthcare provision is a basic human right.
I would argue that basic healthcare provision is on a par with not going hungry regardless of economic circumstances. Are you suggesting that the government should start producing and distributing food?
Regrettably(and unsurprisingly), I don't have all the answers. Is there any international evidence that privatisation of health care actually works for ALL the population (instead of just the privileged few).
Well the current system works for no-one, don't forget that. I could just as easily question if you have any evidence that an efficient health care system can be run by the public sector?
No industrialised nation currently has a health care system that the majority of people are satisfied with. Also, since you specifically mentioned the American healthcare model as one you would wish to avoid, it is worth noting that 84% of Americans have health insurance, either privately-funded or employer-funded. So the only industrialised nation that does not offer government-sponsored healthcare to all its citizens, with the world's most expensive healthcare, still does not leave access to health in the hands of the "privileged few".
