Question for strident capitalists...

[cosmictotem]

You can leave your farm to your heirs, but in your system there is little or no incentive to take good care of land you farm as you get old - your son can not get it - some stranger likely will. (As you grow old and "warn out" so does your land.)

That is not a critical rule to my model. If I wanted I could change it so children can inherit land as long as they can't hold multiple parcels without it effecting or destroying my model.

But it doesn't really matter one way or another in my model who productive land goes to when access to the productive goods of all who participate in the cooperative model is denied to no one. Essentially, the son is already the heir to the production of every farm in the cooperative model. I mean, does ownership of a resource matter when what's really the issue is access?

The only reason you think the son is losing out by not being able to inherit the farm, is because you are still thinking in terms of access to produce being conditional upon monetary compensation. In other words, you believe if the son doesn't get the farm, he will have to pay others to access farm produce as he would in a monetary system. Not so in a cooperative model. It matters not to me if I don't own a farm as long as I have access to the goods produced by all cooperatively run farms.

But again, I could change that rule without any structural effect on my model.

 

[Billy T]

That is not a critical rule to my model. If I wanted I could change it so children can inherit land as long as they can't hold multiple parcels without it effecting or destroying my model.

But it doesn't really matter one way or another in my model who productive land goes to when access to the productive goods of all who participate in the cooperative model is denied to no one. Essentially, the son is already the heir to the production of every farm in the cooperative model. I mean, does ownership of a resource matter when what's really the issue is access?

The only reason you think the son is losing out by not being able to inherit the farm, is because you are still thinking in terms of access to produce being conditional upon monetary compensation. In other words, you believe if the son doesn't get the farm, he will have to pay others to access farm produce as he would in a monetary system. Not so in a cooperative model. It matters not to me if I don't own a farm as long as I have access to the goods produced by all cooperatively run farms.

But again, I could change that rule without any structural effect on my model.

No that is not the reason I think the son should take over from his father. Not only will that encourage care for the soil as the old father ages, but as the son has been working the land, possibly even was born there, he knows how to farm productively and a great deal about it. So the high productivity will continue under his management, much more than if some ignorant of farming urban book keeper takes over it management.

Glad to see this intelligent adaptation toward the current system that works too.

 

[Billy T]

Now only these problems with your system, need so adaption towards the current system to make your idea a viable alternative:

It (current system) is far from perfect, but does not collapse within an average of three or less years in the 1000 or so times it has been tried.

It does not suffer from the low productivity of almost all workers are doing the least required.

It rewards people very well for years of hard study, even a decade or more, so they do that effort.
Your alternative would be lucky to have even 5% of the skilled medical specialists that are needed.

It encourages innovation and risk taking as people open new businesses in hope of growing rich as they grow, even though they know most such new businesses fail.

PS note I have yielded up one of my initial objections - With modern computers and the inventory control already in place I agreed that price rise was not the only way to measure demand. I still think you will lack the management and engineering skills (not just medical professionals) that need years of education - For example management of a chemical plant's critical decision* or the process control engineers in it. etc. Since all are equally rewarded in material terms, and beach front homes are given out by the "luck of the draw" etc. very few will study for years to gain those needed skills.

* recall my example of choosing between chlorine and sulpheric acid to make toilet paper white - so many factors in the decision, including averse environment impacts, that a high school only grad will make badly.

 

[cosmictotem]

No that is not the reason I think the son should take over from his father. Not only will that encourage care for the soil as the old father ages, but as the son has been working the land, possibly even was born there, he knows how to farm productively and a great deal about it. So the high productivity will continue under his management, much more than if some ignorant of farming urban book keeper takes over it management.

Glad to see this intelligent adaptation toward the current system that works too.

Fair enough. I happen to think a stranger interested in the land would be so because they have some interest in farming and in preserving the farm but it's not necessary for us to quibble over that. Also, if it is a "high productivity" farm, that suggests collaborative labor is already being employed to maintain the farm so there is no reason the new occupant of the land would not retain that free collaborative labor nor that the farm would fall into ruin in the event of the farmer's old age.

Now only these problems with your system, need so adaption towards the current system to make your idea a viable alternative:

It (current system) is far from perfect, but does not collapse within an average of three or less years in the 1000 or so times it has been tried.

It does not suffer from the low productivity of almost all workers are doing the least required.

It rewards people very well for years of hard study, even a decade or more, so they do that effort.
Your alternative would be lucky to have even 5% of the skilled medical specialists that are needed.

It encourages innovation and risk taking as people open new businesses in hope of growing rich as they grow, even though they know most such new businesses fail.

PS note I have yielded up one of my initial objections - With modern computers and the inventory control already in place I agreed that price rise was not the only way to measure demand. I still think you will lack the management and engineering skills (not just medical professionals) that need years of education - For example management of a chemical plant's critical decision* or the process control engineers in it. etc. Since all are equally rewarded in material terms, and beach front homes are given out by the "luck of the draw" etc. very few will study for years to gain those needed skills.

* recall my example of choosing between chlorine and sulpheric acid to make toilet paper white - so many factors in the decision, including averse environment impacts, that a high school only grad will make badly.

But don't these remaining issues depend on personal preferences? If I tell you I will put in a good day's work as a doctor under a RBE with a monthly cap on personal resource consumption, who are you to tell me I wouldn't? I mean, given your own assessment of the unattractive returns on an individual's energy and the allowance of participatory choice, you would have to believe me, right? If I really didn't mean what I said, I wouldn't participate. And to the extent that someone would not be attracted personally to participate in such a moneyless economy, they don't have to and that would simply be one less person to which a doctor would have to provide services. So it's a self-filtering system. By not requiring the participation of the unwilling, it automatically filters out people who wouldn't be sincere contributors of energy.

 

[spidergoat]

Think about it this way, should the police also be the judges? Force isn't used to punish the innocent, it's meant to establish the rule of law in a civilized society, so judges and juries decide who is guilty. Otherwise all is chaos, because people can be total shits sometimes. I would love it if it were not the case, but it's a fact. And the use of force is limited by law. How can you seriously suggest there would still be laws without this process? People who don't wish to be judged would simply run away. Where there isn't rule of law there is mob rule. And an angry mob is in no position to judge fairly.

 

[Billy T]

... But don't these remaining issues depend on personal preferences? If I tell you I will put in a good day's work as a doctor under a RBE with a monthly cap on personal resource consumption, who are you to tell me I wouldn't? I mean, given your own assessment of the unattractive returns on an individual's energy and the allowance of participatory choice, you would have to believe me, right? ...

No, they don't & Yes I would believe you, in fact IF in spite of knowing you would spend 12 or more years of your life with no more return than if you did not spend those years learning to be a heart surgeon, I would recognize that you are extremely dedicated and desiring to save lives. - I would know that you did not spend those many years, two of which were "interns hell," to make lots money as some do in the present system.

I'm not telling you that the medical professional would not work hard under the RBS but that 95% of them would not exist.

Some such people dedicated to serving others do exist. That is why I guessed you might have 5% of the heart surgeons your society needs. It is not a question of "personal preferences" but is your desire to be a heat surgeon so strong that you give up 12 or more years of your life to do that with no extra material benefit? There are many things you could have done with those years that are much more pleasant than study Grey's anatomy book etc. until 2 AM, before your anatomy exam etc.

SUMMARY: You have not addressed ANY of the four serious flaws in your system listed in post 441.

 

[Billy T]

... if it is a "high productivity" farm, that suggests collaborative labor is already being employed to maintain the farm so there is no reason the new occupant of the land would not retain that free collaborative labor ...

Perhaps I don't understand. I thought you limited the size of the farm to one family - effectively the owners, but not legally as has been the practice in China for centuries. I. e. one family has exclusive right to use "its" plot of land, but the war lord or now the CCP owns the land and the family thus can not sell it. About three years ago China did allow the "exclusive rights" family to lease out their use right - large corporate farms, much more efficient quickly formed, and the former "pig farmers" moved to the cities where there were labor shortages. If they got job there, they lived quite well on its salary and their "land rent" income.

I.e. The CCP realized that your system was not providing either the food production or the labor supply that China needed so being practical said: "To hell with our socialist doctrine. - Lets adapt." We need large corporate farms and more urban workers.

Also if you have non-family working on the farm, is their "pay" an equal share of the production? If yes, it is not "free," and worse, if they are in number equal to the family they can do the minimum required (lean on the hoe, often) and have no interest in keeping the soil in good condition as one of the sons, not them will inherit the land. They will do as the USSR's collective farmers did. For example to avoid half the walking, dump the fertilizer provided for the entire farm on half of it etc. (Over fertilization acts like a weed killer on the plants being grown.)

Anytime you have "cooperative production" some don't work as hard or as carefully as if they were paid by the number of pieces they produced. For example 20 pickers of cotton working in the same field are always paid by how many bags the pick - not by the day. There was many years ago a popular song one line of which was: "Come Mr tallyman, tally me bananas." With 20 worker, and one only making 50% of full effort and all share equally in the production, the cost to him is only a 2.5% reduction in his reward (same as all others suffer).

 

[cosmictotem]

No, they don't & Yes I would believe you, in fact IF in spite of knowing you would spend 12 or more years of your life with no more return than if you did not spend those years learning to be a heart surgeon, I would recognize that you are extremely dedicated and desiring to save lives. - I would know that you did not spend those many years, two of which were "interns hell," to make lots money as some do in the present system.

I'm not telling you that the medical professional would not work hard under the RBS but that 95% of them would not exist.

Some such people dedicated to serving others do exist. That is why I guessed you might have 5% of the heart surgeons your society needs. It is not a question of "personal preferences" but is your desire to be a heat surgeon so strong that you give up 12 or more years of your life to do that with no extra material benefit? There are many things you could have done with those years that are much more pleasant than study Grey's anatomy book etc. until 2 AM, before your anatomy exam etc.

SUMMARY: You have not addressed ANY of the four serious flaws in your system listed in post 441.

Fair enough. I will take a little time to reflect on this and if and when I believe I have collected enough info to offer a possible response, I will come back to it.

Of course, I can't really confirm the validity of your assertions at this point because I would have to go through each of the 1000 cases detail by detail to confirm exactly what it was that caused them to fail.

 

[iceaura]

I'm telling you it doesn't work. What are you missing? You'll have to come up with another solution because the ones you offered is being tried right now and the quality is going down year after year.

Nothing that I offered is being tried right now in the US. What you are telling me doesn't work is not what I posted.

Firstly, we don't live in a free society do that's impossible to know the answers to. Secondly, there's plenty of billions raised to run experiments outside of government right now. Many billions are donated to Private Universities where in a free society even more resources would be made available. IF those institutions wanted to, they could do high quality research in a short amount of time testing the effects of chemicals in cell assays. As an example. Thirdly, I stated insurance companies have an incentive. Fourthly, private groups of people - like the American Heart Foundation

Everything you mentioned either 1) already exists, has little money, and is maxed out without paying for any such research, or 2) Has a negative interest in doing such research, would prefer that it not be done.

As to why polluters would give a shit. Well, for the same reasons as today.

They don't, today. The only things they have taken even the slightest interest in are matters discovered by government-paid research that threatened them.

The EPA was started in 1970, we managed before without it

As always, an uncanny knack for picking exactly the wrong example. We did not "manage" before the EPA. We had rivers catching fire, we had industry disposing of toxic waste by burying it all over the landscape and dumping it into the nearest rivers, we had only the beginnings of restrictions on pesticide and herbicide use, and so forth. We had a burgeoning environmental mess, which we are still in the middle of catching up to.

However, when Eckhardt C. Beck (EPA Administrator for Region 2, 1977 – 1979) visited Love Canal in the late 1970s, he discerned the presence of toxic substances in the community:

“I visited the canal area at that time. Corroding waste-disposal drums could be seen breaking up through the grounds of backyards. Trees and gardens were turning black and dying. One entire swimming pool had been popped up from its foundation, afloat now on a small sea of chemicals. Puddles of noxious substances were pointed out to me by the residents. Some of these puddles were in their yards, some were in their basements, others yet were on the school grounds. Everywhere the air had a faint, choking smell. Children returned from play with burns on their hands and faces.[20]

 

[Billy T]

... I would have to go through each of the 1000 cases detail by detail to confirm exactly what it was that caused them to fail.

Each case will have minor variations, but working harder than the minimum required for many other unrelated people, for no extra reward is not natural. You do that for relatives, and with amazing accuracy.

Years ago, I read a study of this. I forget the detail, so for illustration will invent some:
Subjects were asked how much would they pay so their child would not be subjected to a standard electric shock (or brief hot metal burn ?) neither of which would be injurious - much more just an irritations or annoyance, but painful. Then same question for a grand child; Also for a "half brother" ; Half brother's child; cousins, and their child, etc.

In all cases, the percent of the subjects genes in the "victim" is precisely known. The surprising thing was the accuracy with which the size of the subject's willing payment inversely correlated with the victim's having the subjects genes even though, except for the very close relative, the subject's guesses as to how much of his genes were in the victim was much more poorly correlated. I.e. most knew their child carried half their genes, many that a grand child 25% but had little idea what percent a first cousin, (or second even less) of their genes had. Yet in some sense they did unconsciously (on average) know as the size of the payment they would give was very nearly inversely proportional to the fraction of victim's genes that came from the subject!

A child's wife, carried none of the subject's gene, yet got a better payment than an unknown women as presumably her care of the grand child would influence the probability that the subject's gene were sent further down into the future. Like the book the selfish gene suggests, people are just the means by which genes pass down to the next generations - everything (your beliefs included) is set up to maximize that chance for your genes.

This is why without great "socializing effort" which the USSR certainly tired to achieve but failed, almost no one in a group of 20 will do twice the minimum required work so he can receive (along with all the unrelated others) 2.5% more reward.

Also only 20 is much too small for your "no-money / share alike" group to be self sufficient. More than 10,000 are required to make steel for nails, a knife etc. or even a simple anti-biotic agent. Plus, as noted before, if most of the world still uses money and holds fast to concept of land ownership, even 10,000 with no money would not even be able to get ore with significant Fe2O3 content - someone already owns it.

 

[cosmictotem]

Each case will have minor variations, but working harder than the minimum required for many other unrelated people, for no extra reward is not natural. You do that for relatives, and with amazing accuracy.

Years ago, I read a study of this. I forget the detail, so for illustration will invent some:
Subjects were asked how much would they pay so their child would not be subjected to a standard electric shock (or brief hot metal burn ?) neither of which would be injurious - much more just an irritations or annoyance, but painful. Then same question for a grand child; Also for a "half brother" ; Half brother's child; cousins, and their child, etc.

In all cases, the percent of the subjects genes in the "victim" is precisely known. The surprising thing was the accuracy with which the size of the subject's willing payment inversely correlated with the victim's having the subjects genes even though, except for the very close relative, the subject's guesses as to how much of his genes were in the victim was much more poorly correlated. I.e. most knew their child carried half their genes, many that a grand child 25% but had little idea what percent a first cousin, (or second even less) of their genes had. Yet in some sense they did unconsciously (on average) know as the size of the payment they would give was very nearly inversely proportional to the fraction of victim's genes that came from the subject!

A child's wife, carried none of the subject's gene, yet got a better payment than an unknown women as presumably her care of the grand child would influence the probability that the subject's gene were sent further down into the future. Like the book the selfish gene suggests, people are just the means by which genes pass down to the next generations - everything (your beliefs included) is set up to maximize that chance for your genes.

This is why without great "socializing effort" which the USSR certainly tired to achieve but failed, almost no one in a group of 20 will do twice the minimum required work so he can receive (along with all the unrelated others) 2.5% more reward.

Also only 20 is much too small for your "no-money / share alike" group to be self sufficient. More than 10,000 are required to make steel for nails, a knife etc. or even a simple anti-biotic agent. Plus, as noted before, if most of the world still uses money and holds fast to concept of land ownership, even 10,000 with no money would not even be able to get ore with significant Fe2O3 content - someone already owns it.

Okay, I think I have an answer. You have the Ph.D. so let me run it by you.

What resource are we never in danger of running out of? Sunlight.

What if the distribution of sunlight was used as an incentive for those in society who contributed more work?

In other words, as a doctor, you would be rewarded in sunlight (or stored electricity) that would enable you employ the use of more, still freely provided, but powerful appliances?

So you couldn't exchange the sunlight (electricity) for anything but you could power a more varied array of technology than someone who, say, only pushed a broom.

In this manner, universal access to vital resources could be maintained while variable reward could still be provided to those based on the difficulty of their job.

 

[Billy T]

... What if the distribution of sunlight was used as an incentive for those in society who contributed more work? ...

That could work as a "natural money;" however, you would need to let those who worked harder (provided society with more goods and services) spend it for THEIR wishes.* (Not what some authority told them was "good for them or fair consumption")

To some extent that is happening today (but with money still in use) I.e. some have large roof top solar cell arrays that annually generate more energy than they use - they sell the excess for money via "running the power company's meter backwards." Then with the money, they may buy a pro-level set of gulf clubs, etc.

I don't think this will work if you insist upon limiting what their choices are to "what is fair and good for them" and it increases the probably of corruption if there is some committee determining what you can buy with your excess sun light money.

* As today, the society as a whole, can discourages (by high taxes) or make illegal some items and activities broadly agreed upon be damaging to society as a whole. Once 10 year olds (girls mainly) used their "nimble fingers" to tend cloth making looms, but we now prohibit that and machines do the job better.

 

[cosmictotem]

That could work as a "natural money;" however, you would need to let those who worked harder (provided society with more goods and services) spend it for THEIR wishes.* (Not what some authority told them was "good for them or fair consumption")

To some extent that is happening today (but with money still in use) I.e. some have large roof top solar cell arrays that annually generate more energy than they use - they sell the excess for money via "running the power company's meter backwards." Then with the money, they may buy a pro-level set of gulf clubs, etc.

Well, what if there is still no need to buy anything? What if, depending on your job, you are paid by the state in electricity and electricity storage capacity and the golf clubs are "free" to the citizen? Meaning, the work put into the production of the golf clubs is compensated with electricity and electric storage capacity by the single entity of the government based on public demand?

So the government will send this much electricity or electric storage capacity to whoever works to produce the golf clubs.

Since the Sun's energy can't be monopolized, there is no danger of it becoming scarce. If someone wants a more lavish lifestyle they can work for more solar electric storage and collection capacity. If someone does not, they can still live to their liking at the electric storage and collection capacity they already have.

I have to add, have access to someone with a Ph.D in these things willingly to painstakingly walk me through this, is not lost on me. Whatever our disagreements, I do appreciate this.

 

[Billy T]

Well, what if there is still no need to buy anything? What if, depending on your job, you are paid by the state in electricity and electricity storage capacity and the golf clubs are "free" to the citizen? Meaning, the work put into the production of the golf clubs is compensated with electricity and electric storage capacity by the single entity of the government based on public demand?

So the government will send this much electricity or electric storage capacity to whoever works to produce the golf clubs. ...

You seem to think everything can be free, except the sun's electric power? - That you must work harder to get more than the average person gets.

Giving free golf clubs to any one who asks for them or green and red matching cars for Christmas presents, etc. is not feasible. You need to think some more about the idea there should be no cost to asking for delivery of any passing whim that hits you mind; or if you want some committee limiting who can get what so the items can produced.

It may strike you as unfair that only the rich can drink 8 - year aged whisky but there is more real cost (not speaking of money) to making it than one year old whisky, etc.

 

[cosmictotem]

Giving free golf clubs to any one who asks for them or green and red matching cars for Christmas presents, etc. is not feasible. You need to think some more about the idea there should be no cost to asking for delivery of any passing whim that hits you mind; or if you want some committee limiting who can get what so the items can produced.

I agree giving everyone 10 of everything is not realistic or sustainable (we would break the planet) so there has to be some limits placed on how much of something people can get. But choice would still be there through the choice of people to collaborate to build whatever products they want to see available.

Also I'm not guaranteeing everyone will get access to everything (even the current market doesn't do that), but access will be determined differently, largely by availability and on a first come, first served basis when there is not enough of an item to go around. Even Capitalism doesn't guarantee access to all for all., i.e, golf clubs for everyone is not feasible in the current market either because it's not primarily a money issue but an availability issue.

But at the same time, I've now adjusted my model so that an incentive to continue to produce these products is now there. You perform your job and get paid in the electrical storage or collection capacity commensurable to the difficulty of that job and that enables you to power your home and electric vehicle. If you have more power or solar collection capacity than you need, any extra power can be stored as credit to be used later.

It seems the point we are now stuck on is how to realistically limit consumption for sustainability.

In your model if your currency can be used to buy anything and as much as you want based only on how much currency you have, your consumption of resources can be unlimited, both at an individual level and a manufacturing level, impacting environmental resources and sustainability.

In my model, if your choice is preserved but consumption is controlled at the outset (1 car per adult instead of two), the environmental impact is also controlled and sustainability preserved.

Also, in my model, if electric storage and collection capacity and electricity via renewable sources is the only resource that can be consumed in unlimited quantities, 1.) you're not going to run out of it, and, 2.) it's liberal distribution can't drain the planet of other vital resources or ruin the environment. So you could give a person as much renewable energy credits that they want to work for and not break the planet or tax multiple resources at once.

 

[Billy T]

... In your model if your currency can be used to buy anything and as much as you want based only on how much currency you have, your consumption of resources can be unlimited, ...

Only if your money is unlimited, but not even the government which "prints" can do that as then it just becomes worthless in hyper-inflation.

 

[cosmictotem]

Only if your money is unlimited, but not even the government which "prints" can do that as then it just becomes worthless in hyper-inflation.

That's not the point. The point is your consumption, if you have a ton of money, could become wasteful and totally out of step with a realistic level of sustainability. There is no regard for the possibility of resource misuse.

 

[Billy T]

That's not the point. The point is your consumption, if you have a ton of money, could become wasteful and totally out of step with a realistic level of sustainability. There is no regard for the possibility of resource misuse.

But there is. If you take significant part of the cheaper to produce material, then the cost of production from the lower grade sources increase - more money need to buy less.

Also it is a value judgment call to declare some activity "waste full" For example a rich man may like to develop / breed fast race horses, and thus provide entertainment for millions who watched the first triple crown winner in 37 years. Who gives you (or your committee) the right to say horse racing is wasteful and should be illegal? etc. for any thing else? You advocate a "scientific" dictator ship - ordering what people can do or not. Also note that many find their jobs in the employ of others.

This is not to say the collective judgment of society can not limit activities - For example I think there should be more tax on release of CO2. I.e. all use of the "commons" (air in this case) needs to cost the user, not be free, to make for better management of the commons. The problem of the commons is more and 100 years old discussion in economics, and not adequately solved yet.

 

[Michael]

Nothing that I offered is being tried right now in the US. What you are telling me doesn't work is not what I posted.

I'm not talking about the USA. Ironic enough, one of the absolutely lowest quality medical 'qualification' I've ever experienced was outside the USA in a country that has 'free' healthcare to all citizens. It pretty much mirrors 'free' education in terms of output.

Here, I'll explain my question to you again. All countries now 'regulate' who can and who can not legally practice medicine. This regulation allows for regulatory capture of the healthcare goods and service market and leads to rent seeking at all levels. ALL levels. By reducing the number of medical providers, the price of medical care goes up. But it doesn't stop there. The price of becoming a doctor also goes up.

'Regulators' at the Licencing end have a great incentive to reduce the number of people with licences and maintain a constant flow of people willing to pay 6 fat ones for a 'degree' that allows them access to these lucrative and prestigious medical markets. Licencing Regulators do not have an incentive to maintain a high quality pedagogy. Why would they? They have total control over the 'who can practice medicine' markets. It's a total monopoly. Just as you want. There's no need to worry about that nasty thing called "Profit" you appear to disdain so much. They don't have to make a profit. They can lose tax payers money all day every day (and generally do).

And the nice thing is this: If you want to practice, then you'll have to buy the degree they're offering to you. Regardless of quality. Isn't that nice? As a matter of fact, there's so much competition by people wanting to enter these highly lucrative markets as rent-seekers, there is ZERO incentive to put more money and resources into medical pedagogy - exactly the opposite is true. Cutting back on resources is the rational decision.

This isn't a hypothetical. It's an empirical fact.

What do you do when you have large public institutions, with a total monopolies on who can licence AND who can practice medicine, run by people who for whatever reasons produce an extremely low quality trained and certified medical doctor?


And I'm telling you right now it doesn't matter if 'free' Public healthcare is available or is not available. In my personal experience the worse has been in countries WITH the most 'free' public healthcare that are the ones more likely to CUT resources necessary for medical training - in my experience and many other's experience (yes, anecdotally).

So? What's your solution? And remember your 'Hero' Public Regulators are more than willing to totally eliminate Human Anatomy labs. Does that sound good to you? Getting an MD without having had Human Anatomy laboratories? They don't care and they don't have to care. See, when you run a monopoly, you're the only game in town. Public or Private.

So, I'm genuinely curious, WHAT is your solution?

 

[Billy T]

... in my personal experience the worse has been in countries WITH the 'free' healthcare. They're the more likely to cut the resources necessary for medical training - in my experience. ...

Your "countries" is plural. Will you name them? Tell why you were displeased?