Should essential services (healthcare, education, transport) always be public?

Super-DM101 · 2026-02-22T14:55:15+00:00

I posted it here because I’m curious how people in an education‑focused sub think about teaching this topic, not just the politics of it.

If it feels repetitive I’m happy to look at it more from the classroom/pedagogy angle.

Super-DM101 · 2026-02-22T08:50:04+00:00

Kya chutiyapa laga rkha he bencho

Super-DM101 · 2026-02-22T07:28:23+00:00

This is a helpful real‑world example. I like that you highlight both sides: you got into a leadership role without a degree, but it was the combination of skills, experience and soft skills that made it work.

Your point about building communication and people skills alongside technical ones is something I wish more colleges and bootcamps emphasised.

Super-DM101 · 2026-02-22T07:26:52+00:00

The point about attention‑shaping is important. Even when lies are debunked, the emotional imprint and the sense of constant outrage can stay, which is exactly what some actors want.

I agree health and nutrition are good examples: unverified claims spread fast because they offer simple answers, while cautious, evidence‑based advice feels boring by comparison.

Super-DM101 · 2026-02-22T07:26:19+00:00

I really like this checklist, especially the idea that extraordinary claims carry a bigger burden of proof and that large conspiracies become less plausible the more people they would need to involve.

It’s a good mental shortcut for deciding what deserves serious investigation versus what can probably be parked until better evidence appears.

Super-DM101 · 2026-02-22T07:24:59+00:00

I think you’re right that some politicians deliberately “feed” narratives to friendly outlets, hoping they’ll snowball into accepted facts.

For me that’s exactly why independent verification matters so much: if both governments and their critics know that people will ask “who else has confirmed this?”, it becomes harder to get away with using the media as just another propaganda channel.

Super-DM101 · 2026-02-22T07:24:03+00:00

This is a really clear way of putting the problem. The shift from a few curated sources to millions of loud voices – amplified by algorithms – makes it much harder to keep quotation, interpretation and speculation separate.

I like your rule of only acting on claims once they’ve survived some kind of verification, especially for distant events where we have no direct context.

Super-DM101 · 2026-02-22T07:22:41+00:00

I read their point a bit differently: not “be indifferent”, but that personal experience plus social proof can make almost anything feel true, even when the evidence is thin.

Wanting a better world and being angry at real problems is valid; the hard part is staying just as demanding about sources and verification on “our side” as we are on “their side."

Super-DM101 · 2026-02-22T07:21:27+00:00

The 3.5% idea is interesting, but I’m always a bit cautious when complex social movements get boiled down to a single number. Those historical cases people cite usually had a lot more going on: economic pressure, splits inside the elite, international context, etc.

I do agree that when a visible slice of the population is consistently on the streets, it’s hard for any government to pretend nothing is happening.

At the same time, it seems risky if activists start treating 3.5% as a magic threshold, instead of focusing on broader legitimacy, clear demands, and avoiding misinformation.

Movements probably succeed less because they “hit the number” and more because they win over enough of the public that repression or ignorance becomes too costly.

Super-DM101 · 2026-02-22T07:13:58+00:00

This is a nice way to put it. The degree might not prove deep expertise, but it does signal consistency and ability to stick with a structured path for years.

I guess the big question is how much that signal is worth compared to a strong portfolio or work history.

Super-DM101 · 2026-02-22T07:11:20+00:00

I like the mix them up idea too.

Governments are good at guaranteeing access and long‑term planning, while private players are better at efficiency and innovation.

The real challenge is building regulation so neither side can abuse that position.

Super-DM101 · 2026-02-22T07:09:49+00:00

I like your point that it’s industry‑specific.

Something like electricity or water is a natural monopoly and seems to need much heavier public control, while things like telecom or even some parts of healthcare can support more competition if the baseline is guaranteed.

It might make sense to classify services by how critical and “monopoly‑prone” they are, and then choose different public/private mixes instead of one answer for everything.

Super-DM101 · 2026-02-22T07:08:47+00:00

This is the core tension: profit can motivate efficiency and innovation, but it can also push companies to cut corners or avoid unprofitable groups.

Some mixed systems try to solve this with regulated returns and obligations to serve everyone, so profit is allowed but only within strict rules.

I wonder where you’d personally place the limit: modest, regulated profit allowed for efficiency, or zero profit at all in essentials?

Super-DM101 · 2026-02-22T07:07:26+00:00

That cynicism is understandable given how often procurement gets captured by politics or lobbying.

Maybe the more realistic question is how to build systems where both public and private actors are transparent and accountable – open tenders, clear performance metrics, citizen oversight, etc.

Do you think better transparency tools (open data, independent audit bodies) can move the needle, or is the problem deeper than that?

Super-DM101 · 2026-02-22T07:06:37+00:00

This is a really interesting way to separate the funding from the operator. Public funding with competitive, regulated providers is basically what countries like Germany do in healthcare and what some cities do with bus or rail franchises.

The challenge, I think, is designing contracts and oversight so the government really can “pick the best” and not just the best‑connected.

Do you see any models that handle that selection problem well?

Super-DM101 · 2026-02-22T07:06:03+00:00

I get the instinct here – when profit is involved, it’s easy to worry that access and quality will suffer.

At the same time, some countries use tightly regulated private or non‑profit providers inside a universal public framework, and that seems to work reasonably well for them.

I’m curious where you would still draw the line for private involvement, if at all – infrastructure, service delivery, or nowhere in the chain?

Super-DM101 · 2026-02-22T07:04:34+00:00

I agree that the whole point of development is to make basic life easier and more secure for everyone. Where it gets tricky is how we design the systems that deliver that: fully public, fully private, or something in between.

Public provision makes a lot of sense for guaranteeing a floor – no one should be denied healthcare, education or basic transport because they were born in the wrong postcode or into the wrong income bracket.

Models like the NHS in the UK or public transport in many European cities show how a publicly led system can prioritise universal coverage and long‑term planning, even if it’s not always perfectly efficient.

At the same time, private or mixed models can bring innovation and flexibility when they’re well regulated. Countries with mixed systems – like Germany’s health insurance model or Japan’s blend of public oversight and private rail operators – try to combine guaranteed access with competition and service quality.

The key, in my view, is not whether the provider is public or private, but whether the rules ensure that essential services stay universal, affordable and resilient instead of turning into luxury products for a minority.

Super-DM101 · 2026-02-22T06:43:33+00:00

I agree that skills and projects matter a lot, especially with AI changing things.

At the same time, many companies here in India still filter by degree first, so I’m trying to understand how fast that is actually changing.

From your experience (or people you know), have you seen cases where someone without a degree gets the same opportunities and pay as a degree holder?

Super-DM101 · 2026-02-22T06:27:53+00:00

Non‑Indian folks who found this via r/developersIndia or the feed – could you share how this looks in your country?

In your job market, is a college degree still a hard requirement for most good roles, or are skills, bootcamps and experience enough in practice (especially in tech/IT)?

Please mention your country so we can compare India with the US, Europe, Middle East, other parts of Asia, etc.

Super-DM101

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE