Universal Health Care Reform in the United States

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by anthonyvop

BTW Passenger Air travel is much cheaper and more efficient than rail. The only reason it is cheaper in some countries is because it is subsidized by governments.

---

It isn't more efficient in a nation like the UK where you can take a train and be across it in 4 hours. When you factor in time getting to and from the airport and delays (something anyone on a plane now can relate to), only longer trips are more efficient on planes. Between larger cities in the UK, rail makes good sense. Just like the only money making lines AMTRAK has likely run between Washington and NYC and on to Boston. Get out of that corridor and time and distance favour aviation.

The only reason it is messed up in Britain likely is because the privatization was done with all sorts of conditions that made British rail a money loser that were likely put on the private operators. I don't know all the ins and outs, but if I were to guess, the private owners of lines are being obligated to provide money losing services that the government just absorbed the costs of. Just like Via Rail in Canada runs trains to communities that cant really justify a stop. The Gov't has people to answer to beyond a balance sheet.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

Much as you have done in relation to right-wing political philosophies. There's precious little depth of thinking involved.

---

Wrong..but that is ok, you and I wont agree anyhow. Capitalism and right wing philosophy have done a lot to improve the world, despite your disagreement to the contrary. While you may think this green revolution is necessary, it has to be done in such a way that matters. What is being done now, whether it be the green revolution or pushing the Yank's into public healthcare is emotionally charged nonsense without any intellectual proof or scrutiny. The right may not always get things "right" in your books, but they base a lot of they believe in based on human experience. Look no further than capitalism itself. We saw what happened when you take away human nature for improving one's self economically. The USSR was a total basketcase economically and morally.....There is no soft socialism that works because it all comes back to ignoring human nature.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mark in Oshawa

Wrong..but that is ok, you and I wont agree anyhow. Capitalism and right wing philosophy have done a lot to improve the world, despite your disagreement to the contrary. While you may think this green revolution is necessary, it has to be done in such a way that matters. What is being done now, whether it be the green revolution or pushing the Yank's into public healthcare is emotionally charged nonsense without any intellectual proof or scrutiny. The right may not always get things "right" in your books, but they base a lot of they believe in based on human experience. Look no further than capitalism itself. We saw what happened when you take away human nature for improving one's self economically. The USSR was a total basketcase economically and morally.....There is no soft socialism that works because it all comes back to ignoring human nature.

---

He wasn't saying there was precious little thinking involved in right wing philosophies, he was saying there was precious little thinking involved in Vop's adherence to right-wing philosophies.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

No, because of the environmental damage caused (fact, not something dreamed up to annoy the unthinking right) and the utter absurdity of the situation in question.

---

So you believe that CO2 is a pollutant? Even though there have been times in earth's past with FAR greater concentrations of CO2, and life THRIVED? Quick question, can man more easilly survive in warm climates or cold?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

Again, you are commenting on something about which you seem to know little, other than what your pre-conceived notions tell you that you ought to think. The British railways were far better run when they were run by the state. They have been ruined by privatisation, which has introduced competition where once there was co-operation. All it has done is allowed the government to get the railways off its books, even though they probably cost the taxpayer much more on an annual basis now, not something that any of the parties will admit. It is a classic example of how the private sector definitely does not enjoy any form of superiority.

---

Maybe, maybe not. You seem to just discount taxes payed. It's not a free lunch even if it's government run.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

I would suspect that the only reason you think rail travel should maybe be done away with is because those concerned with the environment see it as the way forward, and your own views do not tally with this; therefore, it must somehow be a backward step, and not to be supported. In fact, travelling between Paris and London, and indeed many other European city pairs, by train is quicker than doing so by aircraft, as well as being far more environmentally friendly and far less hassle. In these circumstances, it is air travel that should gradually be done away with — and I say this as an aviation journalist.

---

I don't think it should "be done away with". I just think it's time has passed. I know that sometimes travelling by rail is better, and it should stay in those instances.

By your logic, shouldn't the horse and buggy have been subsidised by the government? I mean it is more "environmentally friendly". Except maybe all those horse farts?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

Exactly. See above. And also see the many other 'less efficient' means of transport that one could name. How, exactly, have Ferrari or Porsche 'adapted' to changing circumstances? Their products are more expensive and less efficient than other cars. Should they be forced to 'go away'?

---

You apparently don't know about this new concept of market driven economies. You see, in some countries, economics drive the markets. In these so called "markets", consumers make decisions on what they would like to purchase. In your example, Porsche and Ferrari, have a product that enough consumers have decided to purchase that those companies can make enough profit (I know that's an evil word to some) to stay in business. The British Rail system apparently does not do a good enough job to turn much of a profit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

Not 'feel green', but 'be green'. There is a significant difference.

---

Again, CO2 is not a pollutant. IT'S PLANT FOOD.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BeansBeansBeans

He wasn't saying there was precious little thinking involved in right wing philosophies, he was saying there was precious little thinking involved in Vop's adherence to right-wing philosophies.

---

Right-Wing?
Hardly.

Last I heard the railways actually cost the government ten times as much now than when they were state owned. Just imagine what British Rail could have done with that money. At the moment it is going into the pockets of corporations along the way.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mark

Last I heard the railways actually cost the government ten times as much now than when they were state owned. Just imagine what British Rail could have done with that money. At the moment it is going into the pockets of corporations along the way.

---

Why would the government be paying for a privatly owned service? That just sounds dumb. Perhaps the gov. should cut ALL subsidies to a service once "privitised"?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chuck34

You apparently don't know about this new concept of market driven economies. You see, in some countries, economics drive the markets. In these so called "markets", consumers make decisions on what they would like to purchase.

---

Suppliers on the other hand, do not supply goods or services where profits can not be made, nor will they lower their prices to the point of affordability for consumers.
In such circumstances the consumers are either prices takers, because they do not have enough influence on the market to influence prices or alternatively if they simply can not afford it, those consumers do not get those goods and services. The concept is called "market failure".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chuck34

So the government needs to step in and prop up a less efficient, more costly system just so you can feel "green"?

---

In the case of healthcare, the public is propping up private firms for a more costly system. And because those same firms have such a sway in Washington, the consumer will continue to have zero influence in determining prices.