|
|
| Re: Gibbs Can't Name Countries Where Government Health Care Works Better (465079) | |
 |
|
| Home > OTChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
Page 2 of 7 |
||
|
| (465273) | |
Re: Gibbs Can't Name Countries Where Government Health Care Works Better |
|
|
Posted by Fred G on Mon Jun 22 11:31:55 2009, in response to Re: Gibbs Can't Name Countries Where Government Health Care Works Better, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Mon Jun 22 10:54:18 2009. Oh I dunno, maybe cuz their industries aren't as badly hamstrung by high health insurance costs? Maybe they don't allow their insurance industry to run roughshod over everyone? Now remember, I said 'maybe' and not 'definitely'.your pal, Fred |
|
|
| (465274) | |
Re: Gibbs Can't Name Countries Where Government Health Care Works Better |
|
|
Posted by trainsarefun on Mon Jun 22 11:36:41 2009, in response to Re: Gibbs Can't Name Countries Where Government Health Care Works Better, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Mon Jun 22 10:33:27 2009. Look, fireworks aside, I think that you both agree, once you agree on an objective metric for 'better', that:1. Private enterprise does not necessarily do better in all goods and services than would an expansion of the public sector. 2. An expansion of the public sector does not necessarily do better in all lines of goods and services than would the private sector. This leaves totally open, however, the question of whether public sector healthcare is better or not, and better relative to what. To me, other than fireworks, it's not even clear what you two are disagreeing on. My own dissection of the debate as to what is feasible and what people are arguing over is here. |
|
|
| (465275) | |
Re: Gibbs Can't Name Countries Where Government Health Care Works Better |
|
|
Posted by RIPTA42HopeTunnel on Mon Jun 22 11:38:10 2009, in response to Re: Gibbs Can't Name Countries Where Government Health Care Works Better, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Mon Jun 22 09:38:15 2009. What I don't understand of these people that think that "public" is always better than private, just look at how "great" many public agencies are run, and how "happy" people are with them. Everyone just "loves" how well run the MTA is run, DMV, etc.Public isn't always better than private, but what you don't seem to grasp is that private isn't always better than publc. How many people also complain about Verizon, Sprint, Greyhound, Fung Wah, oil companies, auto mechanics, Wal-Mart, etc.? And I've never had a bad DMV experience, and that's in three states. |
|
|
| (465276) | |
Re: Gibbs Can't Name Countries Where Government Health Care Works Better |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Mon Jun 22 11:38:41 2009, in response to Re: Gibbs Can't Name Countries Where Government Health Care Works Better, posted by RIPTA42HopeTunnel on Mon Jun 22 10:57:00 2009. Automotive and food safety standards are all the result of government mandatesOf course. And I didn't say it wasn't good to have mandates (especially in terms of safety). Who says they wouldn't have implied safety standards wouldn't have been put forth on the highways had they been built privately? I didn't advocate for a system without any government involvement whatsoever. There's nothing wrong with building codes, standards, etc for safety. YOU are the one that implied that none of these safety features would be present on the highways had they been privately built. Saying a business, enterprise, etc is better in private hands in many cases, does not imply that "no" government intervention is a great system either. But there is a difference between government run systems, and systems that are private with government mandates attached. |
|
|
| (465277) | |
Re: Gibbs Can't Name Countries Where Government Health Care Works Better |
|
|
Posted by bmtlines on Mon Jun 22 11:39:19 2009, in response to Re: Gibbs Can't Name Countries Where Government Health Care Works Better, posted by trainsarefun on Mon Jun 22 11:23:55 2009. What choice did they have when subsidies were cut and they were not even permitted to raise the fare to the MTA levels?Under the MTA the fare has DOUBLED and so has the subsidy! If the companies had the same money that the city is giving to the MTA to operate the services I am sure the companies would have been able to accomplish more. |
|
|
| (465278) | |
Re: Gibbs Can't Name Countries Where Government Health Care Works Better |
|
|
Posted by RIPTA42HopeTunnel on Mon Jun 22 11:40:46 2009, in response to Re: Gibbs Can't Name Countries Where Government Health Care Works Better, posted by Olog-hai on Mon Jun 22 09:28:12 2009. You don't think a private company would be innovative enough to make a standard superior to the present government standard?I don't think all private comapnies could be trusted to adhere to a superior standard. There is no question that some private companies could, because our highway standards are developed in large part by engineers from private consulting firms. |
|
|
| (465279) | |
Re: Gibbs Can't Name Countries Where Government Health Care Works Better |
|
|
Posted by Fred G on Mon Jun 22 11:41:27 2009, in response to Re: Gibbs Can't Name Countries Where Government Health Care Works Better, posted by trainsarefun on Mon Jun 22 11:36:41 2009. I was talking about private business running without oversight. Whatever form our health care mutates to, I believe that someone accountable (like the public sector) needs to keep an eye on it, and not leave it up to the private sector alone. I believe this to be the case in all endeavors, that private industry will not police itself.your pal, Fred |
|
|
| (465280) | |
Re: Gibbs Can't Name Countries Where Government Health Care Works Better |
|
|
Posted by trainsarefun on Mon Jun 22 11:45:38 2009, in response to Re: Gibbs Can't Name Countries Where Government Health Care Works Better, posted by bmtlines on Mon Jun 22 11:39:19 2009. What choice did they have when subsidies were cut and they were not even permitted to raise the fare to the MTA levels?I wasn't in their line of work, so I can't say. But what I will say is that the other franchise holders - NY Bus Service, Liberty Lines Express, and Queens Surface - were much, much, much better. No exaggeration at all. And they were under the same strictures. In fact, I'll go one further: if the Cooper franchises were not run the way they were, and were run along the lines of the rest, I don't think that there would have even been a takeover. |
|
|
| (465281) | |
Re: Gibbs Can't Name Countries Where Government Health Care Works Better |
|
|
Posted by bmtlines on Mon Jun 22 11:52:31 2009, in response to Re: Gibbs Can't Name Countries Where Government Health Care Works Better, posted by RIPTA42HopeTunnel on Mon Jun 22 11:38:10 2009. The problem with government services is that you have no recourse and people are treated like cattle. If I lose money in a broken parking meter and get a ticket - what are my options? Do I get a refund? At the very least I would be forced to spend the price of a postage stamp, adding insult to injury, to fight the ticket. OTOH if I lost money in a public phone the company was required to issue a refund check merely upon my verbal report of the loss.Can government agencies be taken to small claims court? If I want to seek redress against a government agency I have to spend thousands on a private attorney, on the other hand if I have an issue with a private company it only costs a small filing fee to sue them in small claims court. Private companies can be overseen by government regulators but who regulates the regulators? |
|
|
| (465283) | |
Re: Gibbs Can't Name Countries Where Government Health Care Works Better |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Mon Jun 22 11:53:01 2009, in response to Re: Gibbs Can't Name Countries Where Government Health Care Works Better, posted by Fred G on Mon Jun 22 11:19:45 2009. Your claim was this:I think anyone who's worked with highways knows that private companies will cut corners wherever they can, in both design and construction. In fact anyone who's worked with any kind of construction knows that. And I was showing that the government is no better. They also cut corners when they can. The whole thread is about why Obama would want to turn to a government run health care system. For Obama to want to do that, it would mean that the federally run system would be better than the current private sector. If his spokesman can't even name countries that have good systems, much less better systems than those already in place, why would we assume that the government run system would be better, when we don't even have an example of a better run system according to Gibbs? And it's all well and good to prove that private enterprise may cut corners. There are good private companies, and there are bad ones. But how does that say that the government run system wouldn't be worse, and cut corners even worse (which they often do too - government done things certainly don't have a rep of always being done well or more economically, in fact the opposite is often true). And when things are government run, you often don't even have a choice of getting rid of a "bad private business", as the government is often the only game in town in government run enterprise. |
|
|
| (465284) | |
Re: Gibbs Can't Name Countries Where Government Health Care Works Better |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Mon Jun 22 11:56:03 2009, in response to Re: Gibbs Can't Name Countries Where Government Health Care Works Better, posted by Fred G on Mon Jun 22 11:41:27 2009. We agree on that. I never claimed private business should run rampant without any sort of controls. I never said the private sector should be "left alone" completely. But feeling private run systems, business, etc are better than government run business, doesn't imply that private enterprise shouldn't be governed at all. |
|
|
| (465285) | |
Re: Gibbs Can't Name Countries Where Government Health Care Works Better |
|
|
Posted by bmtlines on Mon Jun 22 11:57:49 2009, in response to Re: Gibbs Can't Name Countries Where Government Health Care Works Better, posted by trainsarefun on Mon Jun 22 11:45:38 2009. In fact, I'll go one further: if the Cooper franchises were not run the way they were, and were run along the lines of the rest, I don't think that there would have even been a takeover.Then why weren't they left alone? The age of the buses would have caught up to all of them - the city did not want to deal with private companies regardless of the reason. Besides NYBS, QS, and LLE had fewer routes and buses - perhaps they were not losing as much money as the Cooper lines. The city froze the subsidies - I am sure their costs were not frozen. |
|
|
| (465286) | |
Re: Gibbs Can't Name Countries Where Government Health Care Works Better |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Mon Jun 22 11:58:32 2009, in response to Re: Gibbs Can't Name Countries Where Government Health Care Works Better, posted by Fred G on Mon Jun 22 11:24:59 2009. This is true. I even said that. But obviously the government chosen work, and ordered work was INFERIOR to the work chosen directly in the private sector. There's still something wrong when the government ordered, chosen, done work is falling apart after only about 3 years (which is the case), yet the one done by the private homeowner is about as new as when it was laid. |
|
|
| (465287) | |
Re: Gibbs Can't Name Countries Where Government Health Care Works Better |
|
|
Posted by Fred G on Mon Jun 22 12:00:52 2009, in response to Re: Gibbs Can't Name Countries Where Government Health Care Works Better, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Mon Jun 22 11:53:01 2009. That's fine if you want to try to steer the conversation to how the public sector also cuts corners, and I won't argue that, but I wasn't comparing the private to public sector in terms of who designs or who builds. I lamented the performance of the private sector without public sector oversight, and I think that were our interstate system built without any public sector involvement, they wouldn't be as good as they are now. Unless, perhaps, if a 2nd, competing system were built alongside them so there'd be competition.your pal, Fred |
|
|
| (465289) | |
Re: Gibbs Can't Name Countries Where Government Health Care Works Better |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Mon Jun 22 12:07:44 2009, in response to Re: Gibbs Can't Name Countries Where Government Health Care Works Better, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Mon Jun 22 10:27:24 2009. You are too literal. And even if that was the case, of you "not" being too literal, and if these supposed countries (which of course he doesn't know where or who they are) are not "better" than the USA, then why are we trying to change it?Your comment makes no sense. Obama is not proposing to change the US Healthcare system to be a single payer system. The sentence "there are some countries where a single payer system works pretty well" does not imply that it would work pretty well in the US. Conditions are different in the US than they are in the countries where it does work pretty well, like France and the Netherlands. But that doesn't make the sentence false. |
|
|
| (465290) | |
Re: Gibbs Can't Name Countries Where Government Health Care Works Better |
|
|
Posted by LuchAAA on Mon Jun 22 12:15:21 2009, in response to Re: Gibbs Can't Name Countries Where Government Health Care Works Better, posted by AlM on Mon Jun 22 12:07:44 2009. Here in Florida, we have a radio show on 860AM for Canadians. I listened to it once or twice. Most of the sponsors were hospitals and doctors, targeting the many Candians who come to the US for both warm winters, and medical treatment. Why would they come to the US for medical treatment if their system is said to be so good? |
|
|
| (465291) | |
Re: Gibbs Can't Name Countries Where Government Health Care Works Better |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Mon Jun 22 12:16:28 2009, in response to Re: Gibbs Can't Name Countries Where Government Health Care Works Better, posted by LuchAAA on Mon Jun 22 12:15:21 2009. pwnt. |
|
|
| (465292) | |
Re: Gibbs Can't Name Countries Where Government Health Care Works Better |
|
|
Posted by LuchAAA on Mon Jun 22 12:20:08 2009, in response to Re: Gibbs Can't Name Countries Where Government Health Care Works Better, posted by Olog-hai on Mon Jun 22 12:16:28 2009. They aren't even doing hip replacements in Canada. Seriously. There are people from Canada who don't want to wait eight months for necessary treatment, so they're coming to Florida. They get a new hip and warm winter in one. |
|
|
| (465293) | |
Re: Gibbs Can't Name Countries Where Government Health Care Works Better |
|
|
Posted by trainsarefun on Mon Jun 22 12:25:03 2009, in response to Re: Gibbs Can't Name Countries Where Government Health Care Works Better, posted by bmtlines on Mon Jun 22 11:57:49 2009. Then why weren't they left alone?Political horse trading. Take none over or take them all over was the deal according to what I was told. Why that was I don't know. The age of the buses would have caught up to all of them - the city did not want to deal with private companies regardless of the reason. NYC DOT had already ordered many Orion Vs in both straight diesel and CNG in 1998-1999 as I recall it. As I understand the assessment of the fleets, the Cooper fleets other than the relatively new Orions were sometimes rolling POSs. MTA's main motivation to get rid of the 1988-1989 MCI Classics (40' buses, not to be confused with the 45' models later purchased for MTA Bus and the changeover) held in large amounts by LLE and NYBS was environmental consciousness, or so that was the story. The real problems were mainly at three of the former Cooper outfits: Triboro, Green-South Jamaica, and Green-Rockaways. Command and Jamaica Bus Lines were not too problematic based on what I recall. Buses, maintenance, safety, quality of the infrastructure, employee morale, etc., all of it was awfully poor. Besides NYBS, QS, and LLE had fewer routes and buses I don't recall the numbers exactly - I think that QS had the largest fleet, and all of it was in decent shape (I don't follow such things, but I think that it is all, with the exception of the MCI Classics then in service, all still in service, except for any vehicles totaled or under repair, etc.). NYBS and LLE did express runs. QS ran both local and express service from its depot in College Point, including for a bunch of local routes in Western Queens fairly far from College Point. So again, I just think that something was wrong with how the three very problematic outfits were being run, even when you compare it to QS and not the other two. |
|
|
| (465294) | |
Re: Gibbs Can't Name Countries Where Government Health Care Works Better |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Mon Jun 22 12:25:05 2009, in response to Re: Gibbs Can't Name Countries Where Government Health Care Works Better, posted by RIPTA42HopeTunnel on Mon Jun 22 11:38:10 2009. Public isn't always better than private, but what you don't seem to grasp is that private isn't always better than publc.I understand that completely. I don't see how the MTA could be run privately (as flawed as they are). I don't see how the highways could have been built privately (although disagree that they would have been unsafe had they been). The original argument is about healthcare, and Gibbs not being able to tell us one country that has a good health care system that works well publically, or is better than the one we have in the US (even if flawed). How many people also complain about Verizon, Sprint, Greyhound, Fung Wah, oil companies, auto mechanics, Wal-Mart, etc.? Of course, so if you have Verizon, you go to Sprint if you don't like them, if you don't like Sprint, you go to AT&T, and so forth. If you don't like Jiffy Lube, you go to a different garage. If you don't like Mobil, you go to Shell. Don't like K-Mart? Go to Target, and so on.... With government run systems, you don't have that luxury often times. |
|
|
| (465295) | |
Re: Gibbs Can't Name Countries Where Government Health Care Works Better |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Mon Jun 22 12:29:23 2009, in response to Re: Gibbs Can't Name Countries Where Government Health Care Works Better, posted by LuchAAA on Mon Jun 22 12:15:21 2009. Why would they come to the US for medical treatment if their system is said to be so good?Did you read what I wrote? I said France and the Netherlands. You won't catch me saying the Canadian system "works well". |
|
|
| (465296) | |
Re: Gibbs Can't Name Countries Where Government Health Care Works Better |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Mon Jun 22 12:37:04 2009, in response to Re: Gibbs Can't Name Countries Where Government Health Care Works Better, posted by bmtlines on Mon Jun 22 11:29:15 2009. Actually the IRT subway division was profitable - the Manhattan Elevated leases were dragging them down.And again that would probably drag down to too much government intervention too. The owner of the leases on the els was the City of New York, a government agency? And then of course you get into the fact that they couldn't just "abandon" lines that weren't profitable, as true private run system would be able to do. (This is forgetting the fact that of course you NEED these lines for the public good too, which would get into the whole argument that transportation is very hard to be run totally privately). Then there is also the 800-lb gorilla in the room - the IND. The companies would have had a chance IF it had not been built. And much worse, a PUBLIC entity that was built directly with putting the private companies out of business in many cases of many of the routes. The ultimate in Government takeover basically forced. (Not to imply I didn't think it was a good idea, but that's not the topic being discussed). That is not to say that it is bad that subways replaced elevated lines such as at Fulton St in Brooklyn but what if the Fulton St subway were turned over to the BMT while the Sixth and Eighth avenue subways were turned over to the IRT? Excellent point, and also if the fare wasn't at 5 cents forced, and unrealistic, but also the GOVERNMENT run IND purposely wanted to put the IRT and BMT out of business.... As for a unified system - the BMT recognized the need for a unified system in 1927 and probably would have merged with the IRT at some point. In fact steps toward such a merger were taken - in the early 1930's BMT management had acquired contol of the IRT through stock ownership but they were forced to sell the shares. Apparently private monopolies are evil but public ones are glorified :( Absolutely. And this is not to say the combined IRT/BMT (along with IND handed over to them to run) would still be with us in 2009, but at the same time, they wouldn't have been forced out of business as they basically were at the time due to the 5 cents fare, city competition and duplication of routes, leases, rents, etc. |
|
|
| (465298) | |
Re: Gibbs Can't Name Countries Where Government Health Care Works Better |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Mon Jun 22 12:43:56 2009, in response to Re: Gibbs Can't Name Countries Where Government Health Care Works Better, posted by Fred G on Mon Jun 22 11:31:55 2009. I dunno either, but are they as innovative in those countries in drugs, procedure, etc? The US has led the way in many of those fields, and that with it's "inferior" system (as claimed). I never said that our system was unflawed....but that is not to say that government is better....I mean Mr Gibbs can't even name a country that is better..... |
|
|
| (465299) | |
Re: Gibbs Can't Name Countries Where Government Health Care Works Better |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Mon Jun 22 12:46:47 2009, in response to Re: Gibbs Can't Name Countries Where Government Health Care Works Better, posted by Fred G on Mon Jun 22 12:00:52 2009. Fred, the whole thread is about how the public healthcare would be better or worse than the private healthcare...the whole thread is about comparing government run to private run. Why is the subthread about the highways any different, especially since it is being used in context to the main topic of this thread? |
|
|
| (465300) | |
Re: Gibbs Can't Name Countries Where Government Health Care Works Better |
|
|
Posted by trainsarefun on Mon Jun 22 12:47:21 2009, in response to Re: Gibbs Can't Name Countries Where Government Health Care Works Better, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Mon Jun 22 12:37:04 2009. And again that would probably drag down to too much government intervention too. The owner of the leases on the els was the City of New York, a government agency?Do you suppose that a private sector land lessor would be kinder and gentler? That isn't the case anywhere in the world so far as I know, especially in Britain (where it's far more common), but even in the far fewer cases in our area. E.g., there is a prominent coop development in our area, in a very nice neighborhood, that is seeing a run of sales since the land lease is expiring soon, and the rent is expected to increase. I still think that the BMT would have fared fine or even well. But not so the IRT. |
|
|
| (465302) | |
Re: Gibbs Can't Name Countries Where Government Health Care Works Better |
|
|
Posted by trainsarefun on Mon Jun 22 12:50:51 2009, in response to Re: Gibbs Can't Name Countries Where Government Health Care Works Better, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Mon Jun 22 12:43:56 2009. I mean Mr Gibbs can't even name a country that is better.....Even if Mr. Gibbs thought that there was such a country, he wouldn't name it. He could even be right, and politically/rhetorically it wouldn't matter. So I think that in some very real sense, this is just making a mountain out of molehill. E.g., what happened when President Bush's people responded by naming a country where nuclear power worked? They said France, and rhetoric led to P-U. So Mr. Gibbs handled the question right, strategically speaking, even though it was a total dodge. That's part of the political game. |
|
|
| (465303) | |
Re: Gibbs Can't Name Countries Where Government Health Care Works Better |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Mon Jun 22 12:52:28 2009, in response to Re: Gibbs Can't Name Countries Where Government Health Care Works Better, posted by trainsarefun on Mon Jun 22 12:47:21 2009. Again, as I mentioned, in the case of transportation, you mix the need of "the public good, and need for transportation, regardless of profitability". I said many times, that it is next to impossible to run transportation completely privately, and without government subsidy, etc....but again, you have a business there that the public absolutely must have, regardless of whether it is profitable or not...the same would go for roads, etc. |
|
|
| (465305) | |
Re: Gibbs Can't Name Countries Where Government Health Care Works Better |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Mon Jun 22 12:57:34 2009, in response to Re: Gibbs Can't Name Countries Where Government Health Care Works Better, posted by AlM on Mon Jun 22 12:07:44 2009. Conditions are different in the US than they are in the countries where it does work pretty well, like France and the Netherlands. But that doesn't make the sentence false.Then why wouldn't Gibbs know this? And again, if it's so great there, that would mean it's BETTER than the US's current sustem, otherwise why would Obama want to switch to it? (And yes, his plan would ultimately lead to that). And if they are NOT better than the US system, it would be reprehensible for Obama to make our system the system they have in the Netherlands or France. Furthermore, the example of Canadians coming to the US for healthcare is also not something that could be applied comparing it to the Netherlands and France. Just because the Dutch and French don't come to the US for procedure, like the Canadians often do, doesn't mean the dutch or French systems are better than ours either. It's a lot easier for Canadians to take advantage of the US system than it would be for the Dutch or French to, due to geography. |
|
|
| (465308) | |
Re: Gibbs Can't Name Countries Where Government Health Care Works Better |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Mon Jun 22 12:59:59 2009, in response to Re: Gibbs Can't Name Countries Where Government Health Care Works Better, posted by LuchAAA on Mon Jun 22 12:20:08 2009. The US system has been one of the most innovative in the world. Not to bad for such an inferior system Obama wants to do away with to make more like some other countries (whichever they may be, since Gibbs doesn't know) that haven't been as innovative as the US.Does thew US system have flaws? No question, but there is no evidence we would be better under some other system, government run, and plenty of evidence to suggest the opposite. |
|
|
| (465309) | |
Re: Gibbs Can't Name Countries Where Government Health Care Works Better |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Mon Jun 22 13:02:21 2009, in response to Re: Gibbs Can't Name Countries Where Government Health Care Works Better, posted by trainsarefun on Mon Jun 22 12:50:51 2009. So Mr. Gibbs handled the question right, strategically speaking, even though it was a total dodge. That's part of the political game.Of course, Gibbs handled it perfectly. He does his job perfectly.... He is paid to protect the administration, and he does an A+ job at that. So yes, Gibbs answered the question perfectly for his job description. The issue here isn't whether or not Gibbs is doing his job well, as he certainly is.... |
|
|
| (465310) | |
Re: Gibbs Can't Name Countries Where Government Health Care Works Better |
|
|
Posted by trainsarefun on Mon Jun 22 13:03:23 2009, in response to Re: Gibbs Can't Name Countries Where Government Health Care Works Better, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Mon Jun 22 12:52:28 2009. I agree, and as I indicated, ultimately I think that beneath the surface, there is a lot of core agreement in this topic, regardless of transportation or healthcare.The problem is that on healthcare we don't have details, and without that you can't evaluate the merits of any actual proposal. But with even some of the details, as I indicated in my first posted response in this topic, I think that the both the Democrats' bill and the bipartisan bill, are both politically infeasible, for the reasons stated earlier. |
|
|
| (465312) | |
Re: Gibbs Can't Name Countries Where Government Health Care Works Better |
|
|
Posted by trainsarefun on Mon Jun 22 13:07:04 2009, in response to Re: Gibbs Can't Name Countries Where Government Health Care Works Better, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Mon Jun 22 12:57:34 2009. And yes, his plan would ultimately lead to that).What are his plans? I would love to know. Because all we have are some points, but not all of them. Based on those points alone, I don't think that the Democrats' plan will fly, politically speaking. I think the same applies, mind you, to the bipartisan bill, even though that legislation involves no 'public option'. |
|
|
| (465318) | |
Re: Gibbs Can't Name Countries Where Government Health Care Works Better |
|
|
Posted by Fred G on Mon Jun 22 13:15:53 2009, in response to Re: Gibbs Can't Name Countries Where Government Health Care Works Better, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Mon Jun 22 13:02:21 2009. His job sucks, cuz the better he does it, the more we ridicule him lol.your pal, Fred |
|
|
| (465324) | |
Re: Gibbs Can't Name Countries Where Government Health Care Works Better |
|
|
Posted by trainsarefun on Mon Jun 22 13:27:05 2009, in response to Re: Gibbs Can't Name Countries Where Government Health Care Works Better, posted by Fred G on Mon Jun 22 13:15:53 2009. I've watched him a few times. He's the best at it that I have seen in a very long time. |
|
|
| (465327) | |
Re: Gibbs Can't Name Countries Where Government Health Care Works Better |
|
|
Posted by Easy on Mon Jun 22 13:30:17 2009, in response to Re: Gibbs Can't Name Countries Where Government Health Care Works Better, posted by LuchAAA on Mon Jun 22 12:20:08 2009. I kind of agree. I don't know the percentage, but my understanding (from relatives) is that lots of people in Canada have private health care insurance because they don't think the govermnent option is a very good one. The people that you describe must have insurance or they are very wealthy and for some reason chose to not have insurance. Either way my point is that it wouldn't make sense that they would have to wait months for treatment in Canada. Canada has private networks just like we do. They must just think that the care is better here, which maybe it is for people with money/insurance. |
|
|
| (465329) | |
Re: Gibbs Can't Name Countries Where Government Health Care Works Better |
|
|
Posted by RIPTA42HopeTunnel on Mon Jun 22 13:32:47 2009, in response to Re: Gibbs Can't Name Countries Where Government Health Care Works Better, posted by bmtlines on Mon Jun 22 11:52:31 2009. The problem with government services is that you have no recourse and people are treated like cattle. If I lose money in a broken parking meter and get a ticket - what are my options? Do I get a refund? At the very least I would be forced to spend the price of a postage stamp, adding insult to injury, to fight the ticket.You can contest a ticket online in New York. OTOH if I lost money in a public phone the company was required to issue a refund check merely upon my verbal report of the loss That's not true for all private enterprise. You can buy a product that's missing a piece, spend hours on the phone with "customer service," and end up paying shipping on the replacement part yourself. You can pay for insurance through a private company, then have a claim denied for an arbitrary reason with little or no recourse. |
|
|
| (465330) | |
Re: Gibbs Can't Name Countries Where Government Health Care Works Better |
|
|
Posted by Easy on Mon Jun 22 13:34:52 2009, in response to Re: Gibbs Can't Name Countries Where Government Health Care Works Better, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Mon Jun 22 11:06:09 2009. I don't agree with your premise. There is no plan to replace our health care system. There are ideas regarding adding an additional government run system to benefit the large portion of the country for which the current system doesn't work. There will still be private doctors and private insurance. That will very likely be "better" care than the government run one.I'm really not trying to be split hairs, but I think that you're misrepresenting what was said because you want to be indignant. |
|
|
| (465331) | |
Re: Gibbs Can't Name Countries Where Government Health Care Works Better |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Mon Jun 22 13:35:55 2009, in response to Re: Gibbs Can't Name Countries Where Government Health Care Works Better, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Mon Jun 22 12:57:34 2009. You still aren't making any sense.By many standards the French and Dutch systems work pretty well. By some standards the US system works very well; by others, really poorly. President Obama is proposing changes to make the US system work better. HE IS NOT PROPOSING THAT THE US SYSTEM BE MODELED AFTER THE FRENCH OR DUTCH SYSTEM. So why do you keep saying "why would Obama want to switch to it?" HE DOESN'T. |
|
|
| (465332) | |
Re: Gibbs Can't Name Countries Where Government Health Care Works Better |
|
|
Posted by BMTLines on Mon Jun 22 13:37:30 2009, in response to Re: Gibbs Can't Name Countries Where Government Health Care Works Better, posted by trainsarefun on Mon Jun 22 12:25:03 2009. So again, I just think that something was wrong with how the three very problematic outfits were being run, even when you compare it to QS and not the other two.The problem is that we will never know what they could have accomplished if they had access to the same subsidy and fare structure and new buses that the city gave the MTA. The bottom line is that it is a poor example when comparing government vs private ownership/operation since the government restricted their revenue stream. In effect they were government contractors - nothing more. |
|
|
| (465333) | |
Re: Gibbs Can't Name Countries Where Government Health Care Works Better |
|
|
Posted by RIPTA42HopeTunnel on Mon Jun 22 13:38:05 2009, in response to Re: Gibbs Can't Name Countries Where Government Health Care Works Better, posted by trainsarefun on Mon Jun 22 12:25:03 2009. I think that QS had the largest fleet, and all of it was in decent shape (I don't follow such things, but I think that it is all, with the exception of the MCI Classics then in service, all still in service, except for any vehicles totaled or under repair, etc.).Queens Surface's fleet was in relatively good shape because it was the youngest fleet. They had all their GMC RTSes replaced by TMCs in 1993 because the GMCs were in the worst shape out of all the privates. Note also that QSC's Classics were the first to go under MTA Bus. |
|
|
| (465336) | |
Re: Gibbs Can't Name Countries Where Government Health Care Works Better |
|
|
Posted by BMTLines on Mon Jun 22 13:43:54 2009, in response to Re: Gibbs Can't Name Countries Where Government Health Care Works Better, posted by RIPTA42HopeTunnel on Mon Jun 22 13:32:47 2009. You can buy a product that's missing a piece, spend hours on the phone with "customer service," and end up paying shipping on the replacement part yourself.What company did that? I've had no problem getting replacements for missing parts from several furniture kit manufacturers over the years. You can pay for insurance through a private company, then have a claim denied for an arbitrary reason with little or no recourse. That's a failure of the oversight system put in place by government. Note that I am not opposed to reasonable regulations but I am opposed to total government ownership and control. |
|
|
| (465337) | |
Re: Gibbs Can't Name Countries Where Government Health Care Works Better |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Mon Jun 22 13:44:21 2009, in response to Re: Gibbs Can't Name Countries Where Government Health Care Works Better, posted by Fred G on Mon Jun 22 13:15:53 2009. Yes, he is excellent at dancing around questions so the administration doesn't have to answer the questions. That is his job, and he does it well. But that doesn't say a whole lot about this hairbrained healthcare plan, which seeing the administration (through him) isn't answering the question..... |
|
|
| (465339) | |
Re: Gibbs Can't Name Countries Where Government Health Care Works Better |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Mon Jun 22 13:47:28 2009, in response to Re: Gibbs Can't Name Countries Where Government Health Care Works Better, posted by Easy on Mon Jun 22 13:30:17 2009. Reasonable....so then why are we going to spend in the trillions for this again? |
|
|
| (465340) | |
Re: Gibbs Can't Name Countries Where Government Health Care Works Better |
|
|
Posted by Fred G on Mon Jun 22 13:47:35 2009, in response to Re: Gibbs Can't Name Countries Where Government Health Care Works Better, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Mon Jun 22 13:44:21 2009. We haven't seen the President's health care plan, hairbrained or not. I'll comment upon it after I've seen it. I doubt Gibbs has even seen it.your pal, Fred |
|
|
| (465341) | |
Re: Gibbs Can't Name Countries Where Government Health Care Works Better |
|
|
Posted by Fred G on Mon Jun 22 13:50:22 2009, in response to Re: Gibbs Can't Name Countries Where Government Health Care Works Better, posted by trainsarefun on Mon Jun 22 13:27:05 2009. It might be his calling.your pal, Fred |
|
|
| (465342) | |
Re: Gibbs Can't Name Countries Where Government Health Care Works Better |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Mon Jun 22 13:50:35 2009, in response to Re: Gibbs Can't Name Countries Where Government Health Care Works Better, posted by Easy on Mon Jun 22 13:34:52 2009. I do not at all want to be "indignant"....you were appearing "indingnant", and that's why I responded. And if we can't even get an answer out of the administration (through Gibbs) on countries where the system works "well", how can we accept any of those as better than our own system? Our system is far from perfect, but there doesn't appear to be one that is "better". And even after spending TRILLIONS of dollars on this healthcare plan, there are still going to be people without, or with inferior healthcare than they are getting now. |
|
|
| (465343) | |
Re: Gibbs Can't Name Countries Where Government Health Care Works Better |
|
|
Posted by RIPTA42HopeTunnel on Mon Jun 22 13:50:41 2009, in response to Re: Gibbs Can't Name Countries Where Government Health Care Works Better, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Mon Jun 22 12:57:34 2009. Then why wouldn't Gibbs know this?Because the question was "The President actually told the AMA that 'there are some countries where a single-payer system works pretty well.' Do you know what countries he was referring to or what he was talking about?" It's the President's job to put words in the press secretary's mouth, not the other way around. And again, if it's so great there, that would mean it's BETTER than the US's current sustem, otherwise why would Obama want to switch to it? (And yes, his plan would ultimately lead to that). And if they are NOT better than the US system, it would be reprehensible for Obama to make our system the system they have in the Netherlands or France. Guess who agrees with you? Barack Obama! Here's the excerpt from the speech to the AMA we're talking about: "What are not legitimate concerns are those being put forward claiming a public option is somehow a Trojan horse for a single-payer system. I'll be honest. There are countries where a single-payer system may be working. But I believe – and I've even taken some flak from members of my own party for this belief – that it is important for us to build on our traditions here in the United States. So, when you hear the naysayers claim that I'm trying to bring about government-run health care, know this – they are not telling the truth." |
|
|
| (465344) | |
Re: Gibbs Can't Name Countries Where Government Health Care Works Better |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Mon Jun 22 13:52:10 2009, in response to Re: Gibbs Can't Name Countries Where Government Health Care Works Better, posted by AlM on Mon Jun 22 13:35:55 2009. By many standards the French and Dutch systems work pretty well.Perhaps, but that is you telling us this (whether true or not), not Gibbs or the Administration. YOU are trying to tell us "what Gibbs really meant", which he didn't say. |
|
|
| (465346) | |
Re: Gibbs Can't Name Countries Where Government Health Care Works Better |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Mon Jun 22 13:57:49 2009, in response to Re: Gibbs Can't Name Countries Where Government Health Care Works Better, posted by Fred G on Mon Jun 22 13:47:35 2009. Maybe he has, maybe he hasn't, and the thread is about the answer he gave....which tells us nothing. When the administration answers us vaguely, all that does is open the far from complete answer for speculation. I don't know about you, but I don't like when my government doesn't answer questions, or dances around questions. It's one of the few times the press actually has asked real questions of the administration (instead of what the president finds "enchanting" about being president), and we didn't get an answer. It's not a bad or hard question. Which countries have a healthcare system like this that works well. If they can't even answer that, and you are fine with that, perhaps it shows what a problem we have with communication with this administration if they only answer questions they want to answer, while proposing to spend trillions of our tax dollars. It's not like it was some technical question here....imagine it was. |
|
|
| (465349) | |
Re: Gibbs Can't Name Countries Where Government Health Care Works Better |
|
|
Posted by Easy on Mon Jun 22 14:04:21 2009, in response to Re: Gibbs Can't Name Countries Where Government Health Care Works Better, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Mon Jun 22 13:50:35 2009. I appeared indignant? Where? I'm certainly not. |
|
|
|
Page 2 of 7 |
||