Did anyone even read the article?
Oh wait. I forgot. Most people here can't read.
Basically, slower (read: older) trains lost money.
But high speed, new trains made money.
Furthermore, this dude makes an excellent summary:
Trains.com - Trains Magazine - Online Community - Amtrak's FY 2008 Key Performance Numbers
Lesson to learn? Focus on high traffic, high speed. Ditch low traffic, low speed.
"If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him." - Sun Tzu
But you got the point. . . However, I meant that making money off of people's need for medical coverage is wrong.
I think a minimal margin is sufficient - anything 'vastly profitable' and it's more like stealing rather than providing a service, imho.
A screaming comes across the sky.
It has happened before, but there is nothing to compare it to now.Pynchon - Gravity's Rainbow
Is there a public system in the US that is really profitable? I believe that the HONEST answer is no; there is not, never will be and it requires a stunning level of self imposed denial to believe there will be.
If private enterprise looks at something and concludes that there will not be enough customers to pay back the investment, why then should the taxpayers fund it for a select few that might use the system?