• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Report: Amtrak loss comes to $32 per passenger

Re: And You Want the Government to Run Health Care?

Ethereal said:
The health insurance industry currently has a 2.2% profit margin; that's pretty thin. I don't suspect they can lower prices much further and remain in business.

FACT CHECK: Health insurer profits not so fat - Yahoo! News
Click to expand...

Well that's why you should try to make money off of paying for people's health issues.

Which is the inherent evil of insurers.

However, at the same time, if they weren't around then most people would be up a creek.

So, really, regardless of what Obama does or doesn't do they still have ot deal with the actual COST of items and medicines going higher.
And in his care-package there's nothing that addresses that core issue.
 
Re: And You Want the Government to Run Health Care?

Amtrak is getting that line built down to CA. That will improve things. Its problem hasn't been government funding, it's problem is that it needs more infrastructure which only the government can push forward. It needs more rails, more availability, and more competitive pricing.

I think once the line to CA is complete and there's swipe cards it'll be in a better position to profit.
 
why are we talking about health care instead of Amtrak?


There is an argument to be made that infrastructure is worthwhile independent of whether or not it operates at a profit.

There is also an argument to be made that poorly utilized routes should be closed, but homestate senators won't close those routes.

There is an argument to be made to expand routes, making the system more comprehensive, thus increasing utilization across the system.

But the arguments about healthcare in this thread are out of place.
 
Re: And You Want the Government to Run Health Care?

jallman said:
Do you really have to spam every breaking news thread with this post?

Mod envy, much? :mrgreen:
Click to expand...


I like if someone speaks up. The BN sections having straight news and straight headlines is a feature I appreciate.
 
Re: And You Want the Government to Run Health Care?

liblady said:
the government is not going to "run" healthcare. where did you get that idea?
Click to expand...

two words: public option
 
Re: And You Want the Government to Run Health Care?

Aunt Spiker said:
Well that's why you should try to make money off of paying for people's health issues.

Which is the inherent evil of insurers.
Click to expand...

Providing a service that people want is inherently evil?
 
liblady said:
not a good analogy. a gov't option would provide basic healthcare at an affordable cost. many people will still opt for premium plans, as you well know. so, i can sell my lattes and you can sell your joe. kinda like starbucks and 7-11.

and as a bonus, consumers might see some real competition in insurance prices. medicare didn't cause insurance companies to go down the tubes, neither will adding to that existing public option.
Click to expand...
well you know what, oh **** ethereal beat me too it
Ethereal said:
The health insurance industry currently has a 2.2% profit margin; that's pretty thin. I don't suspect they can lower prices much further and remain in business.

FACT CHECK: Health insurer profits not so fat - Yahoo! News
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
jackalope said:
why are we talking about health care instead of Amtrak?
Click to expand...

Because no one can talk about anything these days without somehow linking it to Obama, socialism, or health care.

Makes for very boring debate.
 
obvious Child said:
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.
Click to expand...

yep high speed trains in Europe make lots of money. Think the French system made over a billion in profits last year.. euro, not dollar.
 
Re: And You Want the Government to Run Health Care?

Ethereal said:
Providing a service that people want is inherently evil?
Click to expand...

Oops - typo - I meant "shouldn't" not "should"

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.
 
Re: And You Want the Government to Run Health Care?

Scarecrow Akhbar said:
Because I'm honest, and I can read, especially the writing on the wall.

Stealing, it's what socialists do best. And these socialists in Washington are bent on stealing entire industries.

So, getting back to the point, why should anyone trust the government with running health care?

Do I also have to point to the huge losses the Messiah Hisself admitted exist in Medicare and Medicaid? You know, those losses that His Holiness was going to fix so His theft of 1/6 of the nation's economy would be "deficit neutral"?
Click to expand...

To many Liberals, the obvious tends to be elusive. :cool:
 
Re: And You Want the Government to Run Health Care?

Orius said:
Amtrak is getting that line built down to CA. That will improve things. Its problem hasn't been government funding, it's problem is that it needs more infrastructure which only the government can push forward. It needs more rails, more availability, and more competitive pricing.

I think once the line to CA is complete and there's swipe cards it'll be in a better position to profit.
Click to expand...

And yet, there isn't one tiny shred of evidence any Government run entity in history has been profitable. The Government of Canada shed its monopoly of the airlines in Canada and oil companies back in the 70 or 80's. Why do you think that was?

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?
 
jackalope said:
There is an argument to be made that infrastructure is worthwhile independent of whether or not it operates at a profit.
Click to expand...

I would love to hear those arguments. I am at a loss as to why we would fund losing enterprises that only serve a select few.
 
Re: And You Want the Government to Run Health Care?

Truth Detector said:
And yet, there isn't one tiny shred of evidence any Government run entity in history has been profitable. The Government of Canada shed its monopoly of the airlines in Canada and oil companies back in the 70 or 80's. Why do you think that was?

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?
Click to expand...

"Is there a public system in the US that is really profitable?"

Good question, I thought I had an answer against this statement but the more I thought about it the more I realize your point might be quite true
 
obvious Child said:
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.
Click to expand...

I think you are missing the lesson; it is not based on high speed, it is basically about being extremely selective about where you place rail and mass transit.

But again, no, or very few, Government agencies have ever actually broken even or made money on any transit system in the world. Most are subsidies by the taxpayers and the reasons for providing such systems when few want them are suspect at best.

A high speed rail system from SF to San Diego will still be extremely unprofitable; particularly when the airlines charge the same or less for HIGHER speed transit.

Try to LEARN your lessons before you attempt to LECTURE.
 
Re: And You Want the Government to Run Health Care?

Truth Detector said:
And yet, there isn't one tiny shred of evidence any Government run entity in history has been profitable.
Click to expand...

I hate to break it to you, but the purpose of government has nothing to do with raking in profits. :roll:
 
Re: And You Want the Government to Run Health Care?

Isn't the entire point of Amtrak the fact that it's unprofitable? I was under the impression that Amtrak was formed because passenger rail in the US is unprofitable and the industry would have disappeared had the government not taken it over. Do I have it wrong?
 
Re: And You Want the Government to Run Health Care?

Glinda said:
I hate to break it to you, but the purpose of government has nothing to do with raking in profits. :roll:
Click to expand...

I hate to break to you, but the purpose of Government is not to provide for the welfare of the citizens either.

You may want to READ the Constitution if you do not believe me. This is not a debate about profitability; it is a debate about the wasteful spending of hard earned tax payer dollars to provide for a select few citizens for purely partisan political purposes.

I am never surprised when Liberals show an inability, or display willful ignorance, as to what these debates actually are about.
 
Re: And You Want the Government to Run Health Care?

Kernel Sanders said:
Isn't the entire point of Amtrak the fact that it's unprofitable? I was under the impression that Amtrak was formed because passenger rail in the US is unprofitable and the industry would have disappeared had the government not taken it over. Do I have it wrong?
Click to expand...

I think you have it right, so it begs the question; if the people CHOOSE to NOT ride on trains, when did it become Governments role to ensure that the few who actually preferred it to subsidize the rail service in the nation?

If those who prefer to ride rail want it, make them pay the cost to provide it. The reality is that is far more efficient and cheaper to take other forms of transportation; if it weren't, more people would ride the trains.

One of the biggest issues one has to confront when riding the trains, even in Europe, is the lack of assistance when getting their luggage on board the train and the effort and time it takes to get anywhere.
 
Re: And You Want the Government to Run Health Care?

Aunt Spiker said:
Well that's why you should try to make money off of paying for people's health issues.

Which is the inherent evil of insurers.
Click to expand...

You mean, the natural incentive people have for actually doing something, their personal profit, is EVIL?

No, it's not evil at all.

If people want a product, it's only right that the people providing the product earn a living.
 
Re: And You Want the Government to Run Health Care?

Kernel Sanders said:
Isn't the entire point of Amtrak the fact that it's unprofitable? I was under the impression that Amtrak was formed because passenger rail in the US is unprofitable and the industry would have disappeared had the government not taken it over. Do I have it wrong?
Click to expand...

Nope, you've got it right.

The problem being that the government has no business stealing from people to prop up a business that those very same people have declined to patronize.

It's exactly analogous to the Messiah's take over of GM. The People had decided that GM was crap and they didn't want to waste their money on what GM was selling. Therefore the government had no business to steal their money to prop up GM.

No business is "too big to fail", nor should any ever be considered as such.

Because Amtrak is "too big to fail", the government takes a loss on each passenger on the train going from Los Angeles to San Antonio of $432, which is almost what it costs to buy TWO airplane tickets.

Is the goal merely to make it economical for people to go from LA to San Antonio? Then it would be more cost effective for the government to GIVE AWAY airline tickets.

Clearly then, the goal isn't to provide transport but to subsidize jobs, and in that case, the government should cease immediately all passenger rail subsidies.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom