• 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

Scarecrow Akhbar

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 22, 2005
Messages
11,430
Reaction score
2,282
Location
Los Angeles
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Amtrak Loses $32 Per PassengerWASHINGTON (AP) -- U.S. taxpayers spent about $32 subsidizing the cost of the typical Amtrak passenger in 2008, about four times the rail operator's estimate, according to a private study.

Amtrak operates a nationwide rail network, serving more than 500 destinations in 46 states. Forty-one of Amtrak's 44 routes lost money in 2008, said the study by Subsidyscope, an arm of the Pew Charitable Trusts.

Stephen Van Beek, president of the Eno Transportation Foundation, a think tank, said the analysis could help guide decisions on how to spend $8 billion set aside for high-speed and intercity rail in a $787 billion economic stimulus bill. Rail planners may decide that spending the funds on high-speed rail makes more sense than slower intercity rail, which the Amtrak numbers show need higher subsidies.

Subsidyscope says its review counted certain capital expenses that Amtrak doesn't consider when calculating the financial performance of its routes, namely wear and tear on equipment, or depreciation.

Leading the list was the train traveling between San Antonio and Los Angeles -- the Sunset Limited -- which lost $462 per passenger. Taxpayers subsidize the losses to keep the passenger train service running.

Quick check with Travelocity:...Travelocity is down, Expedia says it costs $219 - round trip, to go from LA to San Antonio.

So Amtrak's losses, per passenger, are MORE THAN TWICE what it cost to fly there, assuming the Amtrak loss is based on a round trip fare.

Now, the Messiah is PROMISING that his MessiahCare scam won't add to the national debt. Why should we trust a government that can't run a railroad to run 1/6 of the nation's economy?
 
Re: And You Want the Government to Run Health Care?

Quick check with Travelocity:...Travelocity is down, Expedia says it costs $219 - round trip, to go from LA to San Antonio.

So Amtrak's losses, per passenger, are MORE THAN TWICE what it cost to fly there, assuming the Amtrak loss is based on a round trip fare.

Now, the Messiah is PROMISING that his MessiahCare scam won't add to the national debt. Why should we trust a government that can't run a railroad to run 1/6 of the nation's economy?
the government is not going to "run" healthcare. where did you get that idea?
 
Re: And You Want the Government to Run Health Care?

Quick check with Travelocity:...Travelocity is down, Expedia says it costs $219 - round trip, to go from LA to San Antonio.

So Amtrak's losses, per passenger, are MORE THAN TWICE what it cost to fly there, assuming the Amtrak loss is based on a round trip fare.

Now, the Messiah is PROMISING that his MessiahCare scam won't add to the national debt. Why should we trust a government that can't run a railroad to run 1/6 of the nation's economy?

Why should we trust a government that lied about Social Security, lied about Medicare and runs a program that has had tons of fraudulent claims filed (according to CBS 60 minutes).

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

the government is not going to "run" healthcare. where did you get that idea?



Liblady, allow me to give you an analogy to illustrate the point of the Gubmint take over of our Health systems.

Let's say you and I both own a coffee shop, on opposing corners of a well traveled intersection in town, ok?

You, and I make about the same types of coffee, and the quality is comparable.

Now, lets say that while you charge $2.00 for a large cup of 'joe', I can print my own money, and give away my coffee for free.

how long will you stay in business?


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

Liblady, allow me to give you an analogy to illustrate the point of the Gubmint take over of our Health systems.

Let's say you and I both own a coffee shop, on opposing corners of a well traveled intersection in town, ok?

You, and I make about the same types of coffee, and the quality is comparable.

Now, lets say that while you charge $2.00 for a large cup of 'joe', I can print my own money, and give away my coffee for free.

how long will you stay in business?


j-mac

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

the government is not going to "run" healthcare. where did you get that idea?

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

Why is following the simple rules posted at the top of the forum so hard? Title of thread must match title of article. It's simple.
 
Re: And You Want the Government to Run Health Care?

Why is following the simple rules posted at the top of the forum so hard? Title of thread must match title of article. It's simple.


this is really one of your peeves isn't it?


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

Liblady, allow me to give you an analogy to illustrate the point of the Gubmint take over of our Health systems.

Let's say you and I both own a coffee shop, on opposing corners of a well traveled intersection in town, ok?

You, and I make about the same types of coffee, and the quality is comparable.

Now, lets say that while you charge $2.00 for a large cup of 'joe', I can print my own money, and give away my coffee for free.

how long will you stay in business?


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

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.


You won't sell them for long....Sure in the beginning you might hand on to the loyal, but as things progress, everyone will come to my shop because it is free, or at least they think it is.

There is NO competition between an entity that has no stake in producing a profit pitted against one that has that stake. It is an unfair dual. The Gubmint can go on far longer justifying no profit, hell, even operating at a loss while the commercial insurance company must make a profit to survive.

But you know that.


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

consumers might see some real competition in insurance prices.

Might this be better achieved by offering consumers Ins from other states. I mean there are 1600 health ins companies in the US, none of them can compete across state lines. I mean...wouldn't a gecko telling you that you could save 15% on health insurance with 15 minutes on the phne be popular?
 
Re: And You Want the Government to Run Health Care?

Why is following the simple rules posted at the top of the forum so hard? Title of thread must match title of article. It's simple.

Because I write better headlines.
 
Re: And You Want the Government to Run Health Care?

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.

There are better ways, Constitutional ways, to encourage competition in the health insurance industry besides radical government takeover.
 
Last edited:
Re: And You Want the Government to Run Health Care?

the government is not going to "run" healthcare. where did you get that idea?

So - are you, also, suggesting the the government doesn't "run" Medicaid, Medicare?

They define it through legislation, enact it through mandates, they dictate how it operates and so forth.

Thus, they "run" it.
 
Back in 1990, the Government seized the Mustang Ranch brothel in Nevada for tax evasion and, as required by law, tried to run it. They failed and it closed. Now we are trusting the economy of our country to a pack of nit-wits who couldn't make money running a whore house and selling booze?

Our Government can't even run a whore house.... | Ron Paul Wins! | Campaign for Liberty at the Daily Paul

This is a true story.... think they will do better with your health?

Mustang Ranch Brothel History
 
Re: And You Want the Government to Run Health Care?

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.

But I'll choose that free coffee at 7-11 more often than I previously did. Starbucks becomes less profitable. The problem is that private companies produce wealth, while government organizations use wealth.

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.

I'd contend that medicare actually caused insurance prices to go up. Government isn't good with money, so will pay high prices for services at a hospital. This causes the cost of service to go up which affects everyone.
 
Re: And You Want the Government to Run Health Care?

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.
You want competition? Deregulate health insurance and let the companies sell it across state lines. You want the cost of health care to go down? Deregulate it and pass TORT reform. Those two combined will make health care affordable again and provide more competition. But I think we all know that it isn't competition or lower costs that the Obama administration is really after - it's power. If they were really for affordable health care and lowering the cost, TORT reform and deregulation would have been passed long, long ago.
 
Re: And You Want the Government to Run Health Care?

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.

If the government was only giving another form of health-insurance to those who don't qualify/can't afford it there wouldn't be quite so much annoyance.
I have no problems with medicaid and medicare, etc.

However, they're not just doing that.

In the process of trying to provide more healthcare to those who don't have it, need it and want it - they are, also, raising taxes, fees and fines on people as well as products and necessary medical equipment in order to channel funds towards offsetting the balance of the healthcare public-option "out of government pocket" costs.

They are, also, attempting to cap the pay of doctors and reform the health-insurance industry.

They're doing so much more than *just* providing health care insurance and those other things are whre people have issues.
 
Re: And You Want the Government to Run Health Care?

Liblady, allow me to give you an analogy to illustrate the point of the Gubmint take over of our Health systems.

Let's say you and I both own a coffee shop, on opposing corners of a well traveled intersection in town, ok?

You, and I make about the same types of coffee, and the quality is comparable.

Now, lets say that while you charge $2.00 for a large cup of 'joe', I can print my own money, and give away my coffee for free.

how long will you stay in business?


j-mac

Don't forget, you also have Federal law enforcement powers and tons of guns and foot soldiers.
 
Re: And You Want the Government to Run Health Care?

Why is following the simple rules posted at the top of the forum so hard? Title of thread must match title of article. It's simple.

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

Mod envy, much? :mrgreen:
 
Re: And You Want the Government to Run Health Care?

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.

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
 
Back
Top Bottom