• 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!

Florida scraps high-speed rail plan pushed by Obama

Road operations are subsidized. The Federal Highway Administration (the group in your definition) is funneled cash payment in the interests of the public and the economy.



HSR in its best form is targeted at airport relief. Currently the San Francisco-Los Angeles air route is the busiest in the country, and California airports are at capacity. We could spend money on a HSR network that allows for air carriers to drop the LA-SF route in favor of more profitable long haul routes, or we could expand the airports to equivalent capacity for more money.



You haven't been given a penny, you've been given 49% of a road in the form of maintenance and operations. Without which, I-10 would turn to a lunar landscape and your trucks would be breaking axles. Sounds like a financial benefit to me. Would you still rather have that penny?

So, the highway administration isn't a part of the government? :rofl
 
Federal grants = user fees.

Sure, it gets filtered through a bureaucracy first.

But it’s still the same source of funds, albeit from the whole country instead of a more specific area, in the case of "Federal grants".

I'm not saying federal grants = user funds. User funds are tolls, gas taxes, vehicle registration, fares, and airfare taxes. Non-user fees are paid by all (sales and property taxes being diverted).
 
Nope. The entire reason we have a government is to protect the people from outside threats. Try again..

That's one of those societal benefits that can't be provided by the free market, yes.

Henrin said:
And high speed rail specially in certain areas in florida could be done by the private sector.

Then why hasn't it?
 
Whatever. The point is I wasn't wrong and you apparantly learned something today that you didn't know.

You were only half right. Funny how you only told half the truth. Wait, it's not that surprising, afterall.
 
The French high speed rail system brings in 1 billion+ Euros a year in profits.

So naturally, since it works for France, it'll do the same here. You DO realize their system connects to neighboring countries, right? And that THAT is what generates the majority of their profit?

Oh... it's also nationally owned and subsidized.

Nonsense.
 
Last edited:
So naturally, since it works for France, it'll do the same here.

Nonsense.

You mean like how socialized health care fails everywhere... except for every other industrialized nation in the world that has it. :)

"If it is so good, why don't we have it?" Circular logic is powerful, for sure.
 
That's one of those societal benefits that can't be provided by the free market, yes.



Then why hasn't it?

It's neither practical, nor profitable? Two dan fine reasons for the government not to spend money on it.
 
You mean like how socialized health care fails everywhere... except for every other industrialized nation in the world that has it. :)

"If it is so good, why don't we have it?" Circular logic is powerful, for sure.

Exactly like socialized healthcare.
 
Exactly like socialized healthcare.

Go ask anyone in England if they want HMO's. Go ask someone in Canada if they want to give up socialized medicine. Go ask the French if they want to cut the supply of health care to their poor off so that they can save a few bucks.

I think you'll find that we are one of the few nations still selfish enough to consider universal health care a burdon on society. We truly have fallen from what made us a great nation:

Innovation. We don't keep up with the times because too many people are scared of the future.
 
That's one of those societal benefits that can't be provided by the free market, yes.

Not really. We can protect ourselves from the outside forces just fine, but we trusted the government to do it for oganizational/ effectiveness reasons.

Then why hasn't it?

Demand.
 
You were only half right. Funny how you only told half the truth. Wait, it's not that surprising, afterall.

And you initially said I was completely wrong, so I guess you told no truth. Not too surprising.

And funny thing, I was the one who posted the article. Imagine that.
 
So, the highway administration isn't a part of the government? :rofl

Irrelevant to my point. The interstate highway system is not profitable and the FHWA is increasingly funneled money intended for other services. This is no different than how money is shifted around when transit agencies see an operational shortfall. It is just more accepted.
 
Go ask anyone in England if they want HMO's. Go ask someone in Canada if they want to give up socialized medicine. Go ask the French if they want to cut the supply of health care to their poor off so that they can save a few bucks.

Ask people in canada where I can get my wife breast exams. Could you do that for me?

I think you'll find that we are one of the few nations still selfish enough to consider universal health care a burdon on society. We truly have fallen from what made us a great nation:

Selfish? Try control of your body for starters.

Innovation. We don't keep up with the times because too many people are scared of the future.

Innovation? Nationalized healthcare countries don't innovate more than us. So umm..that seems like an odd statement.
 
Last edited:
You mean like how socialized health care fails everywhere... except for every other industrialized nation in the world that has it. :)

"If it is so good, why don't we have it?" Circular logic is powerful, for sure.

really? Socialized medicine works EVERYWHERE that has it?
Socialized Medicine in Europe - Associated Content from Yahoo! - associatedcontent.com
Socialized medicine looks good on the surface. We all want people to have access to health care. In practice, however, it often doesn't work out the way that it is intended to, leaving millions with substandard care...

Britain's health care system has failed many Britons, turning away pregnant patients in labor, refusing life-saving medicine because it was too expensive, and creating a dental shortage that has forced desperate patients to pull their own teeth. Britain is not the only country that does not find their health care system to be ideal. In fact, some countries are once again experimenting with the free market, as costs, doctor shortages, and wait times have gone out of control. Switzerland, the Netherlands, and Sweden are all trying to improve their systems...

In Switzerland, everybody is required to purchase health insurance, and insurance for low income families is subsidized. Price controls are set, insurance providers must insure everybody for basic care regardless of the risk they take, and they are not allowed to make a profit on basic care. Unfortunately, this system has caused a shortage of available appointments with family doctors. Like in America, people use the emergency rooms when they should be going to their family doctor, only these people are forced to pay for health insurance. Hospital staff sometimes have to work 70 to 80 hours a week...

When the European Union set regulations that required the Swedes to reduce taxation, they devised a plan: allow private companies to compete with the public sector. The experiment seems to have worked. A recent study compared the costs of public medicine, and the cost of private medicine. In ophthalmology, ear, nose and throat doctors, dermatology, general surgery, and internal medicine, the private doctors had lower costs. Wait times have also decreased. At one private hospital, the wait time for heart surgery was only two weeks, compared to a wait time of 15-25 weeks at a public hospital. The wait time for hip replacement surgery was only 10 weeks. At the average public hospital, the wait was over a year...

The Netherlands does practice euthanasia, however, and some doctors even practice non-voluntary euthanasia. A 1991 study discovered that 8,750 patients did have life-sustaining treatment withheld without the patient's requesting it, with euthanasia at least part of the purpose. There were 1000 cases where patients that were euthanized without consent while they were competent to give consent to being euthanized, but the doctors did not consult them prior to taking action...

yeah baby..... that's what we need here... socialized medicine like these other countries ALL have... right? :rolleyes:

it saddens me when people like you THINK they know what the **** they are talking about, and obviously don't. That took me 60 seconds to find.
 
Last edited:
Go ask anyone in England if they want HMO's. Go ask someone in Canada if they want to give up socialized medicine. Go ask the French if they want to cut the supply of health care to their poor off so that they can save a few bucks.

I think you'll find that we are one of the few nations still selfish enough to consider universal health care a burdon on society. We truly have fallen from what made us a great nation:

Innovation. We don't keep up with the times because too many people are scared of the future.

They live in welfare states. If they're content with the government taking most of their hard earned money and wasting it, good for them. I'm not.
 
And you initially said I was completely wrong, so I guess you told no truth. Not too surprising.

And funny thing, I was the one who posted the article. Imagine that.

Evacing people after a nuke strike was secondary to moving armoed units around the country.
 
Irrelevant to my point. The interstate highway system is not profitable and the FHWA is increasingly funneled money intended for other services. This is no different than how money is shifted around when transit agencies see an operational shortfall. It is just more accepted.

You're still not, "subsidizing transportation".
 
Ask people in canada where I can get my wife breast exams. Could you do that for me?

Selfish? Try control of your body for starters.

Innovation? Nationalized healthcare countries don't innovate more than us. So umm..that seems like an odd statement.


Countries with universal health care have already innovated well past us because they allow for the treatment of all of their citizens. We cannot say that. If someone works 20 hours a week and goes to school full time but can't get insurance, and that person then comes down with cancer... oh well. That's your problem buddy! It's a great system we have.

I am not sure what you are saying about mammograms in Canada... all research I can find shows us following Canada:

New U.S. mammogram advice in line with Canada - CTV News
Some Canadians may be confused by controversy over new U.S. breast cancer screening guidelines, but experts here say the revised recommendations finally conform with what Canada has been advising women for years.

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, a panel of independent experts, released revamped recommendations this week, including advice that women in their 40s should not have routine mammograms because there is no evidence they improve survival in that age group.

So I am not sure what you are worried about. Clearly your wife is recommended the same screenings here in the US as in Canada, but she is free to do whatever she wants in either one.

An update on mammography use in Canada
In 2008, 72% of women aged 50 to 69 reported having had a mammogram in the past two years, up from 40% in 1990.

Most importantly this article disproves another unfounded conservative claim about socialized medicine:

Despite widespread availability of screening programs, women in certain segments of the population are not receiving regular mammograms.

The claim that people will overuse the system just because it is availible. Nope, it turns out that people are still just as lazy when it is free!
 
Evacing people after a nuke strike was secondary to moving armoed units around the country.

It was the 1950s and people were building bomb shelters in their back yards. I'm pretty sure that evacuation was the primary motive and moving armed units was secondary.
 
Countries with universal health care have already innovated well past us because they allow for the treatment of all of their citizens. We cannot say that. If someone works 20 hours a week and goes to school full time but can't get insurance, and that person then comes down with cancer... oh well. That's your problem buddy! It's a great system we have.

I am not sure what you are saying about mammograms in Canada... all research I can find shows us following Canada:

New U.S. mammogram advice in line with Canada - CTV News


So I am not sure what you are worried about. Clearly your wife is recommended the same screenings here in the US as in Canada, but she is free to do whatever she wants in either one.

An update on mammography use in Canada


Most importantly this article disproves another unfounded conservative claim about socialized medicine:



The claim that people will overuse the system just because it is availible. Nope, it turns out that people are still just as lazy when it is free!

completely ignoring my post I see... typical when you know you've been proven wrong... you slink away and hope no one notices you licking your now sore ass.
 
really? Socialized medicine works EVERYWHERE that has it?
Socialized Medicine in Europe - Associated Content from Yahoo! - associatedcontent.com


yeah baby..... that's what we need here... socialized medicine like these other countries ALL have... right? :rolleyes:

it saddens me when people like you THINK they know what the **** they are talking about, and obviously don't. That took me 60 seconds to find.

Wow, pat yourself on the back for finding an article. Do you really want me to drag up insurance horror stories? I promise I can top anything you post. And let's be honest, if you're a rich man in the UK, you can buy extra insurance and go to any hospital or doctor you want.

I feel like I have to post some insurance stories now... so I guess I'll put a couple up. I mean, it's amazing me what some stupid ****s will defend just because they watch Fox News every day (I can be an angry jerk too!):

12 Outrageous Health Care Horror Stories | Shrinkage Is Good
ictured above is the actual note received by Larry Smith stating that Labcorp would not perform a blood test on him until he made good on his $7 debt. Smith’s wife notes that this was not a pointless or optional blood test, but rather was being sought because Smith had suffered an intense heart attack that made him sweat profusely and changed the color of his skin.

Robin Steinwand, a 53 year old victim of multiple sclerosis. Steinwand had been taking the prescription drug Copaxone, which cost $1,900 per month but which she had received for only a $20 co-pay since being diagnosed in 2000. But one day, her insurance company raised the price, leading to an unexpected (and now ongoing) bill of $325 – or $3,900 per year.

That’s what happened to Arlington’s Robert W. Banning, a chronic myelogenous leukemia victim who was prescribed Sprycel by his doctor. The twice-daily tablet inhibits the spread of cancer cells without the grueling ordeal of chemotherapy, but a 90 day supply costs a staggering $13,500, of which Banning’s AARP insurance required him personally to pay over $4,000. Banning’s son has courageously vowed to do whatever it takes, stating “you don’t put your parent on a scale“, but there’s no denying the intense hardship a sudden and permanent $12,000 per year drug bill creates.

Women with lupus have struggled greatly under the U.S. health care system, according to a Wall Street Journal study referenced by MedicalNewsToday.com. A disturbing case in point is Monique White, a Tennessee woman who had to quit her job after being diagnosed with lupus and consequently lost her health insurance coverage. White promptly enrolled in Medicaid, and then promptly “lost her coverage because of budget reductions to the program.” White resisted going to the hospital when her symptoms worsened, citing lack of insurance, but was rushed there anyway when she eventually had a seizure. She died just a few months later however, primarily from not attending to her symptoms until it was too late.

Now these are just the first ones I stumbled upon with a google search, and also these have only been cases of horror stories supplied by people who had health insurance and made payments. These aren't the "bums" you hate so much. No, their stories are much worse.
 
completely ignoring my post I see... typical when you know you've been proven wrong... you slink away and hope no one notices you licking your now sore ass.

Give me time to respond! It'll be alright, friend!
 
Countries with universal health care have already innovated well past us because they allow for the treatment of all of their citizens. We cannot say that. If someone works 20 hours a week and goes to school full time but can't get insurance, and that person then comes down with cancer... oh well. That's your problem buddy! It's a great system we have.

Innovation doesn't mean price of treatment.

If instead you think the system is the innovation, than you better figure out quick that their system is based in ideas older than our system.

I am not sure what you are saying about mammograms in Canada... all research I can find shows us following Canada:

New U.S. mammogram advice in line with Canada - CTV News


So I am not sure what you are worried about. Clearly your wife is recommended the same screenings here in the US as in Canada, but she is free to do whatever she wants in either one.


You completely missed my point. Where can she get one in a timely manner?
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom