For those that believe socialized medicine is a good idea:

[Parkbandit]

Money-losing Senate restaurants to go private
By JIM ABRAMS Associated Press Writer
Article Launched: 06/09/2008 12:08:48 PM PDT


Click photo to enlarge
In this Jan. 30, 2006 file photo, Sen. Mary Landrieu, D-La.,... ((AP Photo/Susan Walsh, File))«1»WASHINGTON—The famed bean soup served in Senate restaurants is made up of dried navy beans, smoked ham hocks, onions and a million-dollar tab for the taxpayer.
That menu for financial distress could be about to change as the Senate, following the lead taken by the House more than 20 years ago, moves to privatize the restaurants, coffee shops and cafeterias located in the Capitol and Senate office buildings.

The Senate last week passed a bill authorizing Senate restaurants, now run by the Architect of the Capitol, to go private, ending months of back-and-forth between Democrats appalled by the operation's money-losing ways and other Democrats worried that restaurant workers would get thrown out like the ham bones.

The measure is expected to win easy approval in the House, where privately run restaurants and food courts run profits and draw good crowds every day of House members and employees, tourists and disaffected Senate staff.

By comparison, wrote Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., who as chairman of the Senate Rules Committee has spearheaded the privatization drive, the Senate restaurants last year cost taxpayers $1.3 million with food quality and service that is "noticeably sub par."

She noted that in budget years 2003 through 2007, Senate restaurants racked up deficits of $4.7 million while the House received commissions from the operator estimated at about $1.2 million.

Losses could top $2 million this year, and the restaurants will need a transfer of $250,000 from the Senate's emergency funds in July to make payroll, she wrote in a letter to other senators.
A private review commissioned by Feinstein found that the Senate operation had no strategy for improvement other than price increases. She said new menu items "have not been remotely reflective of the rapid change in the food industry whether it be health and nutrition or ethnic foods."

A small Senate take-out on the first floor of the Capitol offers, with its hot dogs and sandwiches, candy bars, pain medicine and, until recently, cigarettes. The sit-down restaurant that once adjoined it has closed, becoming new staff office space. With that, there is no public dining space inside the Capitol; senators and their guests can still eat in an ornate dining room with a staff dressed in jackets and ties.

But Feinstein's efforts to change the system ran into obstacles from four Democratic senators: Robert Menendez of New Jersey, Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts, Barbara Mikulski of Maryland and Sherrod Brown of Ohio, who questioned whether current workers would face lower wages, reduced benefits and be deprived of union representation.

Feinstein said she was "somewhat dismayed" by the resistance. She stressed that under the proposed contract with Restaurant Associates, the New York-based company that runs the House restaurants and will operate the 550-seat cafeteria in the underground Capitol Visitor Center slated to open this fall, current employees will continue at the same basic rate of pay and receive the same level of health insurance and retirement benefits.

Those not wishing to switch to the new system would be eligible for a voluntary buyout of up to $25,000. She said 47 of the 96 permanent restaurant employees are expected to take the buyout.

The four senators signed off, saying they were pleased that Restaurant Associates was willing to commit in the contract to union neutrality and a reasonable annual cost-of-living adjustment.

Restaurant Associates did not return calls seeking comment, and it was unclear if they were committed to serving bean soup in the new Senate restaurants.

__________________________________________

http://www.mercurynews.com/politics/ci_9530379


They can't even manage their own restaurant.. and people believe that they will somehow be able to manage healthcare for all Americans.

[Keller]

Are they hiring doctors or funding health insurance?

[g++]

I think its pretty friggin obvious hes showing an example of two systems. One private and one run by the government where the private one is absurdly more efficient despite the fact that they provide essentially the same service.

[Parkbandit]

I think its pretty friggin obvious hes showing an example of two systems. One private and one run by the government where the private one is absurdly more efficient despite the fact that they provide essentially the same service.

Don't mind Keller.. he's still acting like a jilted lover who won't accept that it's over.

It's sad... but understandable from his viewpoint. Some of us have moved on, clearly he can't.

:*(

Outside of Government.. what kind of restaurant could lose 4.7 MILLION dollars in a 4 year period.. and remain open?

[Sean]

Originally Posted by g++
I think its pretty friggin obvious hes showing an example of two systems. One private and one run by the government where the private one is absurdly more efficient despite the fact that they provide essentially the same service.

He's a regular Michael Moore.

[Khariz]

Are they hiring doctors or funding health insurance?

Is this where you wanted me to go when you asking if I was talking about healthcare in the other thread?

[Keller]

Is this where you wanted me to go when you asking if I was talking about healthcare in the other thread?

No, I was curious what else besides healthcare you meant. You said "industries" so I was curious to know what else you had in mind.

[Keller]

I think its pretty friggin obvious hes showing an example of two systems. One private and one run by the government where the private one is absurdly more efficient despite the fact that they provide essentially the same service.

The federal gov't funds many things. The federal government doesn't run what it funds. Is that distinction difficult for you to comprehend?

[Parkbandit]

He's a regular Michael Moore.


No.. if I was, I would somehow try to convince you that government healthcare is the best system ever.

[g++]

The Senate last week passed a bill authorizing Senate restaurants, now run by the Architect of the Capitol

From their website:

Working for the Architect of the Capitol
Pay is only part of the compensation you will earn working for the Federal Government. We offer a broad array of benefits programs and family friendly flexibilities to meet the needs of you and your family.

So its a federally funded cafeteria run by federal employees, How exactly is that not run by the government?

[Keller]

You're making my point even easier. Federally funded health insurance is NOT federally run health care.

I'm not saying that federally funded health care is a good idea. I'm saying this is a poor analogy.

[Parkbandit]

I love this story by the way.

Overcompensated employees, subpar service, huge deficits, etc...

And then the House privatizes their restaurants.. and they get money BACK from the company already turning a profit.

I doubt this will be on the "news" anytime soon.

[g++]

You're making my point even easier. Federally funded health insurance is NOT federally run health care.

I'm not saying that federally funded health care is a good idea. I'm saying this is a poor analogy.

Right because the health care program will be administered by a wing and a prayer not an army of bureaucrats to the tune of 50,000-100k federal employees. Jesus put down the civics book and join reality.

[Keller]

Right because the health care program will be administered by a wing and a prayer not an army of bureaucrats to the tune of 50,000-100k federal employees. Jesus put down the civics book and join reality.

And as a percentage of the industry, even at your inflated hypothetical numbers, how is that running health care?

If we're gonna discuss publicly funded health care -- then let's do it. Let's not make trite analogies and pretend they are anything but that.

[g++]

The social security administration employs 60,000 some odd people and all they do is issue you a number, count your checks, pay you when your old and try to keep track of when your dead they also had damn near 100 years to get as good as they are now. Can you imagine the amount of paper work, computer hardware, and personnel needed to make sure that every single person in the United States currently has health insurance at all times. The amount of information that has to be stored about each person? The amount of changes that will be needed to each record per life time? Every time you change insurance carriers they will have to track it.

Whos going to pay for this? We are. Whos going to run it? the federal government.

Since you want to go in depth this is from Obamas official website regarding his absurd plan.

Promote patient safety. Obama will require providers to report preventable medical errors and support hospital and physician practice improvement to prevent future occurrences.

= Government oversight and beuracracy.

Comparative effectiveness research. Obama will establish an independent institute to guide reviews and research on comparative effectiveness, so that Americans and their doctors will have the accurate and objective information they need to make the best decisions for their health and well-being.

$$ + control

Require full transparency about quality and costs. Obama will require hospitals and providers to collect and publicly report measures of health care costs and quality, including data on preventable medical errors, nurse staffing ratios, hospital-acquired infections, and disparities in care. Health plans will also be required to disclose the percentage of premiums that go to patient care as opposed to administrative costs.

Lots of $$

Employer Contribution: Employers that do not offer or make a meaningful contribution to the cost of quality health coverage for their employees will be required to contribute a percentage of payroll toward the costs of the national plan. Small employers that meet certain revenue thresholds will be exempt.

= Lower salaries for those employees to run this gigantic fucking machine, trust me if the government takes money from chuckie cheese theyr just gonna lay off their managers and promote new ones at lower salaries to offset it.

Reducing Costs of Catastrophic Illnesses for Employers and Their Employees: Catastrophic health expenditures account for a high percentage of medical expenses for private insurers. The Obama plan would reimburse employer health plans for a portion of the catastrophic costs they incur above a threshold if they guarantee such savings are used to reduce the cost of workers' premiums.

??This is just plain stupid and obviously costly, wow we took a big hit on that kid getting real sick....lets give them some money back....WHAT?

Helping Patients:
Support disease management programs. Seventy five percent of total health care dollars are spent on patients with one or more chronic conditions, such as diabetes, heart disease and high blood pressure. Obama will require that providers that participate in the new public plan, Medicare or the Federal Employee Health Benefits Program (FEHBP) utilize proven disease management programs. This will improve quality of care, give doctors better information and lower costs.

Well we can just convert our methodone clinics into diabetic treatment centers, thatl be conveniant. Dont worry there wont be any more doctors willing to see you about your chronic health problems anyway since that wont be covered by your new awsome plan.

So hes basically saying Im going to form the biggest insurance monopoly in town. Make everyone that isnt part of my monopoly join me by keeping my price arbitrarily low with government money and then regulate the living shit out of the providers in my monopoly. Obama doesnt just want to run insurance he wants a form filled out in triplicate when you have an ear infection to make sure it doesnt happen again. Believe me it wont be private industry anymore.

[radamanthys]

http://www.usatoday.com/money/2006-08-02-deficit-usat_x.htm


The federal government keeps two sets of books.
The set the government promotes to the public has a healthier bottom line: a $318 billion deficit in 2005.
The set the government doesn't talk about is the audited financial statement produced by the government's accountants following standard accounting rules. It reports a more ominous financial picture: a $760 billion deficit for 2005. If Social Security and Medicare were included — as the board that sets accounting rules is considering — the federal deficit would have been $3.5 trillion.

It goes on from there. If medicare is already that expensive, what happens when we move socialized healthcare from 40 million people to 300 million?


Yea. We lose. Flat out, point blank. We. Can't. Afford. Socialized (read:universal). Healthcare.

[g++]

Oh this too....

National Health Insurance Exchange: The Obama plan will create a National Health Insurance Exchange to help individuals who wish to purchase a private insurance plan. The Exchange will act as a watchdog group and help reform the private insurance market by creating rules and standards for participating insurance plans to ensure fairness and to make individual coverage more affordable and accessible. Insurers would have to issue every applicant a policy, and charge fair and stable premiums that will not depend upon health status. The Exchange will require that all the plans offered are at least as generous as the new public plan and have the same standards for quality and efficiency. The Exchange would evaluate plans and make the differences among the plans, including cost of services, public.

Still claiming this isnt running health care?

[Keller]

Oh this too....

National Health Insurance Exchange: The Obama plan will create a National Health Insurance Exchange to help individuals who wish to purchase a private insurance plan. The Exchange will act as a watchdog group and help reform the private insurance market by creating rules and standards for participating insurance plans to ensure fairness and to make individual coverage more affordable and accessible. Insurers would have to issue every applicant a policy, and charge fair and stable premiums that will not depend upon health status. The Exchange will require that all the plans offered are at least as generous as the new public plan and have the same standards for quality and efficiency. The Exchange would evaluate plans and make the differences among the plans, including cost of services, public.

Still claiming this isnt running health care?

Compared to a gov't funded AND operated eattery? I appreciate you moving the discussion to health insurance instead of the analogy, but that doesn't make the analogy pass muster. That was my point.

[g++]

What I am trying to say is that the Obama plan would make it run and funded by the government. You seem to be hung up on the idea that the government cant run something without an asshole wearing an I am a federal employee jacket answering the phone.

His plan effectively molds the insurance industry into an extension of the federal government that must answer to and abide by the governments mandates. He forces the industry to basically be non-profit on the basis that the government will subsidize and bail it out. That is not private industry and the procedures and ideas he presents have the potential to be every bit as wasteful and backward as the cafeteria, possibly worse.

The plan has all the waste and pointless checks and balances of a government beuracracy without actually combining providers to try to at least get the bonus of uniformity. Instead it trys to pull the wool over peoples eyes by insisting they can still choose their own providers without mentioning that the regulations placed on the providers will force them to all be effectively the same thing.

I think I would rather put my money on the socialist cafeteria and I think the analogy was reasonable.

[Tsa`ah]

http://www.usatoday.com/money/2006-08-02-deficit-usat_x.htm



It goes on from there. If medicare is already that expensive, what happens when we move socialized healthcare from 40 million people to 300 million?


Yea. We lose. Flat out, point blank. We. Can't. Afford. Socialized (read:universal). Healthcare.

How can we not afford it? Your assertion is based on under funded (via taxation) programs that the government KEEPS BORROWING FROM. If I sock away a grand each week for retirement starting from the day I graduate, with interest I will have ample funds to live on upon retiring. Now if I keep loaning MYSELF 10 grand a year from my own retirement fund ... I'll be fucked when it comes to retire.

You also seem to be under the impression that the way our taxes are managed would remain the same. The UK, Canada, and many other "western" nations are able to, for the most part, provide medical care as a social program with income tax rates pretty much on par with our own.

Cost using your model isn't really a good basis to argue with.

[Parkbandit]

How can we not afford it? Your assertion is based on under funded (via taxation) programs that the government KEEPS BORROWING FROM. If I sock away a grand each week for retirement starting from the day I graduate, with interest I will have ample funds to live on upon retiring. Now if I keep loaning MYSELF 10 grand a year from my own retirement fund ... I'll be fucked when it comes to retire.



Let's use your stupid analogy.

Let's say you do sock away 1 grand per week since graduation. NOW.. out of that savings, we're going to need you to help out 5 of your neighbors who are down on their luck. Obviously, they will need to get some $ from you for things like affordable housing, electricity, transportation, food and of course healthcare.

How much of that money you earned and put away for your future will you have?

[Kembal]

http://www.usatoday.com/money/2006-08-02-deficit-usat_x.htm



It goes on from there. If medicare is already that expensive, what happens when we move socialized healthcare from 40 million people to 300 million?


Yea. We lose. Flat out, point blank. We. Can't. Afford. Socialized (read:universal). Healthcare.

Hmm. I'd point out that in 2005, the Republican party controlled Congress and the White House. Ergo, the deficits are in place after 5 years of the "conservative" party ruling.

What would be a better point of comparison is to compare the numbers quoted to 1999 or 2000, when we had a balanced budget (excluding SS and Medicare).

Medicare, by the way, would be much cheaper if under Part D, the government was allowed to use its negotiating power to bring down the price of prescription drugs. The Republican Party struck that as a gift to the pharmecutical industry. (and yes, there most certainly were Democrats that went along with it too. shame on them.)

[Tsa`ah]

Let's use your stupid analogy.

Let's say you do sock away 1 grand per week since graduation. NOW.. out of that savings, we're going to need you to help out 5 of your neighbors who are down on their luck. Obviously, they will need to get some $ from you for things like affordable housing, electricity, transportation, food and of course healthcare.

How much of that money you earned and put away for your future will you have?

You do realize you just shot your argument in the foot.

It would work just as the insurance system works. Not everyone comes down sick at the same time, in fact it's a rather small percentage that require extensive care at any given moment.

We're not pulling from a pool of five neighbors for the care of one. We're pulling from a national coverage plan for the care of a minority.

[Kembal]

Let's use your stupid analogy.

Let's say you do sock away 1 grand per week since graduation. NOW.. out of that savings, we're going to need you to help out 5 of your neighbors who are down on their luck. Obviously, they will need to get some $ from you for things like affordable housing, electricity, transportation, food and of course healthcare.

How much of that money you earned and put away for your future will you have?

Since when are regular savings taxed? That's after-tax dollars. Your analogy loses.

[BigWorm]

I don't see how you can compare a Senate run restaurant to privatized health care. Should we privatize the military because the government currently funds that too?

[g++]

It pretty much is BigWorm. Aside from the humans in the uniforms everything the military does is through DOD contractors.

[Daniel]

which has been a huge clusterfuck by the way. A public good is not a homogeneous good. To suggest otherwise is just silly.

[Khariz]

I don't see how you can compare a Senate run restaurant to privatized health care. Should we privatize the military because the government currently funds that too?

You realize that so many miiltary functions are privatized right now, right? And that that's why it runs so fucking awesomely. The contractors build everything for the military, maintain everything for the military, coordinate things, plan things, design things.

Very few of the essential functions aren't farmed out any more these days. Why? Because the contractors do it cheaper and better than the government can. GS RIFs are worse than they've ever been in the DoD.

Besides the actual mission part of the missions themselves, privitization has it's hand in almost every cookie jar (hell, Blackwater and other PMOs have their hand in that shit too).

[Warriorbird]

Considering the amount the Republicans have wasted on Iraq... how about we waste money on our own people for once?

[Parkbandit]

Considering the amount the Republicans have wasted on Iraq... how about we waste money on our own people for once?


When did Congress become 100% Republican!?

Awesome.

[BigWorm]

You realize that so many miiltary functions are privatized right now, right? And that that's why it runs so fucking awesomely. The contractors build everything for the military, maintain everything for the military, coordinate things, plan things, design things.

Very few of the essential functions aren't farmed out any more these days. Why? Because the contractors do it cheaper and better than the government can. GS RIFs are worse than they've ever been in the DoD.

Besides the actual mission part of the missions themselves, privitization has it's hand in almost every cookie jar (hell, Blackwater and other PMOs have their hand in that shit too).

So mercenaries are good for America?

[Khariz]

So mercenaries are good for America?

Absolutely. As long as we are paying them! You might note that most of these "mercenaries" are ex-military themselves, and are among the most patriotic of all of our people.

[Kembal]

The mercenaries are also currently not subject to criminal prosecution in Iraq or the U.S. for any of their activities in Iraq.

So they could shoot up a bunch of Iraqis. Or sell weapons to insurgents. And they can not be charged, at all.

[Keller]

It pretty much is BigWorm. Aside from the humans in the uniforms everything the military does is through DOD contractors.

BUT IT'S REGULATED BY GOV'T!!!

Seriously. You're just making the point. Hospitals, doctors, nurses, custodians, etc will be PRIVATE CITIZENS AND NOT PUBLIC EMPLOYEES.

This is not about whether public health insurance is a good idea. It's about a stupid analogy. I think you have merit w/r/t your criticism of public health insurance. I think the OPs analogy was off-base.

[Latrinsorm]

I think the OPs analogy was off-base.You dare to question the obvious king of the board? :ban:

[Parkbandit]

You dare to question the obvious king of the board? :ban:


In Keller's defense, he probably didn't understand it.

And while I do appreciate your adoration... sorry, I'm not your type.

[g++]

The avatar thing is getting confusing as hell in the past two days I thought Mabus was starting to make a lot of sense in some of his posts and then I realized I had formed a Khariz+Mabus conglomerate.


BUT IT'S REGULATED BY GOV'T!!!

Ok screw the cafeteria thing I dont feel like even discussing whether its a good analogy anymore because the issue is larger than that. Defence contractors are not FISCALLY regulated by the DOD if the DOD put a contract out for 8 bucks to develop a missile shield they dont force some company to pick it up. Public health insurance does just that. Forces companies to take obvious losses if they want to be part of the government regulated health insurance plan.

The DOD regulates its contractors within the contracts in the same way I regulate my roofer when we make a contract. There are Industry standards like what OS's DOD software must function on and whatnot so that they can keep everything uniform but they dont say your going to make my tank for 20 bucks whether you like it or not. If they did we would have no friggin tanks or DOD contractors left.

Obamas plan entails FISCALLY regulating the insurance industry. This is tantamount to making it a non-profit industry which I think will be disasterous.

[crb]

It isn't hard to make the case against socialized healthcare, just do some Google searches. You'll find out how shitty it is.

Don't base your experience on the propaganda from people like Michael Moore, they use bullshit statistics.

1. They use life expectancy to show we're like 37th in the world or whatever. Life expectancy has more to do with guns, highway driving, big macs, and cigarettes than healthcare. Do you think japanese people who eat rice & fish might live longer? Well duh.

2. They use public opinion surveys "are you happy with your healthcare" which have really no scientific basis. People in Africa can be happy with their house, but it doesn't make it a McMansion.

My favorite sources are from the country themselves. So find an article about canada's system in a canadian newspaper, about the british system in a british newspaper, etc.

You see, healthcare is not an infinite resource, like everything else it has limits, so you have to ration it in some way. so in countries where it is "free" it gets rationed or limited by waitlists and other restrictions. I read an article where I think there was an 8 year waiting list in britain for a dentist, it was something ridiculous. Then in Canada you can wait 6 weeks to see an oncologist and then another 6 or 8 weeks to start chemo. Good luck living through that cancer. There are more MRI machines in the city of pittsburgh than the entire country of Canada.

Socialized medicine does really good for like every day care stuff, coughs, colds, physicals, well checks, etc. It sucks for stuff you can actually die from.

And in the end, changing who pays for healthcare, doesn't fix the problem. The problem is not who pays for it, the problem is the price has been increasing more than 10% a year for the past 20 years. Medicare is already set to go bankrupt by like 2018, making it all socialized will be just that much quicker.

you need to address the problem of cost increases, and to do that you need to modernize healthcare and how people buy it. Let consumers have control over their healthcare dollars, give them more information on costs so they can shop around. and healthcare needs to be like car shopping. right now everyone buys a mercedes or they don't get anything. Seriously, people either get the best health coverage, or go without any insurance. Why not some medium coverage, just for true unforseen problems & accidents?

We already got a great system. Health savings accounts coupled with high deductible low premium insurance. We just need to revise the tax code to treat benefits as wages, give a tax credit to offset that, and encourage more consumer price shopping to create competition to drive down costs.

[Keller]

It isn't hard to make the case against socialized healthcare, just do some Google searches. You'll find out how shitty it is.

Don't base your experience on the propaganda from people like Michael Moore, they use bullshit statistics.

1. They use life expectancy to show we're like 37th in the world or whatever. Life expectancy has more to do with guns, highway driving, big macs, and cigarettes than healthcare. Do you think japanese people who eat rice & fish might live longer? Well duh.

2. They use public opinion surveys "are you happy with your healthcare" which have really no scientific basis. People in Africa can be happy with their house, but it doesn't make it a McMansion.

My favorite sources are from the country themselves. So find an article about canada's system in a canadian newspaper, about the british system in a british newspaper, etc.

You see, healthcare is not an infinite resource, like everything else it has limits, so you have to ration it in some way. so in countries where it is "free" it gets rationed or limited by waitlists and other restrictions. I read an article where I think there was an 8 year waiting list in britain for a dentist, it was something ridiculous. Then in Canada you can wait 6 weeks to see an oncologist and then another 6 or 8 weeks to start chemo. Good luck living through that cancer. There are more MRI machines in the city of pittsburgh than the entire country of Canada.

Socialized medicine does really good for like every day care stuff, coughs, colds, physicals, well checks, etc. It sucks for stuff you can actually die from.

And in the end, changing who pays for healthcare, doesn't fix the problem. The problem is not who pays for it, the problem is the price has been increasing more than 10% a year for the past 20 years. Medicare is already set to go bankrupt by like 2018, making it all socialized will be just that much quicker.

you need to address the problem of cost increases, and to do that you need to modernize healthcare and how people buy it. Let consumers have control over their healthcare dollars, give them more information on costs so they can shop around. and healthcare needs to be like car shopping. right now everyone buys a mercedes or they don't get anything. Seriously, people either get the best health coverage, or go without any insurance. Why not some medium coverage, just for true unforseen problems & accidents?

We already got a great system. Health savings accounts coupled with high deductible low premium insurance. We just need to revise the tax code to treat benefits as wages, give a tax credit to offset that, and encourage more consumer price shopping to create competition to drive down costs.

Pretty superb post.

Agree entirely that we have too much health care in this country and I think a lot of it is due to poor preventative care and education.

The issue becomes: how to execute?

[Khariz]

The avatar thing is getting confusing as hell in the past two days I thought Mabus was starting to make a lot of sense in some of his posts and then I realized I had formed a Khariz+Mabus conglomerate.





I changed my avatar to a McCain button instead of banner. I hope that helps.

[Back]

Everyone knows government subsized restaurants suck. Well... Kaneda Air Base did have a pretty kick ass breakfast buffet. Then again, breakfast buffets are hard to screw up... anyway.

I think this is an apples and oranges arguement. The restaurant industry and the health care industry share a common thread of service, if the employees actually care about the level of service they provide, but one is pledged to product and the other to cash in pocket.

If the government, through tax payer dollars, subsidizized the heath care industry there seems to be many benefits. First of all, being part of a national pride that we can and will take care of our own. To go down the list... more money for research to benefit all of our lifespans. Paying health care industry employees across-the-board competing wages. Increasing education reimbursement AND paying more scholarships for people in the field. Put more money into grassroots community health care. I’m certain there are many more.

[Daniel]

You realize that so many miiltary functions are privatized right now, right? And that that's why it runs so fucking awesomely.


Um. Are you serious? You do realize that the US military "ran fucking awesomely" well before they decided to outsource essential services. The only difference today is the cost, which is astronomically higher than it has been in any other war.

Outsourcing the military has been a HUGE mistake.

[g++]

If the government, through tax payer dollars, subsidizized the heath care industry there seems to be many benefits. First of all, being part of a national pride that we can and will take care of our own. To go down the list... more money for research to benefit all of our lifespans. Paying health care industry employees across-the-board competing wages. Increasing education reimbursement AND paying more scholarships for people in the field. Put more money into grassroots community health care. I’m certain there are many more.

I mean this whole statement is like a dream but the one thing that jumped out at me was "grassroots community health care". Are you high?

[Parkbandit]

Everyone knows government subsized restaurants suck. Well... Kaneda Air Base did have a pretty kick ass breakfast buffet. Then again, breakfast buffets are hard to screw up... anyway.

I think this is an apples and oranges arguement. The restaurant industry and the health care industry share a common thread of service, if the employees actually care about the level of service they provide, but one is pledged to product and the other to cash in pocket.

Huh? Which one is which? They aren't mutually exclusive... quality product and service go hand in hand with profitability.



If the government, through tax payer dollars, subsidizized the heath care industry there seems to be many benefits. First of all, being part of a national pride that we can and will take care of our own. To go down the list... more money for research to benefit all of our lifespans. Paying health care industry employees across-the-board competing wages. Increasing education reimbursement AND paying more scholarships for people in the field. Put more money into grassroots community health care. I’m certain there are many more.

:rofl: You just named most of the things that opponents for socialized healthcare say will go away. Research? What incentive will there be? R&D is spurred by the gold pot at the end of the rainbow. And what the fuck does socialized healthcare have to do with education and scholarships?

[AnticorRifling]

Um. Are you serious? You do realize that the US military "ran fucking awesomely" well before they decided to outsource essential services. The only difference today is the cost, which is astronomically higher than it has been in any other war.

Outsourcing the military has been a HUGE mistake.
I'm going to agree with Daniel on this 100%.

[Parkbandit]

I'm going to agree with Daniel on this 100%.

So your complaint is that the cost is higher for this war than others? Couldn't that be because of the munitions we now use, the equipment we now use, inflation, etc..?

You realize that a guided missile costs more than a cannonball, right?

[Warriorbird]

You're missing their point. Privatizing from a military perspective has been ridiculously costly and inefficient... and that's including a comparison to modern wars.

You have a hard time coping with all these Republican concepts that waste cash yet try to cling to 'conservative' ideals. It'd be difficult for me too. I feel bad for you.

[Khariz]

I'm sorry, but I just toally disagree.

The government can pay Lockheed Martin (just an example) 10mil for 50 guys to complete a project in 5 years, and the thing is a whiz bang job.

Or

They can pay 200 GS guys 50 million over 1 years to develop the same thing and it will run like shit.

PB is pretty much correct. It's not the efficient contractor's fault that materials and modern day warfare pieces cost more.

[BigWorm]

Yeah we really saw the free market at work with those no bid contracts

[Parkbandit]

You're missing their point. Privatizing from a military perspective has been ridiculously costly and inefficient... and that's including a comparison to modern wars.

You have a hard time coping with all these Republican concepts that waste cash yet try to cling to 'conservative' ideals. It'd be difficult for me too. I feel bad for you.


YOU are missing the point.

Who hired these contractors to make whatever item or provide whatever service? Who is responsible for the delivery and quality of these items and/or services.

The answer is the Government. I have contractors working for me every day... do you think for a moment that I will just let them bill me whatever they want and do a shitty job providing service? No, because I, as the purchaser, have a handle on my contractors.

Do you have a lawn service? Maid service? Let's say you do.. would you just let them do whatever they want and charge you whatever they want? Of course you wouldn't. You would inspect your house and make sure they are cleaning well. You would look at your lawn regularly and ensure it has great curb appeal. If you find that they aren't doing the job correctly.. you would talk to them and either get them to do their job properly or you would fire them and get someone else.

The Government is the problem.

[Parkbandit]

Yeah we really saw the free market at work with those no bid contracts

Which would be government's fault for allowing that to happen.

[Back]

Huh? Which one is which? They aren't mutually exclusive... quality product and service go hand in hand with profitability.

Doctors used to take the hippocratic oath. Medical professionals make life or death decisions every day and are highly trained and educated. A server in a restaurant doesn’t take any oath other than they’ll be nice to their customers in hopes they get a big tip.


:rofl: You just named most of the things that opponents for socialized healthcare say will go away. Research? What incentive will there be? R&D is spurred by the gold pot at the end of the rainbow. And what the fuck does socialized healthcare have to do with education and scholarships?

Well, I’m only throwing out suggestions as to how things could go. Helping people get educated to enter the medical profession would strengthen the industry.

[Daniel]

I'm sorry, but I just toally disagree.

The government can pay Lockheed Martin (just an example) 10mil for 50 guys to complete a project in 5 years, and the thing is a whiz bang job.

Or

They can pay 200 GS guys 50 million over 1 years to develop the same thing and it will run like shit.

PB is pretty much correct. It's not the efficient contractor's fault that materials and modern day warfare pieces cost more.

Lol. Not only is this not true, but it's not even what I was talking about.

Feel free to look up such projects as the Paladin and the Osprey and tell me that private R & D is soooo much better.

However, we aren't talking about R & D, nor are we talking about mass production of bullets (which have always been done by private companies).

We are talking about the logisitical, support and security aspects of continuing operations that have been outsourced and cost a fuck load of money.

[Daniel]

Which would be government's fault for allowing that to happen.

So, you're in favor of regulation now?

[Daniel]

If you find that they aren't doing the job correctly.. you would talk to them and either get them to do their job properly or you would fire them and get someone else.

The Government is the problem.

Because in a war zone you're going to call a time out to find a better source of bullets

[ElanthianSiren]

Actually, with regard to US research, there's a huge complaint that most of it isn't curative. The big pharms look for chronic and treatable now while most of the real curative research comes out of non profits, foreign countries, and universities; it's one of the double edged swords of wanting to go into a research profession that I'm still coming to terms with.

I'm not saying there will be more curative research under a socialized approach necessarily. What I'm saying is that what's touted as high-tech research is at the expense of curative focus, so it's unwise to drag research into an argument about the overall health of a system that, by its nature, focuses on keeping conditions chronic and treatable.

[Parkbandit]

So, you're in favor of regulation now?

I've never not been a favor of government regulation in regards to the products and services they purchase with my money.

[Parkbandit]

Because in a war zone you're going to call a time out to find a better source of bullets

Clearly, you've never been in management.. or at the very least, never been a good manager. If you've figured out that the services and/or products you are paying for are not good when you need them most, then you have failed.