Will the real 10 year cost of ObamaCare be over $6 trillion?

[psychictv]

Such as? Specifics please. DrKitten tried and failed to show that government has been more cost effective or effective in general at any of the *successes* she named.

Just as you have consistently failed to demonstrate that any of those programs are actually failures. My list of successes would be the same as your list of "failures." Social Security, Medicare, public education, etc. And I'll provide the same amount of proof for that assertion that you did (i.e., none).

 

[Meadmaker]

But they have tried to do all manner of other social engineering ... and failed repeatedly and wastefully. War On Poverty. War On Drugs. Public Education. Medicare (and by the way, Medicare is health care).

Medicare is a pretty popular and successful program. Public education, as I noted before, used to be fantastic, and still isn't bad. I think it could be improved with some private sector participation, but it isn't bad.

Such as? Specifics please.

Social security. Medicare. The only problem with Social Security is that politicians are reluctant to pay the actual cost, preferring to tell the voters they can have something for nothing. Alas, both parties do that in different ways. The interstate highway system worked last time I used it. The American university system is still awesome, and it is largely a government program.

But perhaps the reason the US private sector has not done it as cheaply as those other governments (and I'm glad to see you are not stating with certainty that those other governments have done it better because that's highly debateable, albeit off topic) could be due to differences in their society and ours

It's a chance I'm willing to take. I don't think our society is all that different, and if our governmental structure is truly ineffective, then I'm ok with changing that, too.

We probably can. But the French are moving back in our direction

If the conservative French government gets everything they want, and Obama gets everything he has asked for, we still won't meet in the middle.

 

[BeAChooser]

The biggest advantage of public programs over private industry is that they can provide equal services to everyone.

You know, that sounds almost communist. Hate to tell you but the underlying philosophy of the US (up to now) has been a promise of equal OPPORTUNITY ... not equal service or outcome.

A private mail company might be able to compete with the USPS in some limited geographical areas but no corporation would ever commit to delivering to every address in the U.S. for a single flat rate.

But does that really make economic sense? USPS has been consistently losing money and raising its rates. And one reason that USPS has been forced to be as competitive as it is is competition from the private sector. Funny you should mention that example given that the admitted ultimate goal of Obama and the democrats pushing health care *reform* is single payer ... which would eliminate competition.

Private schools might appear to perform better but that's pretty easy to do if you pick and choose your students and aren't required to accept every troubled child, or provide special education to the disabled, kids with learning disabilities, e.s.l. students, etc.

That really doesn't explain the fact that about HALF of all students fail to graduate public high school on time in the 50 largest public school districts (
http://www.publicschoolreview.com/articles/15 ). Surely you aren't claiming those students are all troubled, special ed or e.s.l.? And many who do graduate require remedial classes if they decide (and many don't) to go on to college. Students from private schools tend to be far better prepared for college and far more of them go on to college.

For example, http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/08245/908603-298.stm:

During the 2003-04 school year, more than a third of first-and second-year undergraduates reported taking a remedial course in at least one subject since matriculating, according to a 2006 report by the National Center for Education Statistics.

Yet the number of high school graduates prepared for college may be even lower than the center's reports suggest.

Three-fourths of students who took the ACT college entrance exam in 2006 lacked the knowledge and skills to succeed in entry-level, credit-bearing college courses in reading, math, social studies and science, even though they had taken a high school curriculum designed to prepare them for higher education, according to an ACT study.

About one-fifth of test-takers were not ready for college-level courses in any of the four subjects, the study said.

Actually, data shows that private schools do take the less privileged children and do better with them as well.

For example:

http://www.capenet.org/benefits4.html

Private schools are racially, ethnically, and economically diverse. Twenty-three percent of private school students are students of color; twenty-eight percent are from families with annual incomes under $50,000

That percentage is not all that different from the population at large.

Furthermore (from the above source),

Private school students from low socio-economic backgrounds are more than three times more likely than comparable public school students to attain a bachelor’s degree by their mid-20s, meaning that private schools contribute to breaking the cycle of poverty for their students

Furthermore (from http://www.heritage.org/research/urbanissues/bg1128.cfm )

In a study published in 1990, for example, the Rand Corporation analyzed big-city high schools to determine how education for low income minority youth could be improved. It looked at 13 public, private, and Catholic high schools in New York City that attracted minority and disadvantaged youth. Of the Catholic school students in these schools, 75 to 90 percent were black or Hispanic. The study found that:

- The Catholic high schools graduated 95 percent of their students each year, while the public schools graduated slightly more 50 percent of their senior class;

- Over 66 percent of the Catholic school graduates received the New York State Regents diploma to signify completion of an academically demanding college preparatory curriculum, while only about 5 percent of the public school students received this distinction;

- 85 percent of the Catholic high school students took the Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT), compared with just 33 percent of the public high school students;

- The Catholic school students achieved an average combined SAT score of 803, while the public school students' average combined SAT score was 642; and

- 60 percent of the Catholic school black students scored above the national average for black students on the SAT, and over 70 percent of public school black students scored below the same national average.

Here's a source, http://www.nje3.org/?p=3024, on how students accepted, by lottery, to non-union charter schools outperformed those who lost the lottery and had to remain in the public schools and how students accepted to unionized charter schools experienced no benefit.

And I can go on all day citing sources like that.

And isn't it interesting that public education, like national health care, is something that the democrat leaders who force it upon us tend to opt out of? What a coincidence.

 

[BeAChooser]

Quote:
A statement coming from the same group of people that redefined "is".
What?

Now Bill Clinton is in control of the CBO? That's some conspiracy theory you have going there.

No, Joe. I was referring to a statement YOU MADE.

You say that it doesn't matter that insurance premiums go to insurance companies and not to the government but they still count as tax.

Insurance premiums that the government will FORCE you to make under threat of prison and fine. You conveniently forgot that part of what I said, Joe, in your rush to misrepresent what I said.

 

[BeAChooser]

And I still think it's curious that many proponents of "fiscal responsibility" when it comes to health care don't seem to mind that billions (if not tens of billions) of dollars dispersed in Iraq will never be accounted for.

And which proponents are those? I certainly am angry that billions of taxpayer dollars that were sent to Iraq are not accounted for by the US government. But what's curious is that you folks think the same incompetent (corrupt?) organization should take over a 1/6th of the US economy. How many TRILLIONS will never be accounted for then?

 

[tyr_13]

So people who elect to pay extra for education actually ensure that most of their children graduate from school, and that means that schools who force all students, including ones who's parents don't give a damn are worse?

You are actually pointing to institutionalized cherry picking and proclaiming it evidence of out performance of the private sector. The private sector works better by not dealing with the big problems. Besides, most people wouldn't pay for a school worse than a public one, so the simple existence of public schools means that the vast majority of private schools that remain in business are better than public ones. If they weren't they would have gone out of business.

But do tell about private roads and how those have worked out past the US antebellum era.

 

[BeAChooser]

Trial lawyers" are not a serious expense for our medical system.

You overlook the indirect costs of the medical malpractice system ... the number of medical tests and procedures motivated solely by fear of being sued if not done. The increased cost to drugs.

It is interesting that the democrat health plan is actually going to eliminate some of the few constraints there are on trial lawyers. For example Section 2531(4)b specifies that reform of the medical malpractice system must not limit attorney fees or impose caps on damages. You'll recall that California and Texas passed just those sorts of restrictions years ago in an effort to curtail spiraling medical costs. In Texas (http://www.cnn.com/2009/OPINION/11/09/frum.trial.lawyers.victory/index.html )

After Texas capped pain and suffering damages at $750,000 in 2003, the number of malpractice lawsuits dropped abruptly. Lawsuits in Harris County (Houston and environs) plunged by 50 percent.

Fewer lawsuits meant lower malpractice premiums. Texas' largest malpractice insurance carrier cut costs to doctors by 17 percent. Lower insurance premiums attracted more medical professionals to the state. In the 1990s, Texas ranked low in the nation in the number of doctors per person. In the four years after 2003, the number of doctors in the state jumped by 18 percent.

Yet, democrats seek to undo even that small progress in reigning in greedy lawyers. For the reason, we need only look to the fact that trial lawyers were amongst the largest contributors to the democrat party and Obama last election (and in previous elections).

 

[Meadmaker]

Yet, democrats seek to undo even that small progress in reigning in greedy lawyers. For the reason, we need only look to the fact that trial lawyers were amongst the largest contributors to the democrat party and Obama last election (and in previous elections).

In my humble opinion, people don't act on these concerns at the ballot box because they perceive (mistakenly) that these costs are borne by insurance companies, so they don't really care. If those costs were borne by government instead, that would be at least one step closer to making people realize who is truly hurt by those lawsuits.

It's not a good way to raise concern about this problem, but it's the best available.

 

[Dr Adequate]

Well, this thread was BAC'd from the get-go.

If anyone would like seriously to argue for the status quo against reform, then I should ask them to start a new thread.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

No, Joe. I was referring to a statement YOU MADE.

I've never tried to redefine "is".

Insurance premiums that the government will FORCE you to make under threat of prison and fine. You conveniently forgot that part of what I said, Joe, in your rush to misrepresent what I said.

No--I know what you wrote. Your point that whether or not the premiums are paid to the government is irrelevant in whether or not to consider them taxes is nonsensical.

And yet again--you keep ignoring this--if you did consider those premiums to be taxes, they would decrease the net cost to the Federal budget of this bill.

The net cost is negative. I realize you don't accept that because you believe the Cato Institute and the Heritage Foundation are less partisan than the CBO, and that you think either I (since you're not talking about Bill Clinton on the redefining "is" thing) or the Democratic Party somehow control the CBO.

 

[psychictv]

You know, that sounds almost communist.

The horror! I take it all back. Oh wait, no I don't, because that's your hangup, not mine.

Hate to tell you but the underlying philosophy of the US (up to now) has been a promise of equal OPPORTUNITY ... not equal service or outcome.

Wait, but I thought the American left had a long history of being secret commies. Isn't Obama a Socialist? Wasn't FDR a Socialist? Aren't they hugely popular presidents that won landslide victories? Isn't social security an enormously popular program? Despite decades of right wing red-baiting, the American public overwhelmingly chooses to support "socialist" programs when given the chance.

But does that really make economic sense?

To deliver mail to every address in the U.S.? No, it absolutely doesn't make economic sense, which is why no sane private business would attempt it. It does make sense for the public good though (or at least it did in a previous era), just as rural electrification programs, or universal internet access make sense for the public good even when they may not be profitable from a business point of view.

That really doesn't explain the fact that about HALF of all students fail to graduate public high school on time in the 50 largest public school districts (
http://www.publicschoolreview.com/articles/15 ). Surely you aren't claiming those students are all troubled, special ed or e.s.l.?

Yes, I think that by definition, high school dropouts are somewhat "troubled" or come from homes where an emphasis isn't placed on education. This seems self evident. Graduating high school is not the most difficult thing in the world after all.

Actually, data shows that private schools do take the less privileged children and do better with them as well.
... "Private schools are racially, ethnically, and economically diverse. Twenty-three percent of private school students are students of color; twenty-eight percent are from families with annual incomes under $50,000"

I never said anything about race or financial status. It's interesting that you went there though. Of course, private schools will have scholarships for the economically disadvantaged but that's still a self-selecting situation as only those families and students who are motivated to even pursue the scholarships and the private school education will apply.

Here's a source, http://www.nje3.org/?p=3024, on how students accepted, by lottery, to non-union charter schools outperformed those who lost the lottery and had to remain in the public schools and how students accepted to unionized charter schools experienced no benefit.

Based on just a few minutes of research I found a few problems with this study. First of all, it only covers schools where there is a waiting list and therefore a lottery. So it's automatically skewed toward the best charter schools while ignoring the unpopular ones. Likewise it would tend to ignore the high performing public schools since those students wouldn't need to apply to schools outside of their attendance area. So it's probably mostly looking at situations where a student who is supposed to attend a very bad public school tries to apply to a highly regarded charter school. Finally it ignores the possibility that the motivated student in the public school is brought down by the unmotivated students around them, and the general atmosphere of the public school. That situation would remain the same even if you privatized that public school. So I'm not at all convinced that this study reveals any useful conclusions that can be generalized to public vs private schools as a whole.

But all of that is beside the point. Public education in the United states has freely educated millions of people for almost 200 years. Taken as a whole, the project has been an enormous success. You can't point to recent failures and use them to condemn the very concept of public education any more than you should disband the U.S. military because of failures in a particular conflict.

 

[psychictv]

You overlook the indirect costs of the medical malpractice system ... the number of medical tests and procedures motivated solely by fear of being sued if not done.

Oh sorry, so it's actually 3%
"The fear of lawsuits among doctors does seem to lead to a noticeable amount of wasteful treatment. Amitabh Chandra — a Harvard economist whose research is cited by both the American Medical Association and the trial lawyers’ association — says $60 billion a year, or about 3 percent of overall medical spending, is a reasonable upper-end estimate."
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/23/business/economy/23leonhardt.html

I'm still not seeing the huge problem.

For example Section 2531(4)b specifies that reform of the medical malpractice system must not limit attorney fees or impose caps on damages.

Good. Damages shouldn't be capped. Malpractice lawsuits are currently too limited, not out of control. From the same article I linked above, "At the same time, though, the current system appears to treat actual malpractice too lightly. Trials may get a lot of attention, but they are the exception. Far more common are errors that never lead to any action. After reviewing thousands of patient records, medical researchers have estimated that only 2 to 3 percent of cases of medical negligence lead to a malpractice claim."

For the reason, we need only look to the fact that trial lawyers were amongst the largest contributors to the democrat party and Obama last election (and in previous elections).

Also, lawyers are smart, highly educated, and wealthy, and therefore obviously tend to support Democrats.

 

[Lurker]

But they have tried to do all manner of other social engineering ... and failed repeatedly and wastefully.

I would submit that Social Security is a success. Previous to its implementation, the poverty rate among the elderly was quite high. After Social Security the rate plummetted. You can discuss the cost of SS but the program has been successful for over 50 years which is a pretty good track record for a government program. Even today it is only slated to be in trouble around 2040 so that adds up to almost a century of success. That is quite impressive. With some modifications SS will be solvent well past 2040.

I'm not sure what in the private sector can be compared to SS. I doubt there could be a private system that is as successful. 401k does not provide insurance and looks less successful with teh fall of the market. Pensions are disappearing rapidly.

 

[Lurker]

That really doesn't explain the fact that about HALF of all students fail to graduate public high school on time in the 50 largest public school districts (
http://www.publicschoolreview.com/articles/15 ). Surely you aren't claiming those students are all troubled, special ed or e.s.l.? And many who do graduate require remedial classes if they decide (and many don't) to go on to college. Students from private schools tend to be far better prepared for college and far more of them go on to college.

And if I go to suburban schools I find that their test scores are comparale to our European and Japanese peers. Also, their graduation rate is MUCH higher than 50%, many topping 90%. Why are these public schools so successful?

 

[BeAChooser]

My list of successes would be the same as your list of "failures." Social Security, Medicare, public education, etc. And I'll provide the same amount of proof for that assertion that you did (i.e., none).

LOL! You forget that we already had this debate and in that debate I did indeed offer considerable proof regarding the failure of your so-called *successes*. That debate was in the following thread, less than 2 months ago:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=154698

I suggest you go take a look at it. Note that I just added a post (#104) that I'd prepared for you back then but for some reason never posted (maybe I got a suspension before I could). It's in answer to your last post on that thread. I think it and my other posts in that thread are an adequate response to your blatantly false charge that I've offered no proof on these subjects. I most certainly have. You simply ignored that proof. And now you lie about never being provided any proof. Par for the course from Obama supporters like you.

 

[drkitten]

LOL! You forget that we already had this debate and in that debate I did indeed offer considerable proof regarding the failure of your so-called *successes*.

Yes, it's easy to forget what never happened except in the privacy of a lunatic's mind.

 

[BeAChooser]

Medicare is a pretty popular and successful program.

Popularity has little to do with whether a program is successful. You can give people things for free (so they think) and that will be popular. But when it bankrupts the giver and all eventually end up poorer as a result, that program can not in any way be viewed a success. Obama is now wildly popular (at least amongst a wide section of ... I believe, uncritical and unthinking ... Americans and foreigners) but history will (I think) judge his programs an utter disaster for this country. Already we have evidence that many of his efforts have not come close to the results that were expected and have been highly wasteful of tax dollars. Already we have evidence that his administration is not as open and transparent as was promised. Already we have evidence that his administration is filled with corrupt supporters. And I think things will only get worse ... much worse.

Public education, as I noted before, used to be fantastic, and still isn't bad.

A system that can't even graduate on time half the students in the largest 50 school districts? A system that has forced the SAT to lower its standards? A system that produces students, who if they do attend college, have to take remedial courses just to pass the most basic college courses? A system that produces loads of psychologists and sociologists, community organizers, sports figures, leaches (I mean lawyers), starry eyed media and entertainment flunkies, and department store clerks ... rather than loads of engineers and scientists? You say that system is good (the opposite of bad)?

Originally Posted by Meadmaker
The US government has done lots of other things, and done it well

Quote:
Such as? Specifics please.

Social security. Medicare.

LOL! You just named two programs that are both literally bankrupting the US. Do you know what the combined UNFUNDED debt of those programs is? Over 70 TRILLION dollars (http://docs.google.com/gview?a=v&q=...&gl=us&sig=AFQjCNFJj6aQfGxWgANDCSLbtjJG63FadQ ).

As pointed out in that article,

By 2020, the deficits in these two programs will consume more than one-fourth of all federal income taxes.

By 2030, about the midpoint of the baby boomer retirement years, deficits in the two programs will consume more than half of federal income taxes.

By 2050, when today's college students will reach retirement, they will consume more than three-fourths of all income taxes.

And you call that a success?

The only problem with Social Security is that politicians are reluctant to pay the actual cost, preferring to tell the voters they can have something for nothing.

LOL! Where are you going to get 70 TRILLION dollars?

And isn't promising something for nothing what Obama is now doing in program after program? His programs are already predicted to add 7 trillion dollars to the National Debt (over and above that noted above and over and above what would have been added under Bush policies) over the next 10 years. Promising something for nothing. At the end of that time, it is predicted that the National Debt will be growing at over a trillion dollars a year. And who is going to pay for that? Because eventually the bill will come do. TANSTAAFL!

What is thread about? It's about Obama perhaps lying again in telling people that his health care program will only cost tax payers $1 trillion over a 10 year period. Telling them that they will get better health care for much less. Promising something for nothing. Don't you see that the government is again promising what history shows it will never be able to deliver? They haven't done it in ANY major social program and this one will in all probability be no different. The ONLY result will be to lower the quality of health care for all of us and push us even farther toward the fiscal precipice. That is what history shows time and again is the end result of socialism/communism. Will liberals never learn that lesson?

The interstate highway system worked last time I used it.

Do you know why the interstate highway system was originally built (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal-Aid_Highway_Act_of_1956 )? For national defense (it was called the National Interstate and Defense Highways Act of 1956 for a reason). But did we really need the system for national defense? Could any conceivable opponent at the time have successfully invaded this country? No. Not with the Navy we had. Not with the Air Force we had. And remember, the moment they tried they would have been nuked. The fact that the highway system has promoted commerce and given our citizens more freedom was a tertiary concern. Now if only there were some tertiary benefit to the trillions and trillions that were spent in the WOP and WOD the last 45 years.

And one more thing. The interstate system is a THING. Building things is relatively easy. Government successfully went to the moon because it only required one build a thing subject to the immutable laws of nature. These things could be successfully created and achieve the goal that was set because success didn't depend (for the most part) on human nature. In short, these programs were not social engineering. Social engineering is much much more difficult, and over and over the US government (and liberals) have demonstrated they aren't very good at social engineering. And universal health care is social engineering.

Also, there were negative consequences to the interstate system. It's planners said it would help save central cities by rescuing them from automobile congestion. Did it do that? In fact, it's construction devastated many urban neighborhoods. And when the government decided to subsidize it's creation using public funds, it did great harm to what then was a very viable and very cost effective private sector means of moving people and materials ... the railroads. The interstate system helped create the decentralized, automobile-dependent cities where most people now live. Cities that because of their structure and dependence on autos are riff with problems ... social problems that now seem intractable. And where ironically, we are now trying to recreate mass transit ... i.e., railroads.

The American university system is still awesome, and it is largely a government program.

And largely controlled by liberals who use it to indoctrinate students in liberal ideas? Note, in that regard, that I also think private universities are failing America because of liberal social engineering and indoctrination. Columbia University is private and look at the sort of students it's graduated.

I think a public university system is one of the better things that government can do. If it's done right. As long as it teaches students what they need in order to have a productive career. As long as it stays away from political indoctrination and social engineering. As long as it doesn't ask tax payers to fund what can only be labeled fluff courses. If people want to learn fluff they can pay for it themselves.

And don't deceive yourself. You get what you pay for, and for the most part you do get a better education at the admittedly more expensive private schools. They turn out better engineers. Better scientists. Better doctors. Better lawyers. If we were to handle education the same as democrats want to handle health care, public university would be the only option and the end result would be a less educated ... and therefore less productive ... populace. And that wouldn't be good for America. So why do democrats think it would be good where health care is concerned?

Finally, note that the university system is another where the real costs have simply exploded. Even the retail (much less the real) cost of a college degree has doubled in the past two decades, far exceeding the rate of inflation. In fact (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/03/education/03college.html ), since 1982 the cost of college has increased over 439% compared with a consumer price index increase of only about a 100%. It's increased more than the cost of medical care. And do you think college students for the most part are better educated now than then? The fact is the education system is as broke as the Medicare system. That link quotes Patrick Callan, president of the National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education, saying "If we go on this way for another 25 years, we won’t have an affordable system of higher education.” And you call that a success?

It's a chance I'm willing to take. I don't think our society is all that different, and if our governmental structure is truly ineffective, then I'm ok with changing that, too.

Ah yes ... it's all about *change*.

If the conservative French government gets everything they want, and Obama gets everything he has asked for, we still won't meet in the middle.

NONSENSE. Obama wants single payer. He said it. So did a bunch of other top democrats. And this bill is just a backdoor to getting that. Don't delude yourself into thinking otherwise.

 

[BeAChooser]

So people who elect to pay extra for education actually ensure that most of their children graduate from school, and that means that schools who force all students, including ones who's parents don't give a damn are worse?

No, because I provided several examples where private schools with the same student makeup as public schools (one even selected students at random from the public schools) did far better than public schools in educating those kids and did it for less money. The problem is not the students ... it's the public school system and the liberals/unions who control it.

The private sector works better by not dealing with the big problems.

LOL!

The private sector, before government got involved, was rapidly dropping the poverty rate (a big problem right?). Within a few years of the start of LBJ's war on poverty, that decline stopped. All government did was build in a minimum poverty rate (which is climbing now, thanks to continued government intervention over the years) into the system by encouraging dependency and a sense of entitlement in certain sectors of the population.

Years ago it was suggested, by many learned people, that the way to deal with the problem of drugs was to treat it as a problem of economics using the private sector, rather than by criminalizing everything related to drugs and letting the government handle things in its usual fashion. How big a success has that been? By most accounts, trillions and trillions of dollars flowed out of this country into the hands of drug cartels ... which are now threatening to even take over Mexico, our nearest neighbor. That loss of capital blighted our inner cities. Trillions of dollars have corrupted government after government, including our own (remember Mena?). Drug revenues are now even funding our terrorists enemies. Solely because we refused to rely on the free market to deal with the problem. Is our population drug free? Even with our jails filled to over-capacity by drug offenders? NO. And ironically one of the most liberal states in the US is now toying with the idea of decriminalizing the use of some drugs, letting the private sector sell them, and taxing the result. Too bad government chose the "public WOD option" so many years ago. They could have saved us trillions of dollars and countless lives. But instead, the governments War On Drugs built into the system a need for drugs amongst unions like the ones that control the prisons and law enforcement agencies. Lots of drugs means lots of members and more money (fat retirement plans) for those union members. Feedback systems are a bitch, aren't they. The private sector has time tested and very successful ways of dealing with feedback. Government does not. And therein lies the problem.

Oh yeah ... the public sector does so well at the *big problems*.

But do tell about private roads and how those have worked out past the US antebellum era.

LOL! Isn't it ironic that city after city and state after state are now turning to private companies to build and maintain their roads ... the P3 option (Public Private Partnerships). They are doing that because of what's described as a trillion dollar transportation crisis. Potholes everywhere. Congestion everywhere. Do you know that between 1994 and early 2006, over $21 billion was spent on 43 highway facilities in the United States using various P3 models.
Existing roads are being privatized through long term lease agreements. Currently, nearly 80 major highways in 25 states are under consideration for privatization. And you want to champion the public road system as an example of success?

You might find this interesting too:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_road

Private road associations manage two-thirds of the road network in Sweden. A 2001 government-commissioned evaluation found that the cost of operation and maintenance of private roads was often less than half the cost of publicly managed roads.

 

[tyr_13]

No, because I provided several examples where private schools with the same student makeup as public schools (one even selected students at random from the public schools) did far better than public schools in educating those kids and did it for less money. The problem is not the students ... it's the public school system and the liberals/unions who control it.

This has already been addressed; your example is pure spin.

LOL!
blah, blah, blah

Not going to comment on ramblings.

LOL! Isn't it ironic that city after city and state after state are now turning to private companies to build and maintain their roads ... the P3 option (Public Private Partnerships). They are doing that because of what's described as a trillion dollar transportation crisis. Potholes everywhere. Congestion everywhere. Do you know that between 1994 and early 2006, over $21 billion was spent on 43 highway facilities in the United States using various P3 models.
Existing roads are being privatized through long term lease agreements. Currently, nearly 80 major highways in 25 states are under consideration for privatization. And you want to champion the public road system as an example of success?

You might find this interesting too:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_road

You're crediting the private sector for repairing roads with public funds. Roads built and run by the government. Roads that make much of the private sector even possible. Roads policed by the government.

YES! The public road system is an example of success! The manifest nature of this that you are trying to argue against makes it almost insane to respond to such broad labels of failure.

 

[psychictv]

LOL! You forget that we already had this debate and in that debate I did indeed offer considerable proof regarding the failure of your so-called *successes*. That debate was in the following thread, less than 2 months ago:...
I suggest you go take a look at it. Note that I just added a post (#104) that I'd prepared for you back then but for some reason never posted (maybe I got a suspension before I could).

I apologize for not reading the thorough response that you wrote two months ago but never posted. That's entirely my fault. Next time I'll take more care to read what you didn't write.