Story Comments
Posted by: Beau7890 11 months, 3 weeks ago
This page is a permanent archive of the comment below and its replies.
To view this comment in the context of the full discussion for the story, use this link.
-
100%
Beau789011 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Industry--and especially utilities, who provide necessities at a profit, has no conscience. They care only about returns to officers and stockholders, and usually only over the short term. That's why heavy regulation is necessary. Many will disagree, but I wouldn't mind seeing utilities flat-out nationalized by the government.
Reply-
33%
nostalgia11 months, 3 weeks ago
-
90%
Beau789011 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Better than having necessities be sold to consumers at a profit...with no regulation.
Reply
Medicare's troubles expanded from that of its costliness when Bush began to privatize it with the so-called "Medicare Advantage" program. I see no problem with Social Security, except that it pays out to people who would do fine with no security. What part of government providing a safety net for the less fortunate bothers you?
If it were up to private industry, poor people would starve, freeze to death in the winter, and live in the dark.-
40%
nostalgia11 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Safety net is fine with me
Reply
But govt control of anything is a boondoggle
Do you really think Medicare was fine before Medicare Advantage??
You need to read the reports that they do peridically. Medicare is facing a larger problem than SS and was BEFORE Medicare Advantage
SS was never intended to be the only retirement people had but that is what happened
Beau where in the workd do you live that you believe "poor people would starve, freeze to death in the winter, and live in the dark"
In case you are unaware there are progrmas in almost every state for low income assistance with electricity and other heat. Can't you donate a small amount every month as part of your utility bill for that fund or have you even bothered to look into it?
There are also Federal programs
Not using hyperbole now are you?-
100%
Beau789011 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Who controls a safety net if not the government?
Reply
I didn't ssay Medicare was fine before Medicare Advantage. (You're not using hyperbole now are you?) But the problems the program faced before Part C stemmed from a huge rise in healthcare costs, much of which could have been prevented if insurance companies were not (yet again) allowed to provide a necessity for survival at a profit and with minimal regulation.
I live in Chicago, as I believe you know. My point is that those federal programs you speak of are in fact a service performed by government, which would not exist if "free market" forces reigned unfettered. In fact, they didn't exist here until Pat Quinn (the Lt. Governor who will take over after Blagojevich is removed from office), Mike Quigley and the Citizens Utility Board attained enough power to pressure state government to create them.
Poor people would most certainly freeze here today (it never got above zero) if the gas company were not prevented by law from shutting off service for nonpayment in the winter. (I live in a relatively small condo, and my gas bill last month was $200--33% higher than it's ever been before.) The electric company routinely shuts off power for nonpayment here.
And starvation? Do you honestly believe everyone has the money to feed themselves? Poverty does exist, regardless of how many conservative pundits deny it.
No hyperbole here.-
0%
willottica11 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Poor people would most certainly freeze here today (it never got above zero) if the gas company were not prevented by law from shutting off service for nonpayment in the winter.
Reply
Or they might pay their bills. Or they might find blankets to keep themselves warm. Or they might pool together with a couple of neighbours, gather enough money to keep one house warm for the winter, and live cramped, but warm lives.-
100%
Beau789011 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
You don't live somewhere this cold, do you? (It was 17 below zero Fahrenheit this morning...without the wind chill.) Every year, people who don't know enough to fix their furnaces do freeze to death here. And during a three-day heat wave in 1995, over 700 people died in their homes--fans didn't keep them cool enough, and they couldn't afford A/C.
Reply
And though you might say those people should know enough to fix their furnaces or pool together with neighbors, some people just don't have the mental capacity to do so. (Some suffer from advanced Alzheimer's or are otherwise mentally incapacitated and don't have family to take care of them...much like the homeless, except these people are lucky enough to have homes.) There are also city-sponsored "warming centers" people can go to if their homes aren't warm enough, but again, not everyone knows about them or can get there, or have the sense to do so. Personally, I think it is the government's responsibility to look out for the welfare of its citizens.-
-
100%
HannibalBarca11 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
You should learn,,as it is not really that complicated,,,and changing a $15 thermo coupler can save you a $75 service call.
Reply
Also having a spare on hand, can save a night or two of cold,,,let alone freezing water pipes and then having to also call Joe in to fix them
-
-
0%
willottica11 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
But does looking out for their welfare include allowing them to live a lifestyle that they don't have the mental capacity to support?
Reply
Wouldn't it be more in their interests to get them into a shelter or a senior's residence if they can't function on their own? Allowing them to continue living a life that they cannot support is not looking after them.
Perhaps a better way to look after those who fail to pay for their heat in winter would be to educate them about alternatives, rather than giving them a free ride. If one cannot afford the luxury of single-detached housing and its associated costs, one should give up that luxury and move to a place more within their means.
The government is giving people fish, instead of teaching them to fish.-
100%
Beau789011 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I suspect the problem is similar to that of homeless people--the city provides shelters for them, but they don't want to use them. I imagine many of those who aren't able to take care of themselves would prefer not to live in some sort of assisted-living facility as well. Would you want to force them to?
Reply-
0%
willottica11 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
No, but I wouldn't reward them with free stuff for their stubbornness.
Reply
Homeless people don't get bought houses and given free utilities if they refuse to go to a shelter. They freeze. And that's their choice.
If they're unable to take care of themselves and they refuse to live in an assisted living facility, then they have refused the help that is available to them. Why should the energy companies be on the hook because they're too stubborn and proud to accept the help offered?
Human kindness and charity is all well and good, but it's neither kindness nor charity when you force someone else to do it. If the gas company WANTS to give them a break, it should be able to, but forcing them goes against every principle of the free market and comes really close to communism (centralized control of businesses), by making decisions FOR that company.-
100%
Beau789011 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I'm not talking about buying the homeless houses. And the utilities aren't free to those who can't afford them; rather, government pays those bills. It's similar to subsidized food programs. (I realize many will take issue with that as well, but I have no problem with government "redistributing wealth" in order to create a minimum subsistence-level standard of living.)
Reply
We (well, the Reagan administration) closed many publicly funded mental-health facilities, putting the majority of today's homeless on the street to begin with. We could build more and move them (and those who have shelter but can't or won't care for themselves) there, but that would require public funds as well.
As you may have guessed from so many of my previous comments, I don't have that much of a problem with centralized control of businesses--if those businesses are ones that provide services people can't live without. When goods or services offered by businesses are necessities for survival, free market forces don't apply--the only thing that lowers demand (and thus prices) is if there are fewer consumers of those goods and services (that is to say, if they die because they can't afford them). Providers of necessities have nearly monopolistic control over their products. In the case of utilities, the infrastructure necessary to deliver electricity or gas was usually built by governmnet largely through subsidies, back in the days when government actually did restrict and oversee those utilities more closely.-
0%
willottica11 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The irony is that the homeless probably cost a lot more in the streets than they did in those closed facilities (with police time, emergency visits, etc.)
Reply
It's less a problem that if the government is, indeed, paying their bills for them when they would otherwise be cut off. But this is still grossly inefficient. The government should not facilitate unmaintainable lifestyles. When it does, you have ridiculous cost overruns, and where do you draw the line? Would it be fair to buy a house that's out of your price range, then just neglect to pay the utilities in winter, because you know the government will?-
Neutral
Beau789011 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Please tell me you're not advocating letting the homeless, many of whom are mentally unable to see the consequences of their actions, die on the street because it's too costly to help them, even though they often refuse to take advantage of government services. I can't figure out what solution you're arguing for, if not that.
Reply
But you did say it's cheaper for the government to pay their bills than to provide emergency services for them if they're on the street or if they can't. Sure it's inefficient. What's the solution?
I'm sure you realize I'm not speaking of Donald Trump declaring bankruptcy and petitioning the court to keep $800,000 a year to maintain his lifestyle. It's always hard to draw a line...all boundaries delineating where government assistance should end are arbitrary. Should we scrap all government assistance?
-
-
-
-
0%
willottica11 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
To continue with the animal analogies:
Reply
You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink.
If you refuse, does that mean you should provide him with Perrier? Or should you hook the horse up to an IV so that he doesn't get dehydrated and die?
-
-
-
-
-
-
100%
JEBUS0811 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
it is an intentional boondoggle - republicans do not want government run programs, so why would they run them efficiently - running them into the ground is the only way to convince the american public to pay a higher price just to have the private sector run the programs
Reply-
100%
jordan1111 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
But govt control of anything is a boondoggle>>>>
Reply
Considering the colossal mess we're in when lenders were given carte blanche to write loans because oversight had been eliminated, I'd say that's a bizarre comment. If anything should tell us that oversight is not negotiable, this financial meltdown should.
-
-
100%
flyonthewallzz11 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
“But govt control of anything is a boondoggle”
Reply
And this is not?
http://www.vimo.com/hospital/cost.php
Appendectomy
# Average list price for this procedure group : $18,500
# Average negotiated price : $5,800
Balloon angioplasty of coronary artery
# Average list price for this procedure group : $39,900
# Average negotiated price : $11,800
Coronary bypass operation
# Average list price for this procedure group : $94,500
# Average negotiated price : $27,300
Pacemaker
# Average list price for this procedure group : $45,500
# Average negotiated price : $15,200
Trauma » food Poisoning ... non-surgical care
# Average list price for this procedure group : $9,100
# Average negotiated price : $2,800
I do not understand this:
Does anybody know what the negotiated price difference paid by Medicare or Medicaid and private insurance companies?
If I had a “Health Savings Account” would I have to pay retail?
http://politicalcalculations.blogspot.com/2008/01/...
Then it gets more complicated:
It seems that the Insurance companies get about $4,000 per year if the insured works for a company with more than 200 employees. They get about $11,000 if the company has between 3 and 199 employees.
Something is out of whack I guess a free market guy would say that it is the way it should be, But no other country even come close to the amount of money we pay out for healthcare.
Sorry I drifted off the thread……
Folks are turning off their land lines and disconnecting their cable TV all over the place.
The telecoms have enjoyed a monopoly for too long and their profits are not an entitlement.
-
-
-
100%
HannibalBarca11 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
nostalgia
Reply
Not sure about your Medicare,,,,but Social Security has always made money,,,only any surplus it generates has been applied to the deficit for the last 20-25 years,,,and in a few years when baby boomers retire in large numbers,,,it will go broke.
Where do you think those rebate checks shrub sent you came from ? Social Security and IOU's to China.
No lawyers, which the Government is top heavy in, are not great economists, as any can see with the spending spree most Gov go on
-
-
loading ...
People Who Liked This Comment (11)
Ciera-Marie
DarkWizard
jordan11
Beeboppin71
dunkirk
DenCuddy
corl64
Progressive
GehlLady
9critters
FrauBlucherPeople Who Didn't Like This Comment (0)
No one voted this comment negatively.
Post Reply
You are not signed in to Propeller.com. Please sign in to post a reply.