Apr 4, 2011 -- 11:36AM, Captainmarvel wrote:

Its a hoot to see libs say Hooray for more Government workers replacing private workers...THEN complain about lack of Jobs!!! ding dong ding dong

It's a hoot seeing those who don't understand that whether one works in the public or private sector, they still have a job!!! ding dong ding dong

Apr 4, 2011 -- 12:41PM, vra wrote:

Apr 4, 2011 -- 8:48AM, davelaw40 wrote:

its counter-intuitive

increase competition drive down costs

public employees = less competition

Sometimes yes, but sometimes no. Private health-care insurance companies operate at an average of 30% overhead whereas Medicare is roughly 2%, and it's the high private costs that makes our health-care system the most inefficient in the world, and we don't even have universal coverage that the rest of the industrialized world has. 

We went through that on another thread, and it is absolutely bogus.  You know this. I will be glad to recite it for you, but you need to quit saying it because you feel it sounds good.

Let me ask you this.  Why are there MedAdvantage programs if Medicare, your healthcare model of efficiency,  operates off of such a low overhead rate while the MedAdvantage programs, which are run by the  private insurance companies that you insist opeate at such a high overhead rate?   How can you possibly square that? 

Consider this example:

One thing that has been mentioned in the debate over health care reform is the idea that Medicare has a much lower overhead than private insurance companies so to switch over to a government system would save money. But one of the problems is that this assumes the current overhead would remain the same if millions more joined the system.

As has been pointed out by some of the opponents to a government system, part of the reason that overhead with Medicare is low is because the costs of treatment are high. Most people on Medicare are older and thus have more health problems, accordingly it costs less as a percentage of those costs to manage the overhead.

For example consider two people, Charlie and Grandpa Joe.

Charlie is 25 and on private health insurance, Grandpa Joe is on Medicare.

During a given year it costs $ 50 in overhead for both men to cover the basic record keeping.

Charlie has $ 1,000 in medical services and it costs $ 100 for the overhead. So his total cost is $ 150, his percentage though is 15%.

Grandpa Joe has $ 20,000 in medical services and it costs $ 550 for his overhead. So his total cost is $ 600, or four times higher than Charlie. But as a percentage of total services he comes out at 3%.

If you put Charlie and his friends on a Medicare style system, the costs are likely to rise.

Also read here:

www.qando.net/?p=3362

You can also help yourself by stop reading Paul Krugman

 

We have to remember that private companies are in business for profit whereas the public sector isn't.  Where they had saved money previously was because workers were mostly non-union and, therefore received generally less wages and less benefits, plus there was a couple of other factors as well.

Two points here.

1.  This makes it virtually impossible to determine a real "value" for these jobs.  There is value, I am not positing that, but how can you put a value on a teacher versus a sanitation worker?  What would it be based on?

2.  In private industry, the employees and managers attempt to save and bring in departments under budget.  Many if not most times this results in bonuses beging paid.  Not so in the public sector.  You spend all of your department budget or lose it in next years appropriations. 

Anytime you hear public/private partnership, vote NO.  Public will lose virtually everytime.  MedAdvantage programs are one such partnership.  If obama got anything right in the first two years, was threatening to scrap them.  But he didnt do that either, along with a long, long list of things.

Where I live in the Lower, our d.p.w. workers have been private for almost two decades now, but the city is considering going back to public services because of numerous problems we've had, plus there's a question as whether we're getting any cost benefits at all as compared to communities that stayed public.

Blanket statements rarely ever tell the real picture. 

If the states acted in accordance with the normal rules that govern business, I'd say that those who argue "labor cost are equal" would be correct.  But the truth of the matter is, they do not operate according to the same rules.

Business has to operate within budget, with revenue determined by the amount of incomming revenue, vs liabilities.  States on the otherhand, do not have an "income revenue stream" ... they have taxes ... a never ending supply of taxes.  If they need more money, they raise taxes.

One only need to compare the salaries for teachers in the puiblic schools vs private schools to see this facade that labor cost are equal ...

"So what gives when you look at public-school and private-school teachers? The National Center for Education Statistics puts it this way: Using 2007-2008 data (the latest available), the average "total school-year and summer earned income" for public school teachers was $53,230 . The equivalent for private-school teachers was $39,690.

That's a whopping $13,540 differential on salary alone"

NOPE ... labor cost are not equal.

Apr 5, 2011 -- 9:07AM, Captainmarvel wrote:

Even though your still wrong...it seems nothing less than 100 percent governement workforce will be satisfactory.I mean,wouldnt 100 percent government labor for everything be the cheapeast way to go? Using your matrix it would.(untill nothing got done and the French says Mr. Obama Tear this Wall Down.

I know this is complicated and hard to understand, but I'm sure you can find some thoughtful person to explain to you that neither a 100% government workforce nor a 100% private workforce is the best way to go.