Post Reply
Page 8 of 8  •  Prev 1 ... 3 4 5 6 7 8
Switch to Forum Live View replacing private companies with public workers to save money
3 years ago  ::  Apr 06, 2011 - 6:13PM #71
Father_Oblivion
Posts: 11,206

Apr 6, 2011 -- 5:35PM, Jstanl wrote:


Apr 6, 2011 -- 5:18PM, Father_Oblivion wrote:


Apr 6, 2011 -- 3:43PM, Jstanl wrote:


But the assertion that the government operates on substantially less overhead than a similar private sector operation is so ludicrus that it is not even worthy of further discussion.




Oh really? Then how does Alameda Power and Light (owned by the City of Alameda in California) do it with no subsidies and lower rates than PG&E, while PG&E gets tax breaks and also has the advantage of scale?


Please, look into this example and explain how this does not directly counter your assertion.





It's your claim why don't you explain it?


And why did TVA provide electricity for decades at rates way below what surrounding power companies charged.


(Do you really expect me to believe that there is a power company out there that operates with no subsidies?)




It was your claim, I simply provided factual information that refutes your claim that "...governments operate on substantially less overhead than a similar private sector operation is so ludicrus that it is not even worthy of further discussion."


You made the claim not I, you even said that it is 'ludicrous' to argue against it, and then I presented factual information regarding two power companies (one government owned and the other private) that operate side-by-side in the same market, and even with the advantage of scale, government subsidies and the much higher rates PG&E charges in San Francisco, San Rafael and the well to do cities of the San Francisco Penninsula, Alameda operates on a far lower overhead and keeps their equipment in A-1 shape, while PG&E has received subsidies, cheated rate payers, refused to pay the City of San Francisco billions in debt to the city, complains it needs to raise rates to provide adequate maintenance, and so on and so on!


Alameda Power and Light, a city-owned power company, operates with no subsidies and charges low rates and keeps its equipment in excellent shape.


 

The important thing to remember about American history is that it is fictional, a charcoal-sketched simplicity for the children or the easily bored. For the most part it is uninspected, unimagined, unthought, a representative of the thing and not the thing itself. It is a fine fiction...
Neil Gaiman
'American Gods'

‎"Ignorance of ignorance, then, is that self-satisfied state of unawareness in which man, knowing nothing outside the limited area of his physical senses, bumptiously declares there is nothing more to know! He who knows no life save the physical is merely ignorant; but he who declares physical life to be all-important and elevates it to the position of supreme reality--such a one is ignorant of his own ignorance."
- Manly Palmer Hall
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Apr 06, 2011 - 7:00PM #72
Jstanl
Posts: 5,485

"Alameda Power and Light, a city-owned power company, operates with no subsidies and charges low rates and keeps its equipment in excellent shape."


This is the claim I want you to back up.  Who pays the city taxes on the land that the power facility sits on?  Etc.


And SouthWest Airlines would have claimed that it's airplane was in "excellent shape" the day before the plane self-installed a sun roof in itself.

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Apr 07, 2011 - 7:54AM #73
vra
Posts: 6,401

Apr 6, 2011 -- 6:13PM, Father_Oblivion wrote:


Apr 6, 2011 -- 5:35PM, Jstanl wrote:


Apr 6, 2011 -- 5:18PM, Father_Oblivion wrote:


Apr 6, 2011 -- 3:43PM, Jstanl wrote:


But the assertion that the government operates on substantially less overhead than a similar private sector operation is so ludicrus that it is not even worthy of further discussion.




Oh really? Then how does Alameda Power and Light (owned by the City of Alameda in California) do it with no subsidies and lower rates than PG&E, while PG&E gets tax breaks and also has the advantage of scale?


Please, look into this example and explain how this does not directly counter your assertion.





It's your claim why don't you explain it?


And why did TVA provide electricity for decades at rates way below what surrounding power companies charged.


(Do you really expect me to believe that there is a power company out there that operates with no subsidies?)




It was your claim, I simply provided factual information that refutes your claim that "...governments operate on substantially less overhead than a similar private sector operation is so ludicrus that it is not even worthy of further discussion."


You made the claim not I, you even said that it is 'ludicrous' to argue against it, and then I presented factual information regarding two power companies (one government owned and the other private) that operate side-by-side in the same market, and even with the advantage of scale, government subsidies and the much higher rates PG&E charges in San Francisco, San Rafael and the well to do cities of the San Francisco Penninsula, Alameda operates on a far lower overhead and keeps their equipment in A-1 shape, while PG&E has received subsidies, cheated rate payers, refused to pay the City of San Francisco billions in debt to the city, complains it needs to raise rates to provide adequate maintenance, and so on and so on!


Alameda Power and Light, a city-owned power company, operates with no subsidies and charges low rates and keeps its equipment in excellent shape.


 






F.O., what you are seeking here simply will not be handled in the way one would expect in a serious discussion.  What we find are two people who simply will not accept anything that you may provide, but they also will not provide one speck of evidence from any source.  From their position, they're right, you're wrong, and they don't have to provide anything to support their position.  Nothing.  Nada.  Just take their word for it and that should be enough.  Sorry, but that doesn't "sail" with me, and I refuse any longer to have anything to do with either of them, especially since this has been their m.o. many times before.  In an honest discussion, both sides have some obligation to show evidence and logic, but they supply neither.


I had apologized for being rude, which I was, but I don't apologize for asserting the simple fact that it they are not being forthright in this "discussion".  It is not just up to us to present the evidence, and they have made one assertion after another after another without posting one shred of evidence to support them-- not one. 


Frustrating, isn't it?   

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Apr 07, 2011 - 10:20AM #74
TENAC
Posts: 25,148

Apr 6, 2011 -- 5:57PM, Jstanl wrote:


Apr 6, 2011 -- 5:45PM, vra wrote:


Apr 6, 2011 -- 5:37PM, Jstanl wrote:


Apr 6, 2011 -- 5:35PM, vra wrote:


You know, there's plenty of people who I may disagree with at times who are very honest people, so I'd rather deal with them.





You are accusing me of being dishonest?




Sorry for that as I said it in the heat of the moment, however let's just say that I think it's best that we not attempt to dialogue simply for reasons that are not new.  However, that's still no excuse for me being rude, so I do apologize.





Accepted. 


But I really think it was simply an unfortunate choice of terminology.  Clearly we are looking at this differently.  Having served in the managment of a very large private construction organization for over three decades, I am accutely aware of what the term 'overhead' means in private industry, as well as terms like gross and net profit.  So I am aware that both the general newsmedia and liberal rhetoric treat these terms very differently.


I am sure that not only you and I, but Medicare and the private medical insurance industry are treating the term 'overhead' differently.


 





That is probably the best statement in all the Medicare vs Private Ins overhead debate.


Whether you receive $5000 or $50,000 of care in a given year, the "overhead" for that care is the same (given that both patients have the same number of visits.  Medicare patient will always incur higher costs).


The real facts are the elderly use more of the healthcare system per captia at higher dollar amounts for the same administrative costs.


Its really pretty simple math.


If two people both access healthcare at the above amounts for the same number of visits, the overhead is indentical but the overhead percentage is drastically different as evidenced by vra's posts.


 


Further I will give you this real life example.   Much of the overhead costs in private insurance is caused by Medicare regs.  We are visited by our accredatiion people once a year. 


In 2009 there were an additional 7 updates or new regualtions in regard to HIPAA.  In 2010 there were 57 new updates and regualtions.  All of these regualtions must be implemented by providers.  In order to keep up with new regs and accreditation a facility with more than 6 practitioners will hire a compliance officer to keep them in compliance.


After issuing the regulation, Medicare hands off the enforcement to an outside agency (JCAHO for example).  They come in once a year for you to maintain your accreditation and charge you about $10,000 - $20,000.


Medicare only sends down the regualtion.  The adherence to and enforcement of these regualtions are farmed out and no overhead expense to Medicare.


 

Any man can count the seeds in an apple....
.......but only God can count the apples in the seeds.
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Apr 07, 2011 - 10:57AM #75
Jstanl
Posts: 5,485

Relevant to VRA's last post, the following is the assertion regarding Alemeda Power and no evidence has be offered to substantiate the claim.


"Oh really? Then how does Alameda Power and Light (owned by the City of Alameda in California) do it with no subsidies and lower rates than PG&E, while PG&E gets tax breaks and also has the advantage of scale?"


 

Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 8 of 8  •  Prev 1 ... 3 4 5 6 7 8
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook