Sometimes, though, you got to hear and see them to believe them

Zonk- did you actually watch the Laffer clip?

I totally agree with this which is why I keep saying single payer system that covers everyone. It isn't charity and it doesn't require a transfer of wealth from people like McCoy to people worse off than McCoy.

Uh, so if the government takes a million dollars from Bill Gates and gives $100 to 10,000 people, it isn't a transfer of wealth because Gates is one of those 10,000 people and gets a small percentage of his money back?

Uh, so if the government takes a million dollars from Bill Gates and gives $100 to 10,000 people, it isn't a transfer of wealth because Gates is one of those 10,000 people and gets a small percentage of his money back?

If none of those 10,000 other people get sick no money is tranferred. If Gates were to somehow rack up more than $1,000,000 in medical bills, the money would actually be transferred to him.

The funny thing is, the DMV (at least in Texas) is super-nice, super-efficient, live-to-serve (as is the tax office that handles titles and license plates and such things here in Tarrant County). Why? Because driving is pretty important to Texans, and state officials are pretty responsive to the public wanting them to make the process of getting street legal as uncomplicated as possible. (I've never had a doctor visit as uncomplicated as renewing my driver's license recently.) The idea that instituting a government service means inefficiency and corruption is just kinda loopy. A public agency is in fact at least as responsive to the public will as some for-profit cutout. Oddly enough, sometimes more so, hard as that can be to imagine: partly because privatized services make money precisely by cutting back on service, and they're insulated by their outsourced status from direct public oversight.

Zonk- did you actually watch the Laffer clip?

Back when it first aired... and yes - in its entirety.

As I recall, Laffer defenders play some nifty gymnastics -- but on the balance, I think it's pretty clear that he either misspoke (probable - but Laffer himself has never admitted as much to my knowledge), or, was engaging in willfully deceptive rhetoric because at the time -- the conservative movement had suddenly become the grand defenders of Medicare.

I believe the Slate compendium also has a wonderful link to an appearance by Michael Steele where he splits into two people -- one that claims Medicare is a terrible, awful program that must be privatized.... and the other who bemoans Democratic efforts to kill such a wonderful program.

I totally agree with this which is why I keep saying single payer system that covers everyone. It isn't charity and it doesn't require a transfer of wealth from people like McCoy to people worse off than McCoy. The problem with Obama's plan is that he's trying to work with the system. The system needs to be burned to the ground. If it isn't the result will be worse than the status quo.


This is the crux of it. We, as a society, have to decide if health care is a basic right which the Federal government is responsible for. If it is, then we should amend the constitution to give them the right to involve themselves in it (or, if you prefer, you can ignore the constitution and just do it). Or, if it's not, then get the government well and truly out of it. One or the other. If we try to hit the center we'll just make a medical equivalent of a military-industrial complex and a very few will get very rich.


Either health care is a right or it isn't. Decide that and then we can design a system.

I prefer P.J's 'if you think health care is expensive now, just wait until it's free.'

Just glancing over them but so far my favorite is "Everyone needs food & shelter but that doesn't mean they have a "right" to them.

Exactly.

The last two links don't work for me; I'm not sure what the "signs" in the first link are supposed to be -- they're obviously not photographs -- but I don't see any that say what was claimed. (And no, I don't believe Inglis.)

Laffer says that Medicare/ etc. will end up like the Post Office or the DMV in a single payer environment (hence the relevancy of the examples.) That was the discussion they were having on the show. It's not gymnastics to listen the dozen words he uses immediately after the quote.

You're grossly misrepresenting his comment in order to tar people who disagree with you while bemoaning the GOP for not seriously engaging issues. Is that your intent?

There were no such "signs." Some random people have claimed to have heard these comments from friends of a friend, always without attribution as to date or place; in short, they're urban legends.

EDIT: And of course the claim that someone was actually saying "keep government out of Medicare" sounds like a ludicrous interpretation of what someone might have said, anyway; it would be more likely that they were saying, "Keep government from screwing with the Medicare we have now."

Tsk tsk Davey.

Gotta do better than that.

naa

"If you like the Post Office and the Department of Motor Vehicles and you think they’re run well, just wait till you see Medicare, Medicaid and health care done by the government."

Or, you could punctuate it properly, so that it comes out sensibly. "Just wait till you see Medicare, Medicaid, and (health care done by the government)," not "(Medicare, Medicaid and health care) done by the government." I'm quite certain Laffer knows that Medicare and Medicaid are government programs.

Laffer says that Medicare/ etc. will end up like the Post Office or the DMV in a single payer environment (hence the relevancy of the examples.) That was the discussion they were having on the show. It's not gymnastics to listen the dozen words he uses immediately after the quote.

You're grossly misrepresenting his comment in order to tar people who disagree with you while bemoaning the GOP for not seriously engaging issues. Is that your intent?

...and...

I'm quite certain Laffer knows that Medicare and Medicaid are government programs.

Just as I'm sure YOU know -- and I would Laffer ALSO knows -- that at the time he spoke, there was absolutely, positively NO bill that comes anywhere near approaching a "single payer" bill.

In fact, under a single payer system -- Medicare probably becomes irrelevant.

You can't have it both ways. If you want precision, then it's all precision... not just the precision that suits you.

No single payer bill has ever been anywhere near consideration.

"If you like the Post Office and the Department of Motor Vehicles and you think they’re run well, just wait till you see Medicare, Medicaid and health care done by the government."

Or, you could punctuate it properly, so that it comes out sensibly. "Just wait till you see Medicare, Medicaid, and (health care done by the government)," not "(Medicare, Medicaid and health care) done by the government." I'm quite certain Laffer knows that Medicare and Medicaid are government programs.

Or you can get right down to the heart of it, and imagine what most of those those teabaggers or tea partiers would say if the government ever yanked them or their parents out of Medicare. You and your friends might be in there cheering, but I doubt if many teabaggers would be joining you in your applause.

In fact, from the looks of it, a sizeable percentage of the geezers in those crowds seem mostly to be agitated at the thought that the government will reduce their Medicare check, not that Medicare is a government program to begin with. Some principled lot you've got there.

"I didn’t earn it. I don’t need it. But, if they miss one payment I’m gonna raise hell!"

Tsk tsk Davey.
Gotta do better than that.

David doesn't admit error. YOU'RE going to have to do better, Bernal.

By transporting to the alternate dimension or universe where such a thing actually occurs, probably.

Oh I know there is no chance he will comment. Or he will claim a photoshop or something.

That's great Zonk, but he was discussing those programs in the context of a single-payer system when he made the quote you cited. To use his words to prove the point you're trying to make as far as the "stupidity" you reference above- is pretty dishonest. Professionally, I'm impressed- but you really don't need to go that route here.

As far as the single payer thing- that's long been discussed by a large number of people, including the President. The fact that no bill says "Plan to Create Single-Payer System" doesn't mean there is no reason to discuss the issue. Particularly at that time when there was no bill ready for vote and the President was insisting that a vote occur before the recess. No one had any idea what the "final bill" would look like. It certainly seems reasonable to discuss something that the President had demonstrated explicit support for just a few years ago.

If none of those 10,000 other people get sick no money is tranferred.

If none of those 10,000 other people are going to get sick I don't know why we're giving them healthcare on Bill Gates's dime in the first place.

Or: If you're going to assume something ridiculous to make your point, I can do the same.

If Gates were to somehow rack up more than $1,000,000 in medical bills, the money would actually be transferred to him.

That's an odd usage of "transferred," given that it was his money to begin with.

David doesn't admit error. YOU'RE going to have to do better, Bernal.

If David ran a dry cleaning store. Minus the last three words of the clip, that is....

"I didn’t earn it. I don’t need it. But, if they miss one payment I’m gonna raise hell!"

Lisa; Didn't you wonder why you were getting checks for doing nothing?

Grampa: I figured, 'cuz the Democrats were in power again.

I know. I'm feeding the monkeys.

Oh I know there is no chance he will comment. Or he will claim a photoshop or something.

It's possible, as a general rule the most hilariously stoopid signs held aloft at demonstrations are either photo-shop fakes- or counter-demonstrator moles....

However, unlike Dave*, since I know that there are people [on the right] THAT dumb, it could be legit.

*I assume Dave is aware that there are people on the Left that dumb.

I really like this sign too.

naa

That's an odd usage of "transferred," given that it was his money to begin with.

You got a reading disability?

If Gates were to somehow rack up more than $1,000,000 in medical bills, the money would actually be transferred to him.

Unless it's your position that all money belongs to Bill Gates.

"If you like the Post Office and the Department of Motor Vehicles and you think they’re run well, just wait till you see Medicare, Medicaid and health care done by the government."

I don't get it. What's so horrible about the Post Office? The DMV is an evil, a necessary one--but what's the alternative? So much unthinking, and thinking unattached to experience, is floating around on the superiority of private agencies to government agencies. Have some of you government trashers ever dealth with insurance companies, separate from when they are trying to sell you insurance? As in collecting from them? Or trying to find out what they will pay for or why they won't pay for something.

The French system would simplify things so much. Of course, we would first have to countenance as a predicate the horrid conception that government can be legitimate. What a radical concept. I'm late to this discussion and I 'm not going to repeat what Andy, Matt, and others here have said on behalf of instituting a universal health care system that is just, fair, and less burdensome. The system we have now is just one giant clusterf*ck blob (like that movie) that few comprehend in all its dimensions (when they are actually involved in utilizing it). It's one of those Warner Brothers Rube Goldberg cartoon contraptions run amuck.

If David ran a dry cleaning store. Minus the last three words of the clip, that is....

That reminded me of Roy Pearson... whom DMN has written eloquently about in the past....

Pearson is now appealing the ruling which denied his request to re-instated as an ALJ...
At this point it is pretty obvious that Pearson is mentally unstable, as someone who has been forced for much of the past 6 months to deal with the "antics" of a mentally unstable litigant, let me tell you, it is not fun- and our civil litigation system generally does not know how to effectively deal with such individuals.

Easy to say when you discern who is or isn't stable, Andy. :)

That's great Zonk, but he was discussing those programs in the context of a single-payer system when he made the quote you cited. To use his words to prove the point you're trying to make as far as the "stupidity" you reference above- is pretty dishonest. Professionally, I'm impressed- but you really don't need to go that route here.

Fair enough on Laffer... which I'm going to have to let go, as I cannot at this time re-watch the clip (I do recall it from 6 weeks ago, but in vague terms)... but onto....

As far as the single payer thing- that's long been discussed by a large number of people, including the President. The fact that no bill says "Plan to Create Single-Payer System" doesn't mean there is no reason to discuss the issue. Particularly at that time when there was no bill ready for vote and the President was insisting that a vote occur before the recess. No one had any idea what the "final bill" would look like. It certainly seems reasonable to discuss something that the President had demonstrated explicit support for just a few years ago.

And that's perfectly fine. A single payer system DOES deserve an honest discussion, for both it's pluses and minuses. But like I said, discussing "Medicare and Medicaid" in the context of single payer is moot (beyond how you sunset them). Medicaid in particular, since it's state administered, is mutually exclusive with a single payer system (unless single payer could also mean 50 payer).

I think Obama had explicitly said that "if we could start from scratch" single payer would be the best plan, but the pragmatism liberals hate in Obama has always had him clearly prefacing or epiloguing that statement with the impracticability of such a plan.

...and set aside everything that exists now - I find it hard to disagree. The private insurance industry doesn't really add much 'value' to the health care equation. I'm not saying they add zero - they do some quality initiatives with providers better than CMS, and they generally do wellness programs with beneficiaries better than M/M, but they are not the sorts of things that a single payer system couldn't do for some inherent reason.

Even as July wound down -- yes, it's quite true we had no final bill -- but I think we had the outlines. HR 3200 was near certain to be the house version - and it was certain to have a stronger 'public option' than the Senate (who, even then, looked likely to be come up with a co-op as an alternative).

So what's happened since then?

Not much... a lot of screaming and fantasizing about where small provisions might lead if... if... if.. if... and if 50 other things, plus Hitler is reincarnated and elected US President.

So who ARE those opponents that want to rationally discuss opposition alternatives? Where are they and what have they contributed?

And among them - let's have opponents that recognize the realities of losing an election by 10 million votes at the Presidential level (and one who campaigned on the outlines of a reform pack that's probably about what HR3200 contains), as well as the largest Senate and Congressional majorities in nearly a generation....

What's so horrible about the Post Office?
I know - I never understand why this example gets used. Do people have a problem with the post office? They're really cheap and really effective. As a consumer, the post office is awesome. [Wouldn't want to work for them, though.]

I forgot that two of those links I first posted are to websites that you have to be invited to join. Too bad because the signs are really beautiful.

Here's another youtube link on signs. I'm sure there are others, if one is genuinely interested in actually informing himself of this and in not just digging his creationist heels in, so have at it:

Signs

Medicaid in particular, since it's state administered, is mutually exclusive with a single payer system (unless single payer could also mean 50 payer).

In Canada health care is funded by federal taxes but administered by the provinces and there are some small differences in what is covered. But yes single payer would probably mean 50 payer.

...and BTW -

I have to agree on the DMV.

I renewed my plates at the DMV on the north side of Chicago on Aug 31... I could have done it completely via mail if I wanted.

I went over lunch. The line was to the door. Someone at the door immediately found out what I was in line for and directed me to the plate stickers line. Someone else at that line then checked to make sure I had my renewal form, ID, and payment method (check, cash, or MC/Discover... no Visa). The line for sticker renewal was a good 60-70 people long, but it took less than 10 minutes to get through it. At the window, I handed my form over, and even though already been told, asked again if I could use my debit card (with a Visa logo)... upon being told I couldn't - wrote a check, got my sticker, and was out the door.

This has always been my DMV experience, at least in Illinois -- plate renewals, re-titles, lost licenses, license renewal, title transfers.

I don't think I've ever had an experience where it didn't take longer to drive TO the DMV then it took to get my business done at the DMV.

I think people's problems with the DMV are more about not liking the idea of paying for plates or whatnot.

What's so horrible about the Post Office?

I know - I never understand why this example gets used. Do people have a problem with the post office? They're really cheap and really effective.

Seriously? The USPS suffers huge losses and in general Post Offices have huge lines.

Other than that, nothing much is so horrible.

The DMV isn't really too bad anymore, either, at least in NY and PA. They moved a lot of the simpler stuff online, so the lines are much shorter. Most of the times I've gone to the DMV I didn't have to wait more than a few minutes.

I've only had issues with lines on 4/15*. Even if they were the norm, you can do the vast majority of your business without getting into line or with a third party (at a higher cost), if you so chose. As for losses - that's a legit issue but I was specific in referring to my experiences as a consumer.

As for the DMV, I've experienced huge differences b/w locations.

* And that was a long time ago.

I think people's problems with the DMV are more about not liking the idea of paying for plates or whatnot.

It's more that it used to take a long time to get stuff done at the DMV before the advent of the internet. IIRC, I was at the DMV for an hour when I got my learner's permit. That's still how people think of the DMV, even though the modern DMV experience is much better.

What's so horrible about the Post Office?

I know - I never understand why this example gets used. Do people have a problem with the post office? They're really cheap and really effective. As a consumer, the post office is awesome. [Wouldn't want to work for them, though.]

Indeed, both the Postal Service and the DMV, while obviously containing plenty of flaws, are generally quite effective and efficient services. But mindlessly holding them up as examples of Boogeyman Government Programs is part of the drill, along with the endless repititions of Taxes are Bad and Markets are Good.

The DMV isn't really too bad anymore, either, at least in NY and PA. They moved a lot of the simpler stuff online, so the lines are much shorter. Most of the times I've gone to the DMV I didn't have to wait more than a few minutes.

Larry, I've been to the DMV in New York. In Herald Square. It's one giant clusterf*ck that takes the entire afternoon. And then some.

It's hard to imagine it could be any worse.

Ray, you are ######## about a line? Give me a break. Waaaaa.

Seriously? The USPS suffers huge losses and in general Post Offices have huge lines.

Huge lines where?

I've never seen one in Chicago at any of the branches I've been to (now... I HAVE at a suburban branch). You can do an awful lot of PO stuff online, too -- and most likewise have automated stations in addition to the windows.

The 'huge losses' are more a matter of mail itself becoming obsolete than anything else.

If the post office were to say -- set up and administer say.. electronic data delivery services (say... e-mail, file sharing, fax, etc) -- and do it price and service proportionally to how the USPS' package and mail delivery compares price and service wise to UPS/FEDEX, I'd use 'em in a heartbeat.

In fact - while I have never paid for anything to do with an e-mail service in my life, if the USPS set up a Gmail type system, and say instituted some sort of pricing schema (i.e., some of the various plans discussed by providers like Hotmail, Yahoo, et al to try to clamp down on spam) -- I'd probably get an account in a heartbeat.

Perhaps Post Office and the DMV in NYC are just ###### up. Where I live going to the post office is a breeze as is the DMV. YOu need to expand your worldview there Ray Ray.

Here's another youtube link on signs. I'm sure there are others, if one is genuinely interested in actually informing himself of this and in not just digging his creationist heels in, so have at it:

If I was in the DNC I'd use that as a campaign ad in every liberal state, talk about scary. My favorite one actually was the faces of fascism one- included was a picture of GWB with a Hitler stache drawn on- I wonder if any of that guy's fellow Tea Partiers objected...

I'm sure there were rational signs there, and whoever assembled the clip was being selective, but the clip enough different wingnut wacko signs that no one could simply pass it off as being a small "fringe" part of that assembly.

Easy to say when you discern who is or isn't stable, Andy. :)

Read this and tell me if that guy is or isn't stable.

Indeed, both the Postal Service and the DMV, while obviously containing plenty of flaws, are generally quite effective and efficient services. But mindlessly holding them up as examples of Boogeyman Government Programs is part of the drill, along with the endless repititions of Taxes are Bad and Markets are Good.

"If you think about it, UPS and FedEx are doing just fine, right? No, they are. It's the Post Office that is always having problems."

Which right-winger said this about two weeks ago?

Huge lines where?

Rockefeller Center station, NY, NY.

The post office near Penn Station on 8th avenue.

The post office on 53rd/3rd or thereabouts.

I invite you to come to NYC to experience any of these post office lines.

In short: please with this.

The lines at these post offices are dozens of people long and it can take over an hour to get up to the window. Easily.

When I went to get a passport last year (Rockefeller Center station), this time there were only three people ahead of me. But they had only one employee servicing people. It took one hour to be waited on anyway.

The DMV at Herald Square had dozens and dozens of people in line, and the wait was upwards of two hours.

Private businesses generally don't treat their customers that way; public offices generally do.

Seriously? The USPS suffers huge losses and in general Post Offices have huge lines.



Huge lines where?

My local post office for one.
As far as losses- that's pretty unavoidable when Congress mandates that certain services get provided for the same price to everyone.

Sorry, JWPF13 - thought St. Nick posted that.

Should I click on that at work?

Larry, I've been to the DMV in New York. In Herald Square.

Wow, a DMV in a city of 8 million people is crowded? Go figure!

Go to a suburban DMV. They're not bad at all.

Easy to say when you discern who is or isn't stable, Andy. :)

Actually that was JPWF13 who made that comment, not me.

------------------------

What's so horrible about the Post Office?

I know - I never understand why this example gets used. Do people have a problem with the post office?

People hate lines, and there are often lines at post offices.

People see UPS at work and admire its predictability of delivery time.

People complain that USPS is a money loser, without bothering to realize that if UPS were delivering your letters, you'd be paying a lot more than 44 cents, especially if you wanted to be able to have it picked up at your door. As is usually the case, everyone wants to go to heaven, but don't nobody want to die.

People associate the USPS with junk mail.

People think that all government workers are overpaid.

And then, of course, Newman doesn't work for UPS....

Wow, a DMV in a city of 8 million people is crowded? Go figure!

Go to a suburban DMV. They're not bad at all.

Why? I don't need to go to a suburban Fed Ex to not be treated like a piece of crap, with no regard for the amount of time I spend there. The Fed Ex offices in the city treat me just fine.

I wonder why that is.

Not that I would ever want to support Ray, but his description of NYC Post offices is accurate. However, I've been at Post Offices in other locales and they've never been like NYC ones (thank god).

I DMVs vary from state to state. My experience in NY was that 20-25 yeas ago service was utterly abominable- but has improved tremendously since then- it's still not as easy as many posters here ahve mentioned regarding their states' DMVs, but it is much improved from the 1980s

Newsflash, Ray:

Most people don't live in New York City. Your problems with the DMV and Post Office are not problems with the government running them, they're problems with population density.

Should I click on that at work?

It "safe" in that sense, the only thing it will endanger is your sanity

Go to a suburban DMV. They're not bad at all.

Bel Air DMV is usually nice. I had the misfortune of going to the Glen Burnie DMV once and the people there make a rural Wal-Mart Supercenter look like 19th-century oil tycoons swirling snifters of brandy.

People think that all government workers are overpaid.

I make less than $14,000 a year after taxes, so #### that.

I'll harp on it again...

The USPS is having trouble because the concept of snail mail is heading towards extinction.

I know they can't just "do it" -- but I don't know why the USPS doesn't just go electronic with a lot of offerings. Revise their charter and let them get into the e-delivery and communications business.

Forget mail delivery... set up a closed circuit system - where you pay some sort of fee to send, but free inboxes for everyone. You control the spam by ensuring everyone sending as some sort of licensing provision.

I'm not suggesting it replace or take over the omnipresent SMTP, commercial e-mail -- but why not set up a system like the old ARPANET.

I would absolutely use such a system - perhaps even consider paying for it - if I could use it for safe, secure, and legal electronic transactions, use it my mail system for bills and such (you could also add-in the ability to pay directly via the inbox).

Most people don't live in New York City. Your problems with the DMV and Post Office are not problems with the government running them, they're problems with population density.

and yet someone said Chicago was just peachy keen. Trust me, the issues with NYC post offices run a bit deeper than mere population density- the mythical rude NYC service worker really does exist- and most work in NYC POs.

Newsflash, Ray:

Most people don't live in New York City. Your problems with the DMV and Post Office are not problems with the government running them, they're problems with population density.

Simply not true. Demonstrably false. Utterly wrong. As my Fed Ex example was trying to show.

Private businesses are able to service people in the city quite efficiently, despite the population density.

In short: please with this.

The lines at these post offices are dozens of people long and it can take over an hour to get up to the window. Easily.

When I went to get a passport last year (Rockefeller Center station), this time there were only three people ahead of me. But they had only one employee servicing people. It took one hour to be waited on anyway.

The DMV at Herald Square had dozens and dozens of people in line, and the wait was upwards of two hours.

Private businesses generally don't treat their customers that way; public offices generally do.

Says the man who obviously has never dealt with Comcast when your service goes bad; any internet service provider (when you keep losing your connection); any major health insurance company when your claim gets denied; any telephone company, either landline (when "a squirrel" eats into your line or wireless (when you try to terminate your service); any ticket agency (when you try to compete with their preferred list of scalpers); any.....

But maybe since these companies also pay taxes, you consider them Government By Association. Or something.

Simply not true. Demonstrably false. Utterly wrong. As my Fed Ex example was trying to show.

Most people do live in New York City?

Your FedEx example does not prove anything without context. How many people in NYC use FedEx compared to the USPS?

Why? I don't need to go to a suburban Fed Ex to not be treated like a piece of crap, with no regard for the amount of time I spend there. The Fed Ex offices in the city treat me just fine.

Hmmmm... that's just odd and maybe a NY thing.

In Chicago, my bad USPS and DMV experiences have ALL been in the suburbs and I've never had a long wait or problem with any service at branches IN the city...

In fact, when I first started at my current job - I used to do the USPS and DMV errands during the week, in the burbs, at lunch.

Now? I save them for the days I telecommute from in the city because it's so much easier and quicker.

Private businesses generally don't treat their customers that way; public offices generally do.

Says the man who obviously has never dealt with Comcast

or Cablevision or Time Warner Cable (I suspect a pattern here)...

The USPS is having trouble because the concept of snail mail is heading towards extinction.

So before this they were turning massive profits?

Private businesses are able to service people in the city quite efficiently.

As long as those people are willing to pay through the nose and don't mind putting up with the sort of bullshit I mentioned above.

Says the man who obviously has never dealt with Comcast when your service goes bad; any internet service provider (when you keep losing your connection)

Yes to this...

Give me a government-run ISP of any reasonable speed and bandwith, and I would gladly, easily, quickly, and without a moment's thought switch.

I've used everything available to me... old dial-up through all the usual suspects.... DSL through phone carriers... all the cable providers in my area... even tried a satellite provider a year or so back.

Awful, awful, awful.

They'd have to be pretty awful to come anywhere CLOSE to anyone of the dozens of ISPs I've used over the years.

Emily Yellin's book Your Call is (Not That) Important To Us is very interesting on the service ethics of large private businesses. It's pretty much a myth that the profit incentive keeps such businesses serving customers well. In fact, the worse they serve us, the higher their profits. The exceptions, as Yellin relates and as seems plausible from my personal experiences, are businesses which provide nothing but service (FedEx, Amazon) – businesses that depend on people being served well.

Deregulated (and yes, by that I mean less-regulated) utilities and phone companies have to be the worst at service, as Andy notes. Their whole business model is to offer crappy service on the off-chance that enough customers won't need that service often enough to leave them in droves – and in any event, there are still few competitors, and all of the competitors have the same incentive to offer crappy service.

If you don't like the DMV (though it appears most of us do), call your state rep. Seriously. That's how these agencies get improved, all the time.

The USPS is having trouble because the concept of snail mail is heading towards extinction.

So before this they were turning massive profits?

No, but before we got into the curious notion that the Post Office should have to turn a profit, people had little or no trouble getting letters delivered 3000 miles away in a few days for well under a dime. What a horrible time that was.

In Ore I think the DMV is great. I had to get new license plates when someone stole my old ones. 5 minute wait and I had the new plates, and you get your drivers license the day you apply as well. In Cal if you do not make an appointment you can wait for quite a while, last time I did that almost two hours, but it was interesting. Watching all of the people, lie, cheat, whine and beg gave me a new found respect for the employees.

Private businesses generally don't treat their customers that way; public offices generally do.

Says the man who obviously has never dealt with Comcast


or Cablevision or Time Warner Cable (I suspect a pattern here)...

I've had Comcast for years, my cable and internet has been fine. Once things were glitched for a day and I got all my channels in Spanish... that was kind of cool. Otherwise, they've been perfectly cromulent. I don't get the hate.

You see, facts don't matter.

The mantra remains: Government Bad. Taxes Bad. Markets Good.

Keeps things much simpler and easier to deal with than that pesky reality stuff.

So before this they were turning massive profits?

Yes.
As recently as 2005, in fact.

Steve, I'm happy for you, and I'm a let you finish, but Andy had one of the best straw men of all time.

And as y'all know, the Post Office back when it was completely public was never supposed to turn a profit. The idea was to fuse the United States together as a linked community (and at the same time, to provide a massive sinkhole of spoils-system corruption, but that aspect of it proved reformable). It was something the community spent money on because it was a social good and open to everyone in an egalitarian way (as Faulkner put it, every postal clerk is at the beck and call of any son of a ##### with two cents to buy a stamp).

It was only when some genius, I'm betting during the Nixon administration (which also bequeathed us Managed Care) got the idea that the USPS should become a semi-private corporation that it became an issue whether it was losing money or not. Of course, if you think of it as private by nature, it loses money, but people didn't use to say that like it was a bad thing.

It was only when some genius, I'm betting during the Nixon administration (which also bequeathed us Managed Care) got the idea that the USPS should become a semi-private corporation that it became an issue whether it was losing money or not

Heh... bingo... though, I don't think it was ever supposed to turn a profit, just be budget neutral.

Emily Yellin's book Your Call is (Not That) Important To Us is very interesting on the service ethics of large private businesses. It's pretty much a myth that the profit incentive keeps such businesses serving customers well. In fact, the worse they serve us, the higher their profits. The exceptions, as Yellin relates and as seems plausible from my personal experiences, are businesses which provide nothing but service (FedEx, Amazon) – businesses that depend on people being served well.

Very true. And indeed, Amazon is one hell of an amazing company. In terms of price, selection, and customer service, they're almost straight out of one of those sci-fi novels of 1900 that projected what life was going to be like in 1940.

The downside is that they've essentially destroyed all but the last vestiges of brick & mortar book shops, both new and used. But if it wasn't Bezos, it would have been someone else. And to their credit, they've used their marketplace position in a positive way, at least from the consumer's standpoint.

As my Fed Ex example was trying to show.

And if you can't afford FEDEX, you need to get a better job.

And as y'all know, the Post Office back when it was completely public was never supposed to turn a profit. The idea was to fuse the United States together as a linked community (and at the same time, to provide a massive sinkhole of spoils-system corruption, but that aspect of it proved reformable). It was something the community spent money on because it was a social good and open to everyone in an egalitarian way (as Faulkner put it, every postal clerk is at the beck and call of any son of a ##### with two cents to buy a stamp).

It was only when some genius, I'm betting during the Nixon administration (which also bequeathed us Managed Care) got the idea that the USPS should become a semi-private corporation that it became an issue whether it was losing money or not. Of course, if you think of it as private by nature, it loses money, but people didn't use to say that like it was a bad thing.

Bob, you might as well try to explain the concept of hitting to Rob Picciolo.

Just as I'm sure YOU know -- and I would Laffer ALSO knows -- that at the time he spoke, there was absolutely, positively NO bill that comes anywhere near approaching a "single payer" bill.

In fact, under a single payer system -- Medicare probably becomes irrelevant.

You can't have it both ways. If you want precision, then it's all precision... not just the precision that suits you.

No single payer bill has ever been anywhere near consideration.

If you mean that no viable plan says, "Tomorrow the U.S. will go to single payer," then I agree. But as Saint Krugman himself argued just a short while ago, the "public option" is essentially a trojan horse for single payer.

the "public option" is essentially a trojan horse for single payer.
This ... is probably true.

the "public option" is essentially a trojan horse for single payer.

This ... is probably true.

It's a lot stronger than "probably," though. It's really just common sense. And even people on the left -- such as Barney Frank, and Obama in the past (and Krugman as noted) -- have conceded as much.

It can't be said w/ certainty, but it's highly likely that that's the end result.

Ray, you're awfully dogmatic sometimes.

Ray, have you never sat in a restaurant and waited an hour for a meal? Have you never gone to an amusement park and waited an hour for a ride? Have you never gone to the airport and waited an hour for a delayed flight? Have you never waited an hour for a delayed delivery to your house? Sometimes you say dumb things.

It can't be said w/ certainty, but it's highly likely that that's the end result.

But if it is the end result, it won't be because the public option was some sneaky-tricky "Trojan Horse" that, once allowed to enter the gates of our beleagured little kingdom, inevitably led to Single Payer. It will be because Single Payer will be legislated by a Congress, and signed into law by a President, that has chosen to do so because of their belief that it's the nation's predominant political will. Which may be in part caused by the fact that a Public Option has been in place and proven to be effective and popular, but it may not; it may be because the body politic decides that the Public Option alongside the private system is just not working.

In either case, to oppose the current proposed legislation simply on the basis of fearing that it's Single Payer in disguise is to warrant election to the Slippery Slope Fallacy Hall of Fame.

Disney is not an amusement park, it is a theme park.

If you mean that no viable plan says, "Tomorrow the U.S. will go to single payer," then I agree. But as Saint Krugman himself argued just a short while ago, the "public option" is essentially a trojan horse for single payer.

It's a lot stronger than "probably," though. It's really just common sense. And even people on the left -- such as Barney Frank, and Obama in the past (and Krugman as noted) -- have conceded as much.

Sure... and why is it common sense?

Because eventually, people are going to become increasingly upset that they're not eligible for a public insurance option (and the HR3200 provision would end up qualifying less than 10% of the population... probably closer to 5%) that delivers less costly insurance without danger of being dropped for any reason, and provides generally the same treatment options.

I'm well aware that not all insurers are highly profitable (though, it's worth noting that some -- particularly those that have near monopolies in states -- are)... but from a beneficiary perspective - why would I care about insurance profitability?

Neither principle nor massive PAC expenditures would be able to stop it.

Medicare is the perfect case in point. It's got issues. It's got inefficiencies. It's not quite as good as proponents like to claim... but especially from a beneficiary satisfaction perspective - it scores much higher than private plans... satisfaction in choice of providers, satisfaction with claims resolution, etc.

From a provider satisfaction perspective, the numbers are closer (and differ across specialties) but you certainly wouldn't see a massive exodus of providers to other professions in a "Medicare for all" world.

However, there would be more structural changes to our entire health care system than in an "insurance reform" bill.

Ray, have you never sat in a restaurant and waited an hour for a meal?

You mean, waited for them to cook my food?

But generally it's much less than an hour. Because if it isn't, the restaurant will soon be empty. Unlike with the post office.

People seem to be having trouble processing the word "generally." Citing specific examples doesn't disprove the point, especially when some of those examples (such as airlines) are heavily regulated.

Other places I have had to wait for an hour:

Doctor's office
Dentist's office
Department store (to get a gift wrapped)
Amish auction (bought something but had to wait until the end of the auction to pick it up)
Car dealership
Dog groomer
Lawn Mower repair shop
Tire shop


I could go on.

People seem to be having trouble processing the word "generally."

No, you just made an overgeneralization and now are digging your way out of a hole. Nice try though, Davey has taught you well.

So if the DMV and the Post Office had roller coasters that took you to the clerks would that make them better experiences for people? Or only if the rides were privately funded?

Citing specific examples doesn't disprove the point

Yeah, cuz the point was the citation of specific examples. So there.

888/Steve: Or because the public option choked out the private ones, regardless of which is more efficient/optimal. [I'm not trying to say one system is better than the other - just what I think the end result would be.]

I'm reading all this discussion of the service provided by government entities (DMV, USPS, etc.) versus private businesses, and relating it to my own experiences.

You see, I'm a college professor, at a state university. Yes, we're very much a government entity - the state treasurer (or some such official) signs my paychecks. But there are plenty of other kinds of businesses that swirl around us.

What's the rip-roaringest bastion of unregulated free enterprise around? Why it's textbook publishing. But then textbooks do enjoy a monopoly, one course at a time. And the business has consolidated down to a pretty small number of big players. But the standard way they've adopted of doing business, to ensure that prices stay high, what with frequent churning of editions (to cut off the used book market) and various other ploys - it's not a pretty picture. Look at the retail price of a textbook and you won't know whether to laugh or cry. (There may be some existential threats coming to this gravy train - after all, a textbook is basically software, and as with software, there's an "open source" movement that might well become more significant over time.)

Now do you want a model for using government subsidies (but not direct government service) to accomplish a public task? Why, that's student loans. That's worked out so well that there's a pretty strong move now to cut out the indirect business and just have a government loan program - with a pretty good likelihood that it will either save money or accomplish more for the same money.

I once had to wait for 2 hours for a ferry to take me across Lake Champlain.

Huge lines where?

You ever thought that there might be a reason for that? That there might be a legitimate cause of that untoward effect. Sometimes government agencies get short-handed for various reasons, notof their making, and with government you need an Act of Congress almost to get staff. I worked for the Social Security Administration for ten years before I went back to school. It was back when the state old age and disability public assistance progrms were nationalized under Nixon. Man, that was a congery of copulating eels. But it was all because this huge undertaking was undercapitalize (I love using that word in this instance). For all of those ten years overtime was mandatory. A private enterprise would have hired people. Not the government? Why? All I did during working hours was interview people, one after another, who wanted to apply for benefits. After hours, and on Saturdays, I developed those claims. That's when we weren't calling hundreds of people into hot stifling school auditoriums we borrowed for the purpose so we could "redetermine" their eligibility. Why not hire the requisite people? Listen to the complaints and kvetching about government right here--that's the start of the explanation. It's not incompetence or laziness or faulty strategies. It's because we don't want to pay for what we want, we want to then complain when we don't get it, often really righteously.

I love drinking this Wal-Mart brand seltzer water. About a year, eighteen months ago, it was 58 cents a bottle (six months before it was fifty cents). Now, it's 98 cents. If the Post Office did that, you'd never hear the end of it, but the fact is you get what you pay for--and big problem with government agences (and this includes independent agencies) is that they are done on the cheap. The other big problem has to do with the same grudging reluctance we have toward their very existence. So we set up all these ombudsman type ploys and cul de sacs. You have a panoply of institutional rights with goverment that must be given their due that you don't with private enterprise. But, if the government doesn't, that's the equivalent of not cya. That's like bending over to pick up the soap in a prison communal shower.

Too, you ever heard of simply asking someone in authority it's like that? They may be illegal aliens, but they're not form outer space. Speak to the manager. Complain. Talk to your repressentative. The way it is doesn't have to be. It's what we've chosen. Too, it ain't just government. I don't know about y'all, but where I'm at the Wal-Marts (to stick with the Wal-Mart comparisons) have long check out lines--or, get this: they want you to check yourself out. (I like what one old man said when he complained about the wait and the Wal-Mart clerk told he could use the self-service line: "If I want to work for Wal-Mart, I'll fill out a job application and I'll expect a salary. What's next--you want me to stock the shelves for you?")

My local post office for one.

Where I live, there are about four Post Office within about the same radius. Two of them are always very busy. although not uniformly at all times.. The other two not so much. Check it out in your area. New York is a big place to only have three PO's handy?

There's a certain anti-government mentality that is analogous to the inveterate ##### hound who nevertheless feels most righteous complaining about the lack of virtue in women in these decadent times. They don't support government, unless they can't get something free of obligations, they have no allegiance to it, or government process in general, they will sabotage it and undermine it any which they can for their perceived benefit, and then they will sanctimoniously proclaim "I told you so" when it works badly. Ah, nothing like the smell of sanctimony in the morning.

Or because the public option choked out the private ones, regardless of which is more efficient/optimal. [I'm not trying to say one system is better than the other - just what I think the end result would be.]

Personally I favor Single Payer, just because it seems to be the most direct and simple approach ("means") to delivering the result ("end") I stongly desire: universal delivery of high-quality health services (not just insurance coverage) at affordable cost.

But Single Payer isn't and end in itself for me. There are plenty of countries -- Germany and Japan are just two examples -- that do a far better job of meeting the end I seek with a privatized system, just one that's strongly and rationally regulated. If the US could achieve that I'd be happy, Single Payer be damned.

Or because the public option choked out the private ones, regardless of which is more efficient/optimal. [I'm not trying to say one system is better than the other - just what I think the end result would be.]

Sure - and this is why, from the left, I'm not an absolutist on a public option... because - and here's where I think Obama is playing fast and loose with the truth (setting aside that most legislation simply cannot be summed up in a speech) -- the "public option" that would likely survive in a final bill simply isn't going to be an "option" in any real sense. It's not going to directly compete.

HR3200 pretty much limits it to situations where there is no or is only a limited private option. It's more of public last resort for those that make too much to qualify for Medicaid.

Sooo... as set up initially, it stands zero chance of putting private insurers out of business. The next several increments of it stand no chance of putting it out of business.

I don't disagree that it leads to a place where life gets a lot tougher for private insurers -- they'd basically have to provide equal service at a lower cost because a public plan can ALWAYS look at it's bottom line and set the goal to break even, whereas a private insurer ALWAYS has to have a goal of turning a profit.

Well... sucks to be them, I guess.

I DO disagree that a public option would ever completely put private insurers out of business... There are always going to sorts of coverage that simply aren't feasible for a public plan.

The private insurance industry would probably shrink and morph into more of a niche area... maybe it's elective care... maybe it's coverage of experimental care... maybe some combination of both.

That's the great thing about not having some sort of libertarian philosophy to adhere to.

Simply as a beneficiary of health care - I just want whatever costs me the least, covers me the most, and gives me the least worry about losing coverage or rapidly rising premiums.

Amish auction (bought something but had to wait until the end of the auction to pick it up)

Well, the Amish are just damned slow.

Emily Yellin's book Your Call is (Not That) Important To Us is very interesting on the service ethics of large private businesses.

yeah, it ain't like the government sector and the private sector are inhabited by different species. there's a reason. use the phone to renew a prescription with a specialty pharmacy, and, if you live through that rigamaole (reaching the right person, plugging in about fifty numbers, getting your order verified with the insurance company, then try to get them to get it delievered to a certain time or place through vaunted private system. Then you need to take half a day to recover from all that.

If you mean that no viable plan says, "Tomorrow the U.S. will go to single payer," then I agree. But as Saint Krugman himself argued just a short while ago, the "public option" is essentially a trojan horse for single payer.

That's because, in his estimation, it's the best plan. That can change, though. We don'thave to lock ourselves into something for all eternity. It don't have to be like a religion. If things change, we can consider thoses changes, and, viola!, alter our view.

Best Regards, The Crybaby Larry Mahnken Posted: September 16, 2009 at 04:22 PM (#3323847)

The DMV isn't really too bad anymore, either, at least in NY and PA. They moved a lot of the simpler stuff online, so the lines are much shorter. Most of the times I've gone to the DMV I didn't have to wait more than a few minutes.

- that is because you don't live here in harris county

i had to renew my license this may and i went first thing in the morning to try to beat the rush - there were at LEAST a couple hundred people already waiting and no place to park - and this is wednesday, mind you. so i came back at lunch - no change. so next day i figured, drive out to jersey village (like 20-30 miles to the very outskirts of houston/harris county) and drive on up - sure enough, only 3 other cars in the parking lot. and in i go and there is only 1 other person inside. i'm about ready to cry tears of joy, i go to the window - turns out you can't renew your lisence there. so they tell me where to go to the nearest place and same thing - lines. so i shrugged, parked in the parking lot across the street, waited and waited and waited and after a couple of hours, they finally call my name and they told me which line to go stand in. so i go and stand and stand and stand and turns out it is the wrong line. total time before i get done, a little over 2 hours

the post office is fine except you usually have to wait in line about half an hour (worse on saturday)