Google Fiber to service Austin, TX

[jesmu84]

Chicos, just curious, do you believe in the common good? That profit should not be the end all be all in every case? That certain things, such as access to education, basic healthcare, equal carriage of justice, access to water, electricity an heat are things that should be available to all who live in the richest country in the world, even if it means less profit for mutual fund managers and stockbrokers? Or do you think that the free market should reign supreme, that winners and losers should be left to their own devices?

It's an interesting viewpoint you raise. If our society ever reaches a point to where technology can do 90% of jobs (everything from tourism to manufacturing), what will be the status of that society? There won't be enough jobs to fulfill people no matter what. Will we just accept that people should be living their lives without concern for a 9-5 job? That there are some parts of society that will want to educate themselves and strive for greatness while others will choose to do nothing with their day-to-day activities. Will we allow such a situation to exist where there are enough resources to distribute to everyone regardless of what they do with their lives? I certainly hope if we got to that point, everyone would be allowed to have what they need, while at the same time, be able to do what they want. But I don't see our current society being able to go along with that.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Private prisons are a joke and an affront to democracy. Their interest is in packing as many inmates as possible into their facilities to increase profit margins, not to protect society and carry out justice.

http://www.vera.org/sites/default/files/resources/downloads/Price_of_Prisons_updated_version_072512.pdf

Here's the link on public prisons and their true costs, I guess I didn't link it before.


If inmates are incarcerated and that is what private prisons are doing, keeping them locked up, how is that not helping to protect society?   How are they are "joke" and an affront to democracy?

At the end of the day, I'm about efficiency and cost.  It hits home in my state, another reason to leave, because it is so ridiculously bloated.  $45K PER INMATE per year. The US average is $29K.  Why the cost difference?  I'll give you 3 guesses, the first two don't count.

So while you may not like private facilities, I don't like how the gov't is penalizing taxpayers (as one of the people in this state that actually pays taxes) with their cost structure and management of the public ones.  I find them to be a joke.  The private facilities build prisons in roughly half the time and 2/3 of the cost as the public prisons...I wonder why?      

Works both ways.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Chicos, just curious, do you believe in the common good? That profit should not be the end all be all in every case? That certain things, such as access to education, basic healthcare, equal carriage of justice, access to water, electricity an heat are things that should be available to all who live in the richest country in the world, even if it means less profit for mutual fund managers and stockbrokers? Or do you think that the free market should reign supreme, that winners and losers should be left to their own devices?

Of course.

I never said I was against public education...my kids are in public education.  My mom has been a teacher more than 40 years.  What I'm against is that we are spending incredible amounts of money on it and have not seen much improvement...why?  Where's the ROI?  Why have the costs of education gone up so much and the results haven't changed much?  Here's a good chart using Dept. of Education data.  I see two lines jumping off the chart, but not the most important lines....reading, math, science scores.  So in this case, who is the "common good"?  The students...or those receiving the money?  Kind of ironic considering your original question...isn't it!



http://wallstcheatsheet.com/stocks/education-spending-increases-while-results-stagnate.html/?a=viewall


Basic healthcare...you're confusing yourself. EVERYONE has access to healthcare...EVERYONE.  You're confusing insurance with healthcare.  My issue with that is those that had healthcare insurance many now have to pay a lot more now and the quality of the care will go down.  Of course, for a single man having to pay for his maternity insurance is also awesome...the "common good" apparently.   Racing to the bottom...awesome. 

Access to water and electricity...seriously?

So I appreciate the question.  I have no problem with public utilities, prisons, schools, etc.  I do have a problem with how they are run, the results they often get, and the bloated nature of their organizations....all of which someone has to pay for. 

[Coleman]

Of course.

I never said I was against public education...my kids are in public education.  My mom has been a teacher more than 40 years.  What I'm against is that we are spending incredible amounts of money on it and have not seen much improvement...why?  Where's the ROI?  Why have the costs of education gone up so much and the results haven't changed much?  Here's a good chart using Dept. of Education data.  I see two lines jumping off the chart, but not the most important lines....reading, math, science scores.  So in this case, who is the "common good"?  The students...or those receiving the money?  Kind of ironic considering your original question...isn't it!



http://wallstcheatsheet.com/stocks/education-spending-increases-while-results-stagnate.html/?a=viewall


Basic healthcare...you're confusing yourself. EVERYONE has access to healthcare...EVERYONE.  You're confusing insurance with healthcare.  My issue with that is those that had healthcare insurance many now have to pay a lot more now and the quality of the care will go down.  Of course, for a single man having to pay for his maternity insurance is also awesome...the "common good" apparently.   Racing to the bottom...awesome. 

Access to water and electricity...seriously?

So I appreciate the question.  I have no problem with public utilities, prisons, schools, etc.  I do have a problem with how they are run, the results they often get, and the bloated nature of their organizations....all of which someone has to pay for. 

You are still basing all of your arguments on ROI and efficiencies. My question was should everything be sacrificed on the altar of efficiencies?

A very clear example that fleshes out my question: It's inefficient to have a govt subsidized airport in the middle of Alaska where perhaps only a couple dozen customers fly in and out a month. But it is supported because of a belief that all citizens should have equal access to certain services, regardless of geography.

Do you feel this service, though inefficient, is important to provide? I do.

[jesmu84]

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304315004579381463769362886

this.

i'm not saying government run internet would be better, more effective or more efficient. but you can't say private entities are any or much better. hell taxpayers have given nearly $400 billion to ISPs to set-up infrastructure. what'd they do? built the backbones and pocketed the rest. it's a sad joke all around.

Chicos, I know we go back and forth on this. But here's my issue. You say we need the regional divides or else no company will come in and build infrastructure. Well, why not let the local authorities do that? Then sell line access to whichever companies want to pay. It seems, to me, that these regional divides provide little incentive to the dominant companies to upgrade infrastructure or improve service all that much. Google moving in and the resulting increase in service by the established companies seem to prove that. So, from the consumer end, what's the answer? If there's no (or little) competition, no company is going to be encouraged to improve much. To me, it seems that we should allow the companies to compete against each other in the same market, or allow the local authorities to build the infrastructure and sell out the lines. Does that make sense? (not an expert here, trying to educate myself)

Also, wondering if you can explain "common carrier" status to me. Thanks.

[Spotcheck Billy]

Basic healthcare...you're confusing yourself. EVERYONE has access to healthcare...EVERYONE.  You're confusing insurance with healthcare.  My issue with that is those that had healthcare insurance many now have to pay a lot more now and the quality of the care will go down.  Of course, for a single man having to pay for his maternity insurance is also awesome...the "common good" apparently.   Racing to the bottom...awesome. 

We just learned that effective March 1, due to Obamacare, our employer sponsored plan will have lower premiums for better coverage. It helps that we are an aging workforce and even expect our options to improve further when more 20-somethings enroll vs. paying the fine.

[mu03eng]

I'm normally against giving the government any more power, but I do view internet access to be functionally and fundamentally no different than roads and highways.  This is a classic example of what government is suppose to be doing in providing for the collective good those things they can't provide from themselves individually.  Having a "nationalized" internet highway makes more sense than government run health care.  As Chico's points out, it's all about the content....great, if we eliminate road building, the content and provider companies can focus on providing service and content in a competitive market place without customers being shut out simply because of geographic location.  Look what happened once AT&T Uverse moved into places where TWC was, precipitous change in TWC customer base that will likely force them to alter their business to remain competitive.

[akmarq]

Having a "nationalized" internet highway makes more sense than government run health care. 

I really don't want to derail this, but please be more careful of how you characterize our healthcare system. If you were referring to foreign examples of 'government run healthcare' then disregard this, but calling a system of private hospitals providing care that is paid for by private insurance companies 'government run' is a gross error.

You don't have to like the ACA, but you can't label it something that it is antithetical to.

[GOO]

For a labor market that works and just for ethical reasons, I think having insurance that covers pre-existing conditions is necessary.  Having insurance tied to jobs with the inability to change jobs, is a drag on the free flow of labor.  Limits highest and best use of talent.   

No one in their right mind would create an insurance market largely tied to employment like we've had.  It makes no sense.  Other's don't do it that way for good reason.  USA did it because of big labor and unions in the 50's and 60's that are now historical in nature and reach.

Insurance, ideally, follows the individual.

[mu03eng]

I really don't want to derail this, but please be more careful of how you characterize our healthcare system. If you were referring to foreign examples of 'government run healthcare' then disregard this, but calling a system of private hospitals providing care that is paid for by private insurance companies 'government run' is a gross error.

You don't have to like the ACA, but you can't label it something that it is antithetical to.

Was not referring to ACA, which is worse than a government run healthcare system.  Government run healthcare in the truest form is also a bad idea IMO but not as bad ACA.

[akmarq]

Was not referring to ACA, which is worse than a government run healthcare system.  Government run healthcare in the truest form is also a bad idea IMO but not as bad ACA.

Apologies then. I'll leave out your assessment of both systems because we're never going to agree and this isn't the place to argue it.

I just get very sick of seeing people (intentionally?) mislabel programs/institutions in order to fit them into a broader narrative. Again - you've clarified that you weren't trying to do that, but the phrasing you used was ambiguous enough that I read it that way.

[MU Fan in Connecticut]

We just learned that effective March 1, due to Obamacare, our employer sponsored plan will have lower premiums for better coverage. It helps that we are an aging workforce and even expect our options to improve further when more 20-somethings enroll vs. paying the fine.

My wife is a teacher and I'm on her plan (as it's marginally better than my employer).  The next three years will be at the same cost as 2012-2013 year.  4 years in a row with no cost increases.

My current employer made out well too.  2014 is the same cost as 2013.  No changes.  The HR manager said 2014 is the first time in the 17 years she worked here that there has been no increase on the company health insurance.  

[Spotcheck Billy]

this is the 1st time in probably 20 years we didn't have a double-digit increase. We've even been dropped because costs exceeded premiums collected (we have an old workforce).