No proof that private sector works, but lots of proof it doesn't

[taxslave]

I think they should be publicly owned, pure and simple. Whichever level of government owns the utility can contract out services but power poles, gas lines and water mains are far too important to be left in the hands of those with a profit motive.

That would depend on where you are. In a city perhaps, but not necessarily in small communities or even small cities. Chilliwack BC has had a private water system for decades.It works well. My family owns a water system in a small community(150customers+/-) that my father and my uncle built in the 60s to services their own properties and wound up letting everyone along the line hook in. As a privately operated utility we have all of the problems and none of the benefits of a public system. The government regulates how much we can charge(not much) but we are not eligible for any grants for improvements or maintenance. When my father died I tried to get the regional District to take it over but they said it would be to expensive for them. It is not a cash cow for sure.

 

[Cannuck]

That would depend on where you are. In a city perhaps, but not necessarily in small communities or even small cities. Chilliwack BC has had a private water system for decades.It works well.

City of Chilliwack - Utilities - Local Services - Business & Economy

Are you sure about that?

I don't doubt that there are some private water systems out there that are run well just as there are public systems that are run poorly. One has to look at the rule and not the exception.

 

[taxslave]

City of Chilliwack - Utilities - Local Services - Business & Economy

Are you sure about that?

I don't doubt that there are some private water systems out there that are run well just as there are public systems that are run poorly. One has to look at the rule and not the exception.

Was last time I was there a couple of years ago. I would have to ask my cousin that lives there to be sure it still is.
It is not that either is necessarily run poorly, more about the cost per customer. In B.C. there is lots of provincial government oversight by multiple agencies.

 

[Bar Sinister]

You contradict that statement here...

Of course not, but for for lack of efficiency. But for lack of public purse strings.

I agree, because I actually can't think of anyone I know that wants to take a bus. Poor scheduling, poorly placed stops.

Why wouldn't they?

Those are all luxuries.

So be it, realism is on the down swing. I already knew that.

How else can you get the propaganda to the mud huts?

That's because the Gov't has allowed private companies like Rogers to monopolize the system.

You are aware that you need a permit to do that right?

Do you think these permits are just printed on the construction companies computer?

Read it, as well as several others when the collapse happened.

In the end, the Gov't bears the responsibility. My kids can pester me for a video game, in the end it is I that has to weigh the value.

And the Gov'ts that allowed that to take place, bear no accountability?



But at the beginning of your post you said...



Quite frankly, I was pleased as punch when I used an American hospital. It was fast for starters. I don't mind paying more to be treated quicker.

Where you see a lower cost in public health care, I see the effects of that in time of treatment and quality of service. That is of course here in Ontario. Not enough Doctors, due to salary caps. Not enough nurses because the guy in the big office needs to have a big desk and so on.

When it's a private firm with a big desk, in a big office, that's their folly. When it's a publicly funded firm, no. That money is ours.

That sounds like propaganda. I've never had an issue with getting excellent care from a private hospital in the States. Ever.

That's exactly what I said, is it not.

There are no contradictions in anything I said. I clearly indicated in my comments regarding private health care that it cannot match the public system on a dollar for dollar basis. Certainly private health care can deliver excellent service, but you have to have a fat wallet to afford it. Spending 16% of its GNP on health care as the US now does is simply something that most nations cannot afford.

Too bad your idea of what a luxury is does not match mine. In a modern society basic needs go far beyond food, clothing, and shelter. You might prefer to live a prehistoric existence but few others would given the fact that it would probably result in the deaths of about 90% of the world's population, you included.

BTW your comment about South Korea makes absolutely no sense which indicates to me that you are letting me do the work of putting what you believe into words. Instead of pretending to disagree with me why not make the point yourself?

So far as I can determine you are what the Aussies call a "stirrer," a term that refers to someone who makes comments he does not believe in simply to get a rise out of others. That being the case I will return to my earlier policy of not replying to any of your posts.

No? Thats what the ultimate end of the state control leads to, just like the old USSR.

I don't dispute that there are some services that gov't needs to control but by and large the public sector is not as efficient as the private sector, because in the private sector there is a stronger motivation to find ways to become more efficient.

Thats what the ultimate end of the state control leads to, just like the old USSR.

Not necessarily. The USSR and Communist China were examples of an ideology carried to extremes. There are numerous examples of nations considered socialist that have stopped far short of that and have no intention of going any further.

So far as the private sector and efficiency is concerned there is often a connection, but efficiency is not necessarily a characteristic of the market economy. In fact, historically fixing prices and curbing innovation were the norm prior to the Industrial Revolution. Even today there are clear examples of private businesses that do little to promote efficiency or innovation. An obvious example is the pharmaceutical sector which pour billions into researching chemicals that reduce symptoms but puts nothing into developing real cures. Diabetes is a clear example of this. There have been many improvements in controlling the disease and pharmaceutical firms have been quick to latch onto these lucrative controls; but most of the research into actually curing the disease has been done by government. Similarly, why is it primarily publicly funded facilities that have carried out most research into cures for the common cold and AIDS? There is simply too much profit to be made in allowing these diseases to continue to put any effort into actually eliminating them.

 

[Cannuck]

In B.C. there is lots of provincial government oversight by multiple agencies.

There is in Alberta as well. The problem is that without the government running the utilities, you invariably end up like Alberta's deregulated power system or phone system. One can argue that prices have come down but try and get Telus or Fortis out to fix something.

Like your example of the private water system, the only way to make money if costs rise is to reduce service or preventative maintenance (which will only cost more in the end). It's not that public sector managers are better than private sector managers. It's that politicians need to take responsibility for those things that are vitally important to the community. That's what they are hired to do.

 

[CDNBear]

No. There is a classification of luxury but these things are not luxuries. I.E., the difference between a 1972 Honda, a necessity for traveling in our highway nation and arriving to work, and a 2010 Ferrari. It's so much a necessity that in certain cities there are programs at the moment to supply automobiles to the working poor.

Great, so I get to buy people a car too? Awesome.

And the internet is still a luxury.

These are all components of the means of subsistence for workers to reproduce and perform their jobs. Amusingly, the internet in itself can actually assist in reproduction of the workforce (see dating sites) but on the job it's otherwise a necessity these days to have access to the internet.

On the job, I agree. At home, I do not. And I can still effectively operate my business by phone. In fact, 90% of my business is done by phone or in person.

Of course you can disagree but that would simply make you a reactionary who probably believes anything beyond simple rags is luxury because our predecessors didn't have anything better.

Ya, I must be a reactionary because I believe that the internet, or car ownership is a luxury.

Maybe it's because I grew up in a household where hard work was the way things were, to get the money needed to purchase "necessities" and all else, things like entertainment, which is what the internet really is (In most households), come second.

Next thing you know, someone will be telling me, wildTV is a necessity.

The military was one thing that was ran decently but in recent times, in the "Peacekeeping age", has become an institution of overpaid professional soldiers who reak of militarism and consider themselves better than the other 30 million Canadians in the country.

You're obviously talking about the Brass.

There are no contradictions in anything I said.

I beg to differ, you may want to reread what you posted, but you certainly contradicted yourself.

I clearly indicated in my comments regarding private health care that it cannot match the public system on a dollar for dollar basis.

You obviously can't make the connection, because you've never seen a bill from the hospital, other then services not covered. By the time you pass triage and are sitting waiting to see a Doctor, you've spent over $600 CDN. Just because you haven't seen the bill, doesn't mean it doesn't cost on par at a private hospital State side. Having had an operation in a "private" American Hospital, I can assure you, they are relatively the same. The difference...I was diagnosed here, but got stuck on a waiting list, because it wasn't life threatening. Due to budget restraints, shortages of Doctors due to salary caps, I would simply have to wait for an available opportunity. But while in the States on business, it began to affect me, with simple pains. I sought medical attention, only so I could get some pain killers to get me through my trip. By the next day, the operation was complete, and I was on my way...

That's efficiency. The bill, covered by my "private" Blue Shield, but I could have used my OHIP and still received the same service. The difference, a "private" hospital has to be efficient, quick, and meet certain standards, or fail, and heads roll. A public hospital in Canada, just keeps getting under funded, while they make do with what they have.

Now don't even get me started on the mental health system. I have a ward, that we have been trying to get some form of therapy through the Province. Since he's presently in the criminal justice system, and that relates to his need for therapy, they won't touch him. But! Through our Native community, and private channels, we have been able to start him in two different types of therapy. One native Spiritual based, the other, the more clinical based.

At the service end, the Gov't has dropped the ball. As I have been saying since my first post.

Certainly private health care can deliver excellent service, but you have to have a fat wallet to afford it.

Not really, less then $2000 CDN/year for a family of 4, for a decent Blue Shield package, that covers you globally. Mine is just under $4000 CDN/year, for a family of 4, because I have a better package that covers dental and prescriptions as well. Again, globally.

Spending 16% of its GNP on health care as the US now does is simply something that most nations cannot afford.

As the public health care system in Ontario is now showing.

Too bad your idea of what a luxury is does not match mine.

Agreed. To bad what I find to be a luxury isn't the norm. Maybe welfare wouldn't cost so much if internet wasn't considered a necessity.

In a modern society basic needs go far beyond food, clothing, and shelter.

Why?

You might prefer to live a prehistoric existence but few others would given the fact that it would probably result in the deaths of about 90% of the world's population, you included.

So now the internet for welfare moms is a life saver?

Since I'm posting to you, over the internet, with a computer, I guess I don't prefer to live a prehistoric existence. But I do live within my means. I certainly am frugal, I believe everything I poses, should serve a purpose. Things that are entertainment based, are not a necessity.

I place more worth on my hunting bow, then I do in the internet. One can feed me, the other simply entertains. I'm still quite capable of conducting business by phone, and paying bills by mail.

I wonder how all our ancestors managed to not only survive without it, but build nations.

BTW your comment about South Korea makes absolutely no sense which indicates to me that you are letting me do the work of putting what you believe into words. Instead of pretending to disagree with me why not make the point yourself?

My apologies, in my haste to reply under a time constraint, I read "North Korea".

Now that I have corrected that mistake, I still can't wrap my head around why bandwidth is a big deal. Is South Korean bandwidth lower then North American? Hell, I don't think I even know what my bandwidth is, but I still download movies and music with no issues.

How much bandwidth do we need?

So far as I can determine you are what the Aussies call a "stirrer," a term that refers to someone who makes comments he does not believe in simply to get a rise out of others. That being the case I will return to my earlier policy of not replying to any of your posts.

Everything I said, I believed at the time. The only error, was in my mistake about North and South Korea.

You know what though. I addressed your post politely and honestly. It is you that can't help being a "stirrer", or in this case a dick. Feel free to not reply to my posts, you'll only be treated as you have asked to be treated here.

 

[Cannuck]

The military was one thing that was ran decently but in recent times, in the "Peacekeeping age", has become an institution of overpaid professional soldiers who reak of militarism and consider themselves better than the other 30 million Canadians in the country.

In many respects, the military is better run today. I could tell stories of drunk artillery men parachuting on a dare 50 - 60 years ago. That kind of nonsense wouldn't be tolerated today. I do agree though, on the attitude of military people. This forum is a perfect example of where some people think there military service gives them more credibility than others.

 

[CDNBear]

I could tell stories of drunk artillery men parachuting on a dare 50 - 60 years ago. That kind of nonsense wouldn't be tolerated today.

Drunk Drop Shorts parachuting?

That would be funny.

I do agree though, on the attitude of military people. This forum is a perfect example of where some people think there military service gives them more credibility than others.

Not at all. Unless you want to talk about topics that pertain to military issues.

But that's about it. Although, I have no idea why you take this all so serious.

But then you could ask why some trolls use peoples military careers as a spring board for pot shots and trolling. Or even better, how their up bringing as an Army brat can even be remotely considered a military background.

But you're not a troll are you Cannuck?

 

[tay]

Paul Buchhelt discusses eight areas where privatization has proven to be a disaster in the U.S. - with one holding particular interest for Regina residents:

A 2009 analysis of water and sewer utilities by Food and Water Watch found that private companies charge up to 80 percent more for water and 100 percent more for sewer services. A more recent study confirms that privatization will generally "increase the long-term costs borne by the public." Privatization is "shortsighted, irresponsible and costly."

Numerous examples of water privatization abuses or failures have been documented in California, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, New Jersey, Texas, Massachusetts, Rhode Island -- just about anywhere it's been tried. Meanwhile, corporations have been making outrageous profits on a commodity that should be almost free. Nestle buys water for about 1/100 of a penny per gallon, and sells it back for ten dollars. Their bottled water is not much different from tap water.

Worse yet, corporations profit from the very water they pollute. Dioxin-dumping Dow Chemicals is investing in water purification. Monsanto has been accused of privatizing its own pollution sites in order to sell filtered water back to the public.


more

8 Ways Privatization Has Failed America | Common Dreams
​

 

[Walter]

Detroit.