Edit post

Edit your reply below.

Post Body
Enter your post below.
[quote user="V.Payne"] So this is the pattern. "As per Table 14.1 approximately 84 per cent of the medical costs were paid by Medicare, private insurance, self insured, Medicare, etc. Medicaid paid approximately 16 per cent of the costs. Medicare is a government insurance program paid for by the beneficiaries over their working lives. This is a far different cry than the implication that all or most of the aforementioned costs fell on the public purse."... All of the insurance funding sources being mentioned are non-user revenue as the FHWA defines such, as one pays not a cent more to the general tax purse if they drive more than average, which does increase the risk factor. Yet at the same time the demand is that passenger rail derive all of the revenue from tickets which do vary by the mile and as such is true user revenue. "Often ignored by those who emphasize the cost of driving and flying are the benefits. Apparently most Americans have decided that they far outweigh the costs.  And studies have shown that they do many times over. To just focus on the cost without including the benefit side of the equation presents only one side of an issue. " Then here is the pivot, see the benefits outweigh the costs, but don't suggest that for the Long Distance trains as those types of benefits (access to small towns, relative safety, utility of time enroute) are not equal to these benefits. Go back and look at the DFM pollsof red state districts from thevery first post to pick those apart.[/quote] Telling someone to go back and read your previous post, or one of your references, implies that they did not do so or they lack the ability to comprehend what you wrote or drew reference to.  That's a put down.  I have read some although not all of your musing, primarily because they are not presented well.   You paste charts into your posts. In some instance the data is so old as to be irrelevant. The biggest problem, however, is that you give people a fire hose to drink out, which has a tendency to turn people off.   Using bold letters in an email or forum is a form of shouting.  I can read what you want me or others to read without have you shout it. Automobiles are here to stay.  Americans want them. They are willing to bear the risks and costs because they rightly believe the benefits far out weigh them.   The key argument should focus on where passenger rail makes sense.  Focusing on extraneous issues does noting to further the cause.  If you want to believe that one train a day between points generates a benefit that is justified by the cost, that is your choice.  I disagree. I read the poll results.  The polls are flawed because they are not based on valid statistical samples. All one can say, based on the methodologies, is that the respondents said this and that about whatever they were being asked. That's different from saying something about the population as a whole. If the long distance trains generate a benefit, other than for the few communities where they may be the only alternative commercial transport, how come Corpus Christi, Brownsville, McAllen, Abilene, Midland, Odessa, Amarillo, Lubbock, just to name a few Texas cities, don't have these vitally important trains? One can make the case that trains in relatively short, high density corridors, where the cost to expand the highways and airways is prohibitive, generate a benefit sufficient to cover their costs.
Tags (Optional)
Tags are keywords that get attached to your post. They are used to categorize your submission and make it easier to search for. To add tags to your post type a tag into the box below and click the "Add Tag" button.
Add Tag