quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

Look, here's the thing.

It's clear from this and other posts that you aren't aware of the past history here. It makes discussion pointless, as you're taking blind shots at things you obvious don't know anything about. Start there.

We have a long history of regulation. We've also had disastrous deregulation. You obviously aren't up to speed on that history either. You've repeating blind abstractions.

Perhaps you've heard of states' rights? There is every sensible reason why citizens in one state can choose differently than citizens in another. We call it the U.S. Constitution. Perhaps you've heard of it.

Slogans, kid, aren't gonna do the job. Stop repeating them, and start reading your history.

Yeah, youll cry states rights until its something you like and then youll plead the ICC.

FYI, health insurance restrictions on interstate sales has nothing to do with states rights. Its purpose was to allow smaller companies the ability to grow and compete with established giants like BC/BS. It was fine in the early days of the business, but all it does now is restrict needed competition. So read your own damn history.

Nope. I'm pointing out an inconsistency. It's all about states' rights until it's not convenient, from segregation to regulation.

My state has strict insurance regulations. I like it. I'm willing to pay more for it. In fact, in choosing among the plans offered to me through my employment, I didn't choose the cheapest one either--I chose the one that best suits my needs (in this case, it offered more choice or providers).

So what happens when cheap insurance from a poorer, less regulated state strips away gullible customers who don't recognize what they're no longer getting? And when angry customers go to the state AG, what happens? It's just not as simple as open the doors and let the prices drop, and you know enough business to know this.

So what, we'll create another Delaware? It's a veiled attempt to deregulate.

What happened to the plan they proposed in the early 90s? Where's that plan? Why haven't they resurrected it?

It's an end run.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

quote:

ORIGINAL: truckinslave

What history is it you assume I don't know?
What deregulation is it that you think was so disastrous?
States rights don't exist anymore. Haven't for decades.
There is no sensible reason why the legislature of Florida would (or can, today) tell a resident of Tallahassee he cannot buy a health insurance policy available in Columbus, Ga.
Kid? Thanks.

Go back and read the exchanges. You continually make blanket statements at odds with established reality and lessons learned. You seem unaware of airline deregulation, where costs soared and service sank, of telecommunications deregulation, where costs soared and service sank (though fiber optics did improve line quality), of banking deregulation which overturned 50 years of no big financial crises to 30 years of massive bank failures and scandals from the Savings & Loan debacle to the recent mess over mortgages, derivatives and another massive bailout.

And we just bailed out AIG, a massive insurance company.

For the rest, see the above post.

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy
Service sank? There are more routes with more frequent flights than ever. Lost baggage is at an all time low. Reservations are easier than ever to make. The food always sucked on US airlines.

quote:

ORIGINAL: thornhappy

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy
Service sank? There are more routes with more frequent flights than ever. Lost baggage is at an all time low. Reservations are easier than ever to make. The food always sucked on US airlines.

Nope.  They've been consolidating routes for years, and with all the mergers a lot of choices simply disappeared.  Capacity's dropped enough that if your flight is canceled you may have to wait 48 hours to get out. 

Take a look at the size of an OAG now and in 1980. Not even close.

Ticket prices for a coach seat on the same flight can vary from $200 to $1500.

Nothing whatsoever to do with deregulation. Price variances are due to the economic value of flexibility of plans and decision making. 

Seat pitch is tighter, and seat width is too.  Many airlines are removing and/or charging for blankets and pillows.  (Try sitting in a fuselage seat, especially by the exit door on a red-eye and see how warm you are.)

Again, nothing to do with deregulation, and those charges are temporary because of the cost spikes.

Food didn't always stink on flights. 

On US airlines? Sorry, yes they did.

The interiors are dirty, especially since people started bringing so much food on board.  Tarmac hold times are gawd-awful.

Again nothing to do with de-regulation, although I agree some new regulation is needed.

A real travesty is the outsourcing of maintenance.  That was a major cause cause of the Valuejet crash.

Outsourcing was always allowed, there was no deregulation. the problem with outsourcing is differing standards for foreign and domestic repair facilities under the FAR. IMO the security risk of those policies is far greater than the mechanical risk. Safety risk is greater due to decreasing pilot salaries than outsourcing.

The major airlines cut costs by forming and/or using regional airlines on short routes. Regional airlines pay amazingly low salaries, given the certifications required; have higher fatigue rates; and often are piloted by people with relatively few hours in type compared to the major airlines.

Which benefits the consumer via lower prices and again has nothing to do with deregulation

I'm not a global traveler type like in the movies, but I've racked up about 170,000 miles since 2002, primarily on United, American, Delta, Airtran, and US Airways, along with all their affiliates.   I can tell you, personally, that service sucks.

And I fly and have flown 3-4 times a month for the last 30 years. the only discernible change in the quality of service is that the stewardesses (gasp!) are 30 years older

(btw, Patrick Smith writes an excellent column on Salon.com (Ask A Pilot), with great info on the industry (you should see his writings about the TSA)).

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
I honestly don't know or care what Rutan believed but the fact is that the US hasalways had a very open policy towards experimental aircraft.
http://www.airventure.org/about/history.html

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
I honestly don't know or care what Rutan believed but the fact is that the US hasalways had a very open policy towards experimental aircraft.
http://www.airventure.org/about/history.html

What an incredibly arrogant and dumbass statement that is, Ken.  Burt Rutan is probably the most qualified person on the planet to speak about what it takes to get a private experimental aircraft going, but since his thoughts don't match your preconceived kool-aid drinker notions, "you don't know or care what he believes."  Jesus H. Christ, who the fuck do you think you are?!

Did you include a link to something that in no way contradicts him, in the hope it would buy you some credibility among those who don't bother to read links?

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic

Hmm.  Lemme see...  Your opinion on what sorts of regulations were affecting something back in the 70's, vs. the guy currently working on private space travel...  Nothing in your link that suggests the fucking paperwork requirements weren't the hot topic at those conventions, so the existence of an organization contradicts nothing I posted from Rutan... 

Tough choice


Have a great day, Ken.  It is nice to know you aren't dead, too.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen


But of course despite being told repeatedly that you are wrong you will continue in your blind belief.

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen


But of course despite being told repeatedly that you are wrong you will continue in your blind belief.

So, of course, you are more of an expert on the subject than the source of the statement?  Burt Rutan has pretty impeccable credentials.  He's the one who put the credit where he did, so he must have liked something Reagan was doing.

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
I honestly don't know or care what Rutan believed but the fact is that the US hasalways had a very open policy towards experimental aircraft.
http://www.airventure.org/about/history.html

What an incredibly arrogant and dumbass statement that is, Ken.  Burt Rutan is probably the most qualified person on the planet to speak about what it takes to get a private experimental aircraft going, but since his thoughts don't match your preconceived kool-aid drinker notions, "you don't know or care what he believes."  Jesus H. Christ, who the fuck do you think you are?!

Did you include a link to something that in no way contradicts him, in the hope it would buy you some credibility among those who don't bother to read links?

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

I've pointed you to people who can easily tell you all about licensing experimental aircraft but you continue to stomp your feet and insist you're right. Stop pretending like a random quote by a guy getting a medal is in any way definitive and either show me the law passed after 1981 that made getting a tail number for an experimental aircraft easier or admit you can't.

quote:

ORIGINAL: juliaoceania

I swear, Obama is one of the most domly men I have ever seen in action... truly truly a master

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

I've pointed you to people who can easily tell you all about licensing experimental aircraft but you continue to stomp your feet and insist you're right. Stop pretending like a random quote by a guy getting a medal is in any way definitive and either show me the law passed after 1981 that made getting a tail number for an experimental aircraft easier or admit you can't.

I've quoted the guy who probably knows more about the subject than anyone on the planet, stating that Reagan's policies made it possible.  Just admit your own arrogance and foolishness and move on, Ken.  Didn't you do your credibility enough damage with your declarations and demands on the the Climategate thread? 

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery
Look, here's the thing.

It's clear from this and other posts that you aren't aware of the past history here. It makes discussion pointless, as you're taking blind shots at things you obvious don't know anything about. Start there.

We have a long history of regulation. We've also had disastrous deregulation. You obviously aren't up to speed on that history either. You've repeating blind abstractions.

Perhaps you've heard of states' rights? There is every sensible reason why citizens in one state can choose differently than citizens in another. We call it the U.S. Constitution. Perhaps you've heard of it.

Slogans, kid, aren't gonna do the job. Stop repeating them, and start reading your history.

Yeah, youll cry states rights until its something you like and then youll plead the ICC.

FYI, health insurance restrictions on interstate sales has nothing to do with states rights. Its purpose was to allow smaller companies the ability to grow and compete with established giants like BC/BS. It was fine in the early days of the business, but all it does now is restrict needed competition. So read your own damn history.

Nope. I'm pointing out an inconsistency. It's all about states' rights until it's not convenient, from segregation to regulation.

My state has strict insurance regulations. I like it. I'm willing to pay more for it. In fact, in choosing among the plans offered to me through my employment, I didn't choose the cheapest one either--I chose the one that best suits my needs (in this case, it offered more choice or providers).

So what happens when cheap insurance from a poorer, less regulated state strips away gullible customers who don't recognize what they're no longer getting? And when angry customers go to the state AG, what happens? It's just not as simple as open the doors and let the prices drop, and you know enough business to know this.

So what, we'll create another Delaware? It's a veiled attempt to deregulate.

What happened to the plan they proposed in the early 90s? Where's that plan? Why haven't they resurrected it?

It's an end run.

You have made the erroneous assumption that each state would not be able to regulate the policies sold in that state, regardless of the situs of the issuing company. Thats how life insurance works. Separate subsidiaries are not required to sell life insurance in a given state, just a license, conforming policies and conforming reserves.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery
Look, here's the thing.

It's clear from this and other posts that you aren't aware of the past history here. It makes discussion pointless, as you're taking blind shots at things you obvious don't know anything about. Start there.

We have a long history of regulation. We've also had disastrous deregulation. You obviously aren't up to speed on that history either. You've repeating blind abstractions.

Perhaps you've heard of states' rights? There is every sensible reason why citizens in one state can choose differently than citizens in another. We call it the U.S. Constitution. Perhaps you've heard of it.

Slogans, kid, aren't gonna do the job. Stop repeating them, and start reading your history.

Yeah, youll cry states rights until its something you like and then youll plead the ICC.

FYI, health insurance restrictions on interstate sales has nothing to do with states rights. Its purpose was to allow smaller companies the ability to grow and compete with established giants like BC/BS. It was fine in the early days of the business, but all it does now is restrict needed competition. So read your own damn history.

Nope. I'm pointing out an inconsistency. It's all about states' rights until it's not convenient, from segregation to regulation.

My state has strict insurance regulations. I like it. I'm willing to pay more for it. In fact, in choosing among the plans offered to me through my employment, I didn't choose the cheapest one either--I chose the one that best suits my needs (in this case, it offered more choice or providers).

So what happens when cheap insurance from a poorer, less regulated state strips away gullible customers who don't recognize what they're no longer getting? And when angry customers go to the state AG, what happens? It's just not as simple as open the doors and let the prices drop, and you know enough business to know this.

So what, we'll create another Delaware? It's a veiled attempt to deregulate.

What happened to the plan they proposed in the early 90s? Where's that plan? Why haven't they resurrected it?

It's an end run.

You have made the erroneous assumption that each state would not be able to regulate the policies sold in that state, regardless of the situs of the issuing company. Thats how life insurance works. Separate subsidiaries are not required to sell life insurance in a given state, just a license, conforming policies and conforming reserves.

That opening health insurance to interstate sales will result in lower costs is a myth.

States already have competing companies. Why wouldn't this already lower cost? Companies already do business in several states, through separate subsidiaries. Why does this not already encompass economies of scale? (And we're not taking manufacturing or transportation costs here--it's paperwork.) And if there were economic opportunities to sell insurance at lower rates, why wouldn't opportunity cost already provide economic incentive to open up shop and do so?

No. What they want is to sell insurance in New York living under Arkansas' rules (a hypothetical example). If they just want to do business in New York, nothing's stopping them.

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

I've pointed you to people who can easily tell you all about licensing experimental aircraft but you continue to stomp your feet and insist you're right. Stop pretending like a random quote by a guy getting a medal is in any way definitive and either show me the law passed after 1981 that made getting a tail number for an experimental aircraft easier or admit you can't.

I've quoted the guy who probably knows more about the subject than anyone on the planet, stating that Reagan's policies made it possible.  Just admit your own arrogance and foolishness and move on, Ken.  Didn't you do your credibility enough damage with your declarations and demands on the the Climategate thread?