Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

US cities pay too much for buses

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

281–290 of 590 posts

Re: US cities pay too much for buses

#281

Post by tehjoker »

nickff wrote: post #273
tehjoker wrote: post #263

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Preventative care is free because it saves a tremendous amount of money for the insurance company and physical and emotional hardship for yourself by catching bad things early.

Your view is a commonly-held one, and makes a lot of sense; unfortunately there is very little support for it. One data point to the contrary is the Oregon Health Care Study, which showed that 'free' preventative care increased healthcare spending, but did not improve lifespan or reduce long-term cost.

Such a counterintuitive study, when there are highly motivated political actors trying to deprive people of social benefits, makes me highly skeptical. Catching bad things early is almost always better. Diabetes, cancer, heart disease, etc, cost hundreds of thousands to millions of dollars to treat caught late and prevent people from working or doing things they like to do, and mere thousands to treat early while preserving their quality of life.

Re: US cities pay too much for buses

#282

Post by airstrike »

Y_Y wrote: post #254
RobKohr wrote: post #202

"Federal funding typically covers 80% of bus purchases, with agencies responsible for the remainder." Well, there is your answer. The one making the purchase isn't the one primarily paying for the purchase. This makes them less sensitive to pricing. Kinda like how expensive healthcare is since it is paid for by insurance. Or how you don't care how much you put on your plate or what you choose to eat at an all you can…

And congratulations to any of today's lucky ten thousand who are just learning of the Principal-Agent Problem. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principal%E2%80%93agent_proble...

How about the ten thousand learning about "today's lucky ten thousand"?

Re: US cities pay too much for buses

#283

Post by johnnyanmac »

hamandcheese wrote: post #265
johnnyanmac wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>the driver strapping them in is robbing everyone else of their valuable time Oh so we're now fine putting more of our tax dollars into specialized disability services? If our time is more valuable, this is a steal.

It's paying either way. I'd rather pay with money.

I'm the same. When brought up for policy, the results tend to be very disappointing, though.

Re: US cities pay too much for buses

#284

Post by foolswisdom »

frollogaston wrote: post #213
RobKohr wrote: post #202

"Federal funding typically covers 80% of bus purchases, with agencies responsible for the remainder." Well, there is your answer. The one making the purchase isn't the one primarily paying for the purchase. This makes them less sensitive to pricing. Kinda like how expensive healthcare is since it is paid for by insurance. Or how you don't care how much you put on your plate or what you choose to eat at an all you can…

Shouldn't insurance care about the pricing though? I get why federal govt isn't sensitive, given 0 competition.

As noted by sibling comments, the arm of the Healthcare company that wons the doctor's office wants to collect as much as possible, while the insurance arms are anyway capped at how much they can make. Incentives (conflict of interest) are towards paying more.

Re: US cities pay too much for buses

#285

Post by Jensson »

baggy_trough wrote: post #251
estebank wrote: post #240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Congestion pricing works when there are alternatives. If you have both no public transport and congestion pricing, what you have is only increased tax collection with no behavioral change.

That's false because everyone has alternatives (you can stay home, for example). Raising the price will always on margin reduce trips.

How do you get to work when you stay home?

Re: US cities pay too much for buses

#286

Post by oblio »

SoftTalker wrote: post #230
wat10000 wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And since the route is fixed, maybe we could install guides rather than needing a complicated steering mechanism. Then replace inefficient tires with much more efficient metal wheels rolling on the guides....

And then we need to make a change to the route.... oops.

Predictability has value.

For example because "we need to make a change to the route" type people are around, your bus line can be taken away from you.

Because tracks aren't moved as easily, people rely on them, plan around them and you get things like increased property values because (and overall higher quality of life, especially around tram lines) due to that.

Re: US cities pay too much for buses

#287

Post by phil21 »

Y_Y wrote: post #254
RobKohr wrote: post #202

"Federal funding typically covers 80% of bus purchases, with agencies responsible for the remainder." Well, there is your answer. The one making the purchase isn't the one primarily paying for the purchase. This makes them less sensitive to pricing. Kinda like how expensive healthcare is since it is paid for by insurance. Or how you don't care how much you put on your plate or what you choose to eat at an all you can…

And congratulations to any of today's lucky ten thousand who are just learning of the Principal-Agent Problem. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principal%E2%80%93agent_proble...

I'm convinced that a great majority of problems in the US these days fundamentally boils down to principal agent problems. The 2008 financial crisis is a great example. Once banks no longer kept mortgages on their own books, it just became a matter of time until that was going to blow up. The incentives change.

Re: US cities pay too much for buses

#288

Post by cogman10 »

tehjoker wrote: post #281
nickff wrote: post #273

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your view is a commonly-held one, and makes a lot of sense; unfortunately there is very little support for it. One data point to the contrary is the Oregon Health Care Study, which showed that 'free' preventative care increased healthcare spending, but did not improve lifespan or reduce long-term cost.

Such a counterintuitive study, when there are highly motivated political actors trying to deprive people of social benefits, makes me highly skeptical. Catching bad things early is almost always better. Diabetes, cancer, heart disease, etc, cost hundreds of thousands to millions of dollars to treat caught late and prevent people from working or doing things they like to do, and mere thousands to treat early while pre…

Cancer, in particular, can be practically free to insurance if caught early. Colon and skin cancer are the poster children. Colon cancer can be treated in the process of doing the screening when caught early. And skin cancer is a pretty minor "just lop off that mole" procedure that also ends up being the treatment.

Letting it grow and catching it when symptoms arise is terribly expensive. The chemo, surgery, scans, and frequent doctors visits are all crazy expensive.

About the only way I could see preventative care not costing less is if you just let the people die and call it god's will rather than calling it a death that could have been prevented.

Re: US cities pay too much for buses

#289

Post by GuinansEyebrows »

gosub100 wrote: post #197
GuinansEyebrows wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sorry to be glib but I’m not sure you’re familiar enough with the political left to make a statement like this so confidently.

That's not refuting my claim. It's turning the claim into an ad-hominem by attacking my character. You can research who donates to Democratic candidates if you want to see evidence of my claim.

by and large, US Democrats are center-right by policy. relatively leftward from your rank and file GOP goosesteppers, sure. maybe we feel the same way, but i wouldn't make the mistake of categorizing someone like Chuck Schumer as a left politician.

Re: US cities pay too much for buses

#290

Post by hibikir »

estearum wrote: post #269
SoftTalker wrote: post #220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Insurance profit is limited to a percentage of what they pay out. So the more they pay, the more money they make.

Also the largest insurers increasingly own the doctors you’re seeing too. Also the pharmacy you get your drugs from. Also the entity that negotiates prices between pharma companies and your insurer. More healthcare consumption = better, across the board

Even when it's not the insurer, it's at least a hospital. Many a doctor around me that used to have a private practice sold to one of the hospital chains, as they promised more money than by owning, solely due to superior collective action advantages. A large insurer can bully a private practice into cutting costs, but a hospital network that handles 40% of ERs in the metro area? The insurance company can lose. So everyone makes more money but the people paying insurance.
Post reply on HN