MSNBC Edits Mitt Romney Speech To Make Him Look Silly

[Little Nemo]

Originally Posted by magellan01

But the point was not that changing information for a Medicare provider should be as easy as ordering a sandwich. Just that, over time, the competitive nature of the private sector provides incentive for companies to simplify (one flavor of "improve") things as much as they can. The premise of your comment is based on the belief that Romney thinks that changing one's Medicare provider information should be as simple as ordering a sandwich. I watched the video again, and I don't see him saying or implying that. You might as well say that Romney thinks that changing Medicare provider information should be able to be done via keypad. Both of those positions are putting words in his mouth.

If this is actually the case then the MSNBC report was accurate and justified. If what you're saying is true then Mitt Romney was making a speech about how competition reduces government inefficiency and then in the middle of this speech he made some comments about ordering sandwiches which had no connection with the subject that he was talking about. This sudden inability to focus on what he was talking about could indicate some serious mental impairment that we as voters need to know about.

So did Romney did make a direct comparison between filling out a change of address form and ordering a sandwich or not?

[magellan01]

Originally Posted by Little Nemo

If this is actually the case then the MSNBC report was accurate and justified. If what you're saying is true then Mitt Romney was making a speech about how competition reduces government inefficiency and then in the middle of this speech he made some comments about ordering sandwiches which had no connection with the subject that he was talking about. This sudden inability to focus on what he was talking about could indicate some serious mental impairment that we as voters need to know about.

So did Romney did make a direct comparison between filling out a change of address form and ordering a sandwich or not?

He gave an example of what happens everyday in the private sphere, and contrasted that with an example from the federal government. If you consider an analogy a direct comparison, then yes, he made a direct comparison. But what he did not do was say that changing one's Medicare deliver information should be precisely as easy as ordering a sandwich. Nor did he say that it should be able to be dine via a keypad. If you think differently, please supply the portion of what he said that indicates you're right and I'm wrong.

[magellan01]

Originally Posted by Really Not All That Bright

If he wanted a simple example of how the private sector breeds efficiency, he could have found a million better examples than ordering sandwiches via keypad. He is clearly comparing and contrasting the two examples.

Yes. He is comparing and contrasting them. As I just wrote. Please refer to my response to Little Nemo. Comparing and contrasting does not equal saying that one will necessarily reach the same level of simplicity.

[Euphonious Polemic]

Originally Posted by magellan01

He gave an example of what happens everyday in the private sphere, and contrasted that with an example from the federal government.

You know, last year I had to get a mortgage. You would not believe the amount of paperwork I had to fill out at the (private business) bank! They wanted an appraisal, other stuff, and had tons of forms. The forms had complex language in them, and I had to read, sign and initial a whole bunch of pages!

Contrast that to my experience changing my address with the (government run!) motor vehicle branch. There was a simple online form, and bingo, it was done!

Now why can't private business run efficiently like the government?

[Drunky Smurf]

NM. Didn't realize what forum I was in. If anyone say that before I edited this post then I apologize to you and the forum at large.

[magellan01]

Originally Posted by Euphonious Polemic

You know, last year I had to get a mortgage. You would not believe the amount of paperwork I had to fill out at the (private business) bank! They wanted an appraisal, other stuff, and had tons of forms. The forms had complex language in them, and I had to read, sign and initial a whole bunch of pages!

Contrast that to my experience changing my address with the (government run!) motor vehicle branch. There was a simple online form, and bingo, it was done!

Now why can't private business run efficiently like the government?

Do you think, as a general proposition, that the government is more efficient than the private sector? If so, what leads you to that conclusion? And why do you think that is the case? What is it about government institutions that would make them more efficient?

[Euphonious Polemic]

Originally Posted by magellan01

Do you think, as a general proposition, that the government is more efficient than the private sector? If so, what leads you to that conclusion? And why do you think that is the case? What is it about government institutions that would make them more efficient?

All I did was to give an example of what happens everyday in the business sphere, and contrasted that with an example from the government.

[magellan01]

Originally Posted by Euphonious Polemic

All I did was to give an example of what happens everyday in the business sphere, and contrasted that with an example from the government.

I know that, but why? You simply made an observation of two different things. Romney did that to illustrate a point. What point were you trying to make? It would only make sense if you thought that the government is a superior model of efficient than the private sector. Is that your position. If not, what point were you trying to make? Or were you not trying to make any point at all, in which case sharing the observation that tables and giraffes both have four legs, but giraffes are taller would have been equally as apt.

[magellan01]

Originally Posted by Procrustus

Bricker, cut it out., you're better than this. Romney is a tool of epic proportions. Nothing negative said about him can ever be bad enough or cruel enough. He would be a joke if their was any humor there.

How very odd. The guy, whether you like Obama or not, has accomplished quite a lot in his life, in both the public and private sector. Yet you feel he deserving of maximum scorn and ridicule. Tell me, what, specifically, has he done to be worthy of this sweeping condemnation from you?

[Euphonious Polemic]

Originally Posted by magellan01

I know that, but why? You simply made an observation of two different things. Romney did that to illustrate a point.

His point seemed to be that the government was inefficient at helping a health service provider change their address, while private business was very efficient at helping someone order a sandwich.

My example is every bit as on-point as his (not much), and pretty much proves the same thing. (very little)

[levdrakon]

Originally Posted by magellan01

How very odd. The guy, whether you like Obama or not, has accomplished quite a lot in his life, in both the public and private sector. Yet you feel he deserving of maximum scorn and ridicule. Tell me, what, specifically, has he done to be worthy of this sweeping condemnation from you?

That doesn't mean much. People with psychopathic personalities often do well in business, and the corporate world. Doesn't mean you have to vote for the sicko. He loves having power and firing people to make millions for himself. He's out of touch not only with real people, but probably doesn't even conceptualize them as anything but numbers.

[magellan01]

Originally Posted by Euphonious Polemic

His point seemed to be that the government was inefficient at helping a health service provider change their address, while private business was very efficient at helping someone order a sandwich.

My example is every bit as on-point as his (not much), and pretty much proves the same thing. (very little)

No. he was using one example, out of many, to illustrate the proposition that the private sector is, due to the pressures of competition, more efficient than the federal government.

So, is your position that the federal government is more efficient that the private sector, and that your example is just one of many you could provide?

If so, can you share other individuals that hold that same position, i. e., that the federal government is more efficient than the private sector? Because this position is news to me. Also, if you do believe that proposition, why do you think that is? What do you think it is that makes the federal government that makes it more efficient than the private sector?

[magellan01]

Originally Posted by levdrakon

That doesn't mean much. People with psychopathic personalities often do well in business, and the corporate world. Doesn't mean you have to vote for the sicko. He loves having power and firing people to make millions for himself. He's out of touch not only with real people, but probably doesn't even conceptualize them as anything but numbers.

You're arguing through two different megaphones. Are there reasons why someone should vote for Obama over Romney. Absolutely. But that doesn't make him a "psycho" or a "sicko". Sure he likes having power. Who doesn't? Yes, via Bain, he fired a lot of people. But if he hired more than he fired, does that enter into your calculation? Seems like, based on your criterion, that if he hired one more person than he fired, that would be a check in the positive column, right. How about if he hired twice as many as he fired?

So, beyond that, what makes him a 'psycho" or 'sicko"? Being a successful Governor? Saving the Olympics from the debate it was on the brink of? Being Mormon? Being white? Having a large family? What is it? You've piqued my curiosity.

[elucidator]

Originally Posted by magellan01

... Sure he likes having power. Who doesn't?....

Healthy people.

[magellan01]

Originally Posted by elucidator

Healthy people.

I am the genie in the bottle. Right now I am going to give you a choice and make it happen: would you like more power or less power?

Which will it be?

[Euphonious Polemic]

Originally Posted by magellan01

No. he was using one example, out of many, to illustrate the proposition that the private sector is, due to the pressures of competition, more efficient than the federal government.

That's just the thing. That may have been his premise, but his example did not illustrate that particular proposition. He compared a government change of address form for a medical provider to a business that makes sandwiches. This comparison did not show that the private sector is more efficient than the federal government. His comparison was inane. I simply showed that you can come up with an equally inane comparison that shows that a certain business is has more cumbersome paperwork than a (not even vaguely related) government department.

Neither of these comparisons can be used to prove ANYthing. They are both equally useless.

[levdrakon]

Originally Posted by magellan01

You're arguing through two different megaphones. Are there reasons why someone should vote for Obama over Romney. Absolutely. But that doesn't make him a "psycho" or a "sicko". Sure he likes having power. Who doesn't? Yes, via Bain, he fired a lot of people. But if he hired more than he fired, does that enter into your calculation? Seems like, based on your criterion, that if he hired one more person than he fired, that would be a check in the positive column, right. How about if he hired twice as many as he fired?

So, beyond that, what makes him a 'psycho" or 'sicko"? Being a successful Governor? Saving the Olympics from the debate it was on the brink of? Being Mormon? Being white? Having a large family? What is it? You've piqued my curiosity.

It's not as simple as how many hired vs. fired. Honestly, if Obama does something that costs lots of jobs, I may or not agree with what he did, but there's no doubt in my mind that Obama is a human being. Not so with Romney.

I'm not going to list everything. Ever since the campaigns started, it seemed to me everyone equally hated Mitt. Republicans especially. I've read people's opinions, I've read the negative and positive (what little there was), and based on that, as well as my own personal judgement of him watching him on TV, his voice, mannerisms, body language, eyes etc. I think he's a creepy. I think he is a compassion-less and completely unempathetic machine who doesn't, or maybe can't differentiate between business and the rest of life and the world, and who believes destruction is the path to profit. I don't want the guy for president. I wouldn't want him next door, and I wouldn't leave my kids or pets alone with him for a second.

I didn't make up reasons to not like him. Republicans themselves clued me in on him.

[gamerunknown]

Originally Posted by Marley23

I've never heard of Wawa since I've never been to Wisconsin.

My cousin demonstrated how to use one of the sandwich touch-screens in a Wawa in PA. I was quite impressed. Apparently they're open 24 hours, including on Christmas there, too.

Originally Posted by magellan01

No. he was using one example, out of many, to illustrate the proposition that the private sector is, due to the pressures of competition, more efficient than the federal government.

Originally Posted by Drum God

To me, that is better than Romney saying that cutting jobs by using technology is "amazing".

It is amazing. Technology has this effect, or else we would all be resorting to subsistence farming. There was a period where the Soviet Union was criticised for being too efficient and unconcerned with the human spirit. Religion and over-production were sacrificed before the altar of the Stakhanovite movement and ruthless science of production. Note there "overproduction": without a central planning committee, many hours of human labour are spent on ventures which will ultimately prove fruitless. Under economic theory, this inefficiency is tolerated due to the beneficial effects of competition (which I do not refute). Despite opposition from primitivists and neo-Luddites, both Marxist and Friedmanite economic theories adopt the concept of "necessary unemployment". The difference between the two is that Marx held that such developments should benefit the maker of the whip, not just the wielder of it (to borrow one of Bricker's examples).

This is also the reason that the concept of "job creation" is fallacious. The owners of the means of production do not produce jobs and assign them out of their own beneficence. The owners respond to market pressures by determining whether they could extract surplus labour from a subset of the population. Externalities such as the deprivation caused by unemployment do not factor into their decisions. Their primary concern, if part of a corporation, is to extract profit for their shareholders. This could be by employing guys in Detroit, it could be by using materials gathered by children in Uzbekistan, it could be by replacing a worker with a touchscreen keypad.

Originally Posted by yorick73

Since a few people have mentioned how Fox does this all the time can anyone provide some links to the offending pieces?

LiberalViewer documents over a hundred instances of bias.

Not that I think a two wrongs argument is a good one.

[Robot Arm]

Originally Posted by gamerunknown

My cousin demonstrated how to use one of the sandwich touch-screens in a Wawa in PA. I was quite impressed. Apparently they're open 24 hours, including on Christmas there, too.

I gotta admit, when it comes to making people miss spending the holidays with their families, private enterprise kicks the government's ass.

[MaxTheVool]

I think there's an important difference between some kinds of taking out of context and others.

If someone is basically saying "here is thing A I believe, and here is thing B I believe, and the important point when contrasting them is C", and you broacast only "here is thing B I believe", then that is somewhat deceptive. You're making it seem that thing B is something important enough to bring up all by itself, and the specific word choices that were used to describe thing B might seem different all by themselves than when in the midst of a comparison. That's basically what MSNBC did to Romney. I agree it's somewhat deceptive, and I would prefer that those "on my side" not do it. I don't think it's outright dishonest, however, as the person presumably does believe thing B.

Certainly, it's peanuts compared to, for instance, the selectively edited tape about the Obama apointee or nominee (I forget the precise details) a while ago in which she said something like "when I was in this situation, I was tempted to screw over whitey, but then I realized how horribly unfair that would be so I didn't", and only the first half of the sentence was played, thus 100% changing the meaning of what was said.


Also, I'm pretty non-outraged about Mitt saying the guy got a 33-page form, because, most likely, some guy told Mitt this anecdote, and Mitt is reporting it, and even if Mitt has a person whose job it is to check facts in anecdotes that Mitt is going to repeat in public (which he probably should), it would be very easy to do a quick check, verify that there is this (37?) page form, and not do the further due diligence about precisely how much of that needs to be filled out. Pretty small potatoes.

All of that said, the argument and comparison that Mitt was actually trying to make is a stupid one. (And to the question of whether government vs private industry makes things more efficient, well, I suggest that you get sick here and deal with the insurance industry, then get sick in Australia and deal with the government-provided health care there, and see which one is more efficient to the end user, which is the type of comparison Mitt was trying to make.)

[magellan01]

Originally Posted by Euphonious Polemic

That's just the thing. That may have been his premise, but his example did not illustrate that particular proposition. He compared a government change of address form for a medical provider to a business that makes sandwiches. This comparison did not show that the private sector is more efficient than the federal government. His comparison was inane. I simply showed that you can come up with an equally inane comparison that shows that a certain business is has more cumbersome paperwork than a (not even vaguely related) government department.

Neither of these comparisons can be used to prove ANYthing. They are both equally useless.

Prove? What the hell, is there a sale at the Acme Straw factory or something. Who claimed that what he said proved anything?

As far as the rest, the fact that you refuse to answer the questions I've asked you repeatedly leads indicates (not proves, indicates) that you know you really don't have a point. Let's try again:

As a general proposition, would you say that the federal government or the private sector is more efficient?

If your answer is the federal government, can you provide links to some leaders who hold that position, as well. Or anyone else?

If your answer is the federal government, can you give a few examples that lead you to that conclusion. Also, can you provide a reason why that may be the case? What do you think it is about the federal government that cause it to be more efficient?

[magellan01]

Originally Posted by levdrakon

It's not as simple as how many hired vs. fired. Honestly, if Obama does something that costs lots of jobs, I may or not agree with what he did, but there's no doubt in my mind that Obama is a human being. Not so with Romney.

So, you present a metric by which the man should be judged, but then realize that your metric might not justify your position, so it must be, uh, something else. Okaaay. Care to try again?

Originally Posted by levdrakon

I'm not going to list everything. Ever since the campaigns started, it seemed to me everyone equally hated Mitt. Republicans especially. I've read people's opinions, I've read the negative and positive (what little there was), and based on that, as well as my own personal judgement of him watching him on TV, his voice, mannerisms, body language, eyes etc. I think he's a creepy.

Other people have said bad things about him and you don't like his mannerisms, so he's a psycho and a sicko. You find that reasonable?

Originally Posted by levdrakon

I think he is a compassion-less and completely unempathetic machine who doesn't, or maybe can't differentiate between business and the rest of life and the world, and who believes destruction is the path to profit.

Well, he seems to have a happy, healthy family. And he gives a ton of money to his church. So I don't see how you see him as unempathetic and compassion-less. And when he was asked to leave his business behind to save the Olympics, he did. How selfish! But he is/was "destructive". What if it could be shown that he created more jobs than he destroyed? How about if he created two or three times more jobs than he "destroyed. Would that change your characterization of him as being "destructive"? Shouldn't it?

Originally Posted by levdrakon

I don't want the guy for president. I wouldn't want him next door, and I wouldn't leave my kids or pets alone with him for a second.

And that would be because...? What would your fear be?

Originally Posted by levdrakon

I didn't make up reasons to not like him. Republicans themselves clued me in on him.

This seems strangely weak reasoning. If you're going to characterize a man as a sicko and psycho because of "reasons". Shouldn't they be good reasons? I haven't seen any even mediocre ones yet. You must have more. Let's hear them. Make me hate him. Or even dislike him a little.

[levdrakon]

Originally Posted by magellan01

So, you present a metric by which the man should be judged, but then realize that your metric might not justify your position, so it must be, uh, something else. Okaaay. Care to try again?

You're the one who assigned me my criterion with a sentence that started "it seems you're..." and now you're riding me about that criterion you set for me. Not to godwinize or anything but I could easily say Hitler accomplished a lot in business and government too but that says nothing about his character or sanity. It doesn't automatically speak well of Mitt.

Other people have said bad things about him and you don't like his mannerisms, so he's a psycho and a sicko. You find that reasonable?

No, I haven't stopped beating my wife! What??

Well, he seems to have a happy, healthy family. And he gives a ton of money to his church. So I don't see how you see him as unempathetic and compassion-less. And when he was asked to leave his business behind to save the Olympics, he did. How selfish! But he is/was "destructive". What if it could be shown that he created more jobs than he destroyed? How about if he created two or three times more jobs than he "destroyed. Would that change your characterization of him as being "destructive"? Shouldn't it?

Yeah, he has a happy healthy family and gives to his church (which he has no choice about) and goes around putting people out of jobs and pioneering the outsourcing of American jobs to China and India to boost investor profit. Sorry, warm and cuddly he ain't.

This seems strangely weak reasoning. If you're going to characterize a man as a sicko and psycho because of "reasons". Shouldn't they be good reasons? I haven't seen any even mediocre ones yet. You must have more. Let's hear them. Make me hate him. Or even dislike him a little.

He's gay and thinking about turning Democrat.

[Euphonious Polemic]

Originally Posted by magellan01

Prove? What the hell, is there a sale at the Acme Straw factory or something. Who claimed that what he said proved anything?

How about this then: Neither of these comparisons can be used as an example to illustrate ANYthing. They are both equally useless.

Originally Posted by magellan01

As far as the rest, the fact that you refuse to answer the questions I've asked you repeatedly leads indicates (not proves, indicates) that you know you really don't have a point. Let's try again:

As a general proposition, would you say that the federal government or the private sector is more efficient?

If your answer is the federal government, can you provide links to some leaders who hold that position, as well. Or anyone else?

If your answer is the federal government, can you give a few examples that lead you to that conclusion. Also, can you provide a reason why that may be the case? What do you think it is about the federal government that cause it to be more efficient?

My whole, entire, complete point here has not been whether or not one system is more efficient than the other.

My exact point, which I've tried to repeat as simply as possible, and I repeat here again is:

The example that Romney used to illustrate his thesis that private business is more efficient than the federal government was a flawed example. It was a poor one. It did not serve it's purpose. He compared the efficiency of a government form to the efficiency of a business that makes sandwiches. Comparison fail. Bad example. He should have used a different comparison.

Have I made myself clear?

In order to convince others that Romney's example comparative efficiencies sucked the big one, I DO NOT need to make the whole entire argument that the Federal government is more efficient than business.

Do you follow now? His example sucked. It was a bad example to use. It was laughable. That's it. That's the point.

[magellan01]

Originally Posted by levdrakon

You're the one who assigned me my criterion with a sentence that started "it seems you're..." and now you're riding me about that criterion you set for me.

No... I restated what your position seemed to be. If I got something wrong, simply point out what seems incorrect and restate it. But I thoroughly understand you preferring to find an out and not have to defend what you have been saying.

Originally Posted by levdrakon

Not to godwinize or anything but I could easily say Hitler accomplished a lot in business and government too but that says nothing about his character or sanity. It doesn't automatically speak well of Mitt.

But Hitler has a ton of stuff in the Evil Monster column. So far Romney has mannerisms you don't like and a lack of empathy displayed by the fact that he had people fired. Even if he had created many more jobs than he ended. By the way, you do know that Bain specialized in invested in companies that were already in the red with dismal prospects. You do know that, right.

Oh, and if you don't want to Godwinize, don't Godwinize. Easy.

Originally Posted by levdrakon

No, I haven't stopped beating my wife! What??

This doesn't apply. Sorry. rethink and come back with something applicable.

Originally Posted by levdrakon

Yeah, he has a happy healthy family and gives to his church (which he has no choice about) and goes around putting people out of jobs and pioneering the outsourcing of American jobs to China and India to boost investor profit. Sorry, warm and cuddly he ain't.

But how many companies has he helped save? How many jobs did he create for Americans? Why do you ignore that in your calculation?

Originally Posted by levdrakon

He's gay and thinking about turning Democrat.

Nope. The meter didn't move. Got anything else?

[magellan01]

Originally Posted by Euphonious Polemic

How about this then: Neither of these comparisons can be used as an example to illustrate ANYthing. They are both equally useless.

My whole, entire, complete point here has not been whether or not one system is more efficient than the other.

My exact point, which I've tried to repeat as simply as possible, and I repeat here again is:

The example that Romney used to illustrate his thesis that private business is more efficient than the federal government was a flawed example. It was a poor one. It did not serve it's purpose. He compared the efficiency of a government form to the efficiency of a business that makes sandwiches. Comparison fail. Bad example. He should have used a different comparison.

Have I made myself clear?

In order to convince others that Romney's example comparative efficiencies sucked the big one, I DO NOT need to make the whole entire argument that the Federal government is more efficient than business.

Do you follow now? His example sucked. It was a bad example to use. It was laughable. That's it. That's the point.

No one is saying that is THE example someone would use in a doctoral thesis. But the example was valid, as it was an example of the degree to which the private sector is encouraged towards efficiency. Not all comparisons need to be close in reality. For example, analogies and similes can use very stylized comparisons.

So, I have to ask you again, are you of the mind that the private sector is less efficient than the federal government. This, at least, would root you example in a premise. I ask the other questions in the previous reply to you to judge the apparent validity of that premise and the mechanism that must be at work making the federal government more efficient.

So, got anything of any substance?

[levdrakon]

Originally Posted by magellan01

But how many companies has he helped save? How many jobs did he create for Americans? Why do you ignore that in your calculation?

Not my job. Speaking of jobs, these jobs you're saying he "created" (I believe he now hedges "helped create"), I assume you know are in China and India. It would be fair to say he's shown some compassion for them, I guess.

Nah, pretty sure it was investor profit.

[Little Nemo]

Originally Posted by magellan01

But the point was not that changing information for a Medicare provider should be as easy as ordering a sandwich. Just that, over time, the competitive nature of the private sector provides incentive for companies to simplify (one flavor of "improve") things as much as they can. The premise of your comment is based on the belief that Romney thinks that changing one's Medicare provider information should be as simple as ordering a sandwich. I watched the video again, and I don't see him saying or implying that. You might as well say that Romney thinks that changing Medicare provider information should be able to be done via keypad. Both of those positions are putting words in his mouth.

Originally Posted by magellan01

He gave an example of what happens everyday in the private sphere, and contrasted that with an example from the federal government. If you consider an analogy a direct comparison, then yes, he made a direct comparison. But what he did not do was say that changing one's Medicare deliver information should be precisely as easy as ordering a sandwich. Nor did he say that it should be able to be dine via a keypad. If you think differently, please supply the portion of what he said that indicates you're right and I'm wrong.

So the point of Romney's speech was to make a comparison between two things which are not comparable.

I'd say you were horning in on MSNBC's turf but I don't think anyone is going to feel that this argument makes Romney look silly.

[guizot]

Originally Posted by BrainGlutton

Actually, Romney sounds a whole lot sillier in the Youtube video.

Yes and.......no. I don't think the intent of what he said about the touchscreen really makes him sound all that silly--even edited down--so the edit was just kind of pathetic. But what makes Romney sound silly (over and over again) is that he's so bad at pandering to the hoi polloi locals by talking about their local businesses, and in either version of the video that's what comes through. He just tries too hard to show that somehow he's connected to the general populace, when in reality he'd never be buying something at WaWa's if he weren't running for office, touchpad or not.

[Euphonious Polemic]

Originally Posted by magellan01

No one is saying that is THE example someone would use in a doctoral thesis. But the example was valid, as it was an example of the degree to which the private sector is encouraged towards efficiency. Not all comparisons need to be close in reality. For example, analogies and similes can use very stylized comparisons.

Ha ha! Who said you didn't have a sense of humor? It is not what you would use in a doctoral thesis, no. It was a poor example. An incredibly poor one.

If Romney were to have compared a private business sandwich ordering system to a government sandwich ordering system, he might have had a point. If he had compared a private health insurer's change of address form to the Government's insurance change of address form , he might have had a point. (in fact, look up-thread for just such a comparison, which might actually have validity)

In point of fact, Romney compared a companies sandwich ordering system to a government change of address form. It is laughable on it's face. It is not a "simile" it is not an "analogy". It's a joke.

Originally Posted by magellan01

So, I have to ask you again, are you of the mind that the private sector is less efficient than the federal government. This, at least, would root you example in a premise. I ask the other questions in the previous reply to you to judge the apparent validity of that premise and the mechanism that must be at work making the federal government more efficient.

You can ask, but I must re-state: THAT WAS NOT MY POINT. My point was that Romney's example that he used to show that business is more efficient than government was incredibly stupid. I continue to be amazed that you don't get my point here.

Originally Posted by magellan01

So, got anything of any substance?

If I didn't know better, I would have thought that this was intended to be insulting. Of course, you would not do that in this forum.

[Little Nemo]

Originally Posted by magellan01

No one is saying that is THE example someone would use in a doctoral thesis.

Are you saying a Presidential candidate shouldn't be held to as high a standard as a doctoral student?

[Brown Eyed Girl]

Originally Posted by Bricker

It's a foolish argument, but not for this reason. Romney's analogy fails because ordering a sandwich should be much less complicated than changing information for a Medicare provider. It's just that simple.

Sure it is. Romney is implying that competition in private industry drives innovation by using the analogy of the streamlined ordering system at Wawa, but that federal government is not capable of that and instead relies on an antiquated paper system mired in red-tape. He's wrong, of course, as my analogy indicates.

But your argument works just as well.

[BigAppleBucky]

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/23/yo...-money.html?hp

NY Times article today on the massive failure of health insurance companies, doctors and hospitals to provide comprehensible and fair billing to patients.

Some snips:
Ask Jean Poole, a medical billing advocate, about her work helping people navigate the bewildering world of medical bills and insurance claims, and the stories pour out. There’s the client who was billed almost $11,000 for an 11-minute hand surgery. The cancer patient who was charged $9,550.40 for a round of chemotherapy he never received.

And then, there’s the tale of the woman who came to Ms. Poole with a large rolling suitcase stuffed with bills for her 68-year-old husband, who had gone to the emergency room after he fell getting out of bed. The hospital’s doctors discovered a series of problems — kidney failure, blood and urinary tract infections, and a blood clot. Ultimately, he ended up staying in the hospital for two months and being transferred to a nursing home for rehabilitation.

Though the couple had two insurance policies — one through Medicare and a secondary policy at Blue Cross Blue Shield — they still received more than $25,000 in medical bills and another $65,000 from the nursing home. And some of them threatened collections if they weren’t paid within days.
**
(she) simply wanted to figure out how much she really owed.
**
Ms. Poole’s detective work ultimately reduced his out-of-pocket costs by more than $22,000, which left him responsible for about $3,915.
**
She uncovered the savings in various places — there were charges for brand medications when the patient ordered generic, services that were double-billed, as well as charges for a private room that the patient did not request; he was only there because no other rooms were available. In another instance, a surgeon belatedly submitted his $4,400 bill to the insurance company, so the claim was denied. That wasn’t the patient’s fault, but he was billed anyway. She lobbied the billing department to drop the charges, and they did.

Then, when the $132,000 hospital bill came, the patient was told he owed $9,200 and it had to be paid in 10 days. As it turns out, only one of the insurers had paid its share, which was hard to decipher from the bill. Ultimately, the patient only owed $164.99. “There were three explanation of benefits from Blue Cross Blue Shield, each with an different amount due,” she said, ranging from about $164 to $81,900. “How’s that for confusion?”

**
With the exception of Medicare and Medicaid, experts say, the amount paid for services — or the price your insurers pay — is based on the market power of the insurance company on the one side and the hospitals and providers on the other . . .

***

President Obama’s Affordable Care Act, the health care overhaul law passed in 2010, tries to make some improvements . . . Starting in September, health insurers and group health plans must provide consumers a comprehensive summary of their plan’s benefits and coverage in plain language.


****
****

Now we have a fair comparison to work with in this thread.

[septimus]

Originally Posted by BigAppleBucky

... NY Times article today on the massive failure of health insurance companies, doctors and hospitals to provide comprehensible and fair billing to patients.
...
President Obama’s Affordable Care Act, the health care overhaul law passed in 2010, tries to make some improvements . . . Starting in September, health insurers and group health plans must provide consumers a comprehensive summary of their plan’s benefits and coverage in plain language.

Now we have a fair comparison to work with in this thread.

I liked your post, but Romneyists will consider your analogy flawed.

Bad paperwork by government is the result of lazy workers suckling at the public teat, while the overbilling you describe is the intelligent work of Job Creators. It is only by deceiving the stupider people into overpaying that the Best Americans can get maximal benefit from the Free Market Liberties that have made our Country so Great. Why do you hate success?

[magellan01]

Originally Posted by Little Nemo

Are you saying a Presidential candidate shouldn't be held to as high a standard as a doctoral student?

No. I'm saying that a stump speech in which a candidate tries to make a larger point while also making it locally relevant shouldn't be subjected to the same level of scrutiny as a doctoral thesis. Do you disagree?

[elucidator]

Why, when you put it that way, it seems so simple!

[magellan01]

Originally Posted by Euphonious Polemic

Ha ha! Who said you didn't have a sense of humor? It is not what you would use in a doctoral thesis, no. It was a poor example. An incredibly poor one.

If Romney were to have compared a private business sandwich ordering system to a government sandwich ordering system, he might have had a point. If he had compared a private health insurer's change of address form to the Government's insurance change of address form , he might have had a point. (in fact, look up-thread for just such a comparison, which might actually have validity)

He was making a simple point. He took one example from the private sector and one from the federal government. He held up the former as the what happens when the completive forces of the private sector come to bear on something as simple as ordering a sandwich. He contrasted that with an example from the federal government, which is not the product of such pressure. They're both relatively simple things: ordering a sandwich and changing ones address to which check will be sent. They need not be the same thing. You might want to look up Miller's Analogies and see how apparently disparate things can be compared. I doubt WaWa's in engaged in anything nearly as complex as 99% of the stuff the federal government is engaged in. But they were able to take a little aspect of their business and simplify it. Surely the federal government could do that with a change of address form that is 34 pages long. See, that's how the comparison works. A is to B as X is to Y.

Originally Posted by Euphonious Polemic

In point of fact, Romney compared a companies sandwich ordering system to a government change of address form. It is laughable on it's face. It is not a "simile" it is not an "analogy". It's a joke.

What's laughable on its face is how you insist that the things cannot be compared because one has an inherently greater level of complexity than the other. That's the joke. Surely you understand that two things that are worlds apart can be simplified, or improved. A bicycle helmet and a fighter jet can both be made more streamlined. A car and a beverage can can both be made more environment-friendly. An Olympic gymnast and a 80-year-old non athlete can both do things to become stronger. And...you guessed it: a Medicare provider change of address form and a sandwich ordering system can both be simplified.

But maybe I'm wrong. Maybe those facts do elude you. You'll have to tell me.

Originally Posted by Euphonious Polemic

You can ask, but I must re-state: THAT WAS NOT MY POINT. My point was that Romney's example that he used to show that business is more efficient than government was incredibly stupid. I continue to be amazed that you don't get my point here.

Maybe because you're mistaking having a point with tap-dancing. You might as well have randomly spouted "brown cow four legs; table four legs". Romney's examples were to support a particular point of view—one shared by most people—that although the federal government and the private sector each have their roles, that the private sector is generally much more efficient. And that is due to the competition that encourages them to be so.

So, unless your example was shared to demonstrate a larger point, it's simply random observations. So, ONCE AGAIN, what is the larger point you were trying to make by your observation. The logical one, based on its content, would be that you think that the federal government is inherently, or usually, MORE efficient than the private sector. That would make you counter-example make sense. So, do you believe that? And if you do, WHY do you think that is the case. Romney (and most of the world) would say that the reason the private sector is more efficient is due to the competition that surrounds them. To what mechanism do we ow this greater efficiency theta you (seemingly) claim is present in the federal government?

Or, were you just offering an empty observation that really should not be taken seriously? As you were not trying to make a larger point the way Romney was?

Originally Posted by Euphonious Polemic

If I didn't know better, I would have thought that this was intended to be insulting. Of course, you would not do that in this forum.

Well, it's up to you if you're insulted by being asked to defend an argument with apparently so little substance. But you should ask yourself, "Who is at fault for that?" What I've been saying is perfectly allowed in GD. I'm questioning and criticizing your argument, not you. What you said, not who you are. Or, as it's usually put, attacking the post not the poster. I don't know, if you feel insulted in having to defend something you've said, perhaps you shouldn't have said it. Perhaps you should rethink what you've said. It's never too late. Of course, you are fully within you're rights to continue digging, too. Though I think you might need a pick axe about now.

[Really Not All That Bright]

Originally Posted by magellan01

I doubt WaWa's in engaged in anything nearly as complex as 99% of the stuff the federal government is engaged in. But they were able to take a little aspect of their business and simplify it. Surely the federal government could do that with a change of address form that is 34 pages long. See, that's how the comparison works. A is to B as X is to Y.

It's not a change of address form. It's a Medicare supplier enrollment form that also happens to be used for address changes. Is the form the guy had to fill out 34 pages long? Sure. However, the guy had to fill out about 5 pages of it. Big fuckin' deal.

By drawing a parallel, Romney is disingenuously suggesting that a government-run sandwich shop might also require a 34-page form, or that a privatized Medicare might come up with a keypad based address form or something.

[magellan01]

Originally Posted by Really Not All That Bright

It's not a change of address form. It's a Medicare supplier enrollment form that also happens to be used for address changes. Is the form the guy had to fill out 34 pages long? Sure. However, the guy had to fill out about 5 pages of it. Big fuckin' deal.

By drawing a parallel, Romney is disingenuously suggesting that a government-run sandwich shop might also require a 34-page form, or that a privatized Medicare might come up with a keypad based address form or something.

The point is much simpler: the government is generally not as efficient as the private sector. I can't believe anyone would argue with this proposition. It also shouldn't be surprising, a company has to battle for it's own survival. The government has no commensurate pressure bearing upon it. Personally, I don't even agree that a touch pad is the height of efficiency. I'd much rather walk up and tell someone what I want. But it is indicative of the lengths business will go to to streamline. A 34-page form, or even a 5-page form from the government is not going to be simplified as if it was designed by Apple. I think that's a safe bet to make. Hell, I'll bet that I could simplify it myself.

[elucidator]

So, your argument is based on your assertions, which are founded on the rock solid basis of your opinion.

[pseudotriton ruber ruber]

Originally Posted by magellan01

The point is much simpler: the government is generally not as efficient as the private sector.

Have you ever filled out a form in your doctor's office? Have you ever filled out the form a second fucking time? Or a third? Or a twentieth?

Your doctor is a private businessman, working with a variety of private insurance companies. You'd imagine (I would, anyway) that when I walk into his office for my appointment, I might get asked "Same same address, insurance, marital status? Yes? Okay, here's your form--review it, please," but no, instead, I have to fill out my fucking address, which hasn't changed in seventeen years, and my name TWICE (as both the patient and as the policy-holder), remind THEM what my policy number is--all of this is information that they (damn well better) already have on file. Is this your idea of efficiency? I find it hilarious that you would hold up private business as your model of efficiency. I'd switch doctors, except that every other doctor operates the same exact way---so much for the value of ruthless competition.

[Blkshp]

Originally Posted by Euphonious Polemic

You know, last year I had to get a mortgage. You would not believe the amount of paperwork I had to fill out at the (private business) bank! They wanted an appraisal, other stuff, and had tons of forms. The forms had complex language in them, and I had to read, sign and initial a whole bunch of pages!

Contrast that to my experience changing my address with the (government run!) motor vehicle branch. There was a simple online form, and bingo, it was done!

Now why can't private business run efficiently like the government?

You do know that a significant portion of the documents, as well as the language, are specifically required by the government, right?

[Blkshp]

Here's a partial list of the forms the Feds require to be filed with every mortgage loan...



http://www.lendingrisk.com/kpi/kpi_osdocs_pg1.php

Legal / Compliance documents address required government reporting and loan disclosures. Failure to include this documentation in the loan package subjects the lender to penalties from various federal agencies. This article is not intended to address each of these agencies and/or documents individually; however, the following is a list of the more important regulations that govern required mortgage loan compliance documentation.
Real Estate Settlement and Procedures Act (Reg. X) (RESPA)
Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA)
Fair Housing Act
Fair Lending Act
Truth-in-Lending Act (Reg. Z) (TIL)
Consumer Credit Protection Act (CCPA)
Home Ownership and Equity Protection Act (HOEPA)
Equal Credit Opportunity Act (Reg. B) (ECOA)
Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (Reg. C) (HMDA)
Patriot Act 2001

[pseudotriton ruber ruber]

Originally Posted by Blkshp

You do know that a significant portion of the documents, as well as the language, are specifically required by the government, right?

You do know that most of these regulations are for your protection, right?

I mean, you're not the sort of jackass who wants the bank to lend money to just anyone who claims to be you, and then comes looking for you to pay the loan back, are you? And you want the bank to make sure you have the ability to repay the loan, don't you, so that everyone doesn't have to chip in when your unemployed ass defaults on the loan, right? The bank will be happy to lend you money with whichever additional charges and fees can be hidden in fine print, only the government requires them to spell out the limit of their fees--you don't want them to be able to do that, right?

Etc.

[Little Nemo]

Originally Posted by magellan01

The point is much simpler: the government is generally not as efficient as the private sector. I can't believe anyone would argue with this proposition.

I would.

Corporations have to make a profit to maintain their existence. Governments do not. So a government can theoretically do something at cost while a corporation cannot afford to do that.

Suppose the absolutely most efficient way to deliver a letter from Boston to Seattle costs forty cents. The government can charge you forty cents to deliver that letter. They don't have to make a profit. But if a private company tried to deliver that letter for forty cents it would end up going broke. In order to stay in business, a private company would have to charge you forty-one cents so it could make a profit off every letter it delivered. And no matter what new ideas you invent that need for profit will always be there.

[elucidator]

What! Sir, are you suggesting that profit creates an inherent inefficiency? May the Free Market forgive you! (Blessings and peace be upon it...)

[brickbacon]

Originally Posted by magellan01

The point is much simpler: the government is generally not as efficient as the private sector. I can't believe anyone would argue with this proposition. It also shouldn't be surprising, a company has to battle for it's own survival. The government has no commensurate pressure bearing upon it.

You keep saying this as if it is supposed to mean something. The government is not "more efficient" because that is not typically a goal of government or a metric by which it should logically be judged. It's like saying the human body is not efficient because you are born with an appendix and two kidneys. I mean, why should we lug around an extra kidney, it's inefficient. If the human body were designed with private sector efficiency in mind, it might would fail the user far more often even if it was more "efficient" for the average person.

Similarly government is "inefficient" for a number of legitimate, intrinsic reasons. The most important reason being that inefficiency exists because private sector failure rates and outcomes are usually not acceptable. Sixty percent of restaurants fail in the first 3 years. How comfortable would you be if the IRS, FEMA, or the FBI completely blew up every few years?

Second, even in situations where the private and public sectors perform similar jobs, many externalities do not count against the company's bottom line. A private company might be able to run a DMV cheaper than the government, but they don't have to pay cops to enforce the laws, nor do they need to maintain and create roads that incentivize people to drive in the first place. The government provides a web of services that cannot easily be differentiated, or measured on a profit and loss statement.

Third, government is guided by principles that often preclude efficiency. Is it efficient for each state to have 2 senators and several representatives? Of course not, but our constitutional principles dictate that we must in order to fulfill our obligations to our citizens. Republics are not efficient. Checks and balances are not efficient. Elections are not efficient. Jury trials are not efficient. Dictatorships are. That's not to say there is no middle ground, but our system is in part designed to be inefficient in accordance with our principles.

Fourth, government is obligated to step in to situations where the private sector has failed. They cover medical bills for the poor, provide insurance to people who cannot otherwise get it, and spend money to conduct unprofitable scientific research. The government often steps in when potential profit does not provide enough of an incentive for the private sector to act. Government must work for those who fall through the cracks. Cracks that often exists because the private sector decided that filling them was bad for business.

For all those reasons and many more, I wish you would really stop with this nonsense about government inefficiency relative to the private sector. They are generally not comparable, and acting as if they are just to make a rhetorical point is dishonest.

[rocking chair]

Originally Posted by brickbacon

Well, I can see why someone might say that, but it's worth noting that, even in context, Mitt comes off as out of touch and robotic.

First, the store is called Wawa, not Wawa's. He keeps saying Wawa's, which makes him sound strange to anyone who knows the store. I don't know if I'd go as far as to say that nobody calls it that, but it that pronunciation is not the most common, nor is it correct.

Second, Wawa has 590+ locations, most in the Northeast. They are fairly ubiquitous in NJ. It's the third largest retailer of food in Greater Philadelphia, and around the 65th largest private company in the US. A guy living in Massachusetts should have probably heard of Wawa. Doubly so if you are a governor who is invested in competing with nearby states for business. Even if you suppose one might miss that, I find it kinda strange to act as if it's some novelty shop given their size and age (almost 50 years old). For comparison's sake, there are "only" 274 In-N-Out Burgers, and they have about 1/10 the revenue. This is not some mom and pop store, so not knowing of it's existence, as a supposed business-first executive, is kinda odd.

Third, it's not a "touch-tone keypad", it's a touch-screen ordering system. Calling something touch-tone keypad, even if accurate, it just weird and stilted language. Like saying the New York Metropolitans are your favorite baseball squadron.

Fourth, the takeaway I got from the MSNBC thing was not about his public/private comparison, that's why there is no need to include the part about address changes. It was just a cheap shot about Romney's ineffectual, transparent pandering. It plays, rightfully so, into the narrative of him being an out of touch rich guy. In an ideal world, the legitimate media would not engage in that kind of stuff, but such is the world we live in.

wawa wasn't in mass. christy's was the wawa of mass. note the word "was". the stores have been sold to seven eleven. perhaps that is why he adds the "s".

wawa has closed locations in philly, they have become old nelson's.

[Robot Arm]

Originally Posted by Little Nemo

Suppose the absolutely most efficient way to deliver a letter from Boston to Seattle costs forty cents. The government can charge you forty cents to deliver that letter. They don't have to make a profit. But if a private company tried to deliver that letter for forty cents it would end up going broke. In order to stay in business, a private company would have to charge you forty-one cents so it could make a profit off every letter it delivered. And no matter what new ideas you invent that need for profit will always be there.

To expand a bit on brickbacon's post, government and private enterprise have different standards of success and different tools they can use to get there. If a private company decides it isn't profitable to deliver to some remote addresses, it doesn't have to. Look at the coverage map for any cell phone provider. They achieve their efficiency by neglecting some people. We wouldn't accept that from a federal agency like the Post Office. In two places, they still deliver by mule.

[brickbacon]

Originally Posted by rocking chair

wawa wasn't in mass. christy's was the wawa of mass. note the word "was". the stores have been sold to seven eleven. perhaps that is why he adds the "s".

wawa has closed locations in philly, they have become old nelson's.

According to their website, they still have several locations in Philly.

Second, I didn't say there are Wawas in Mass. I said that a guy living there, especially one who was a self-described pro-business governor, should know the ins and outs of any private business of that size, that close to his home state. Furthermore, given that they are pretty common just a couple states away, it's surprising that he seems to be unaware of the brand. Honestly, do you think the governor of Colorado has never heard of In-N-Out Burger? Do you think the governor of Virginia has heard of White Castle? Has the governor of N. Carolina heard of Wegman's? I would bet money they have. And if any of those people started talking about those companies like they were some scrappy upstart shaking up the business, I think they should rightfully be called out for their tone deafness.