lovinthehd

lovinthehd

Audioholic Slumlord
I know you're not that old ! truth be told it morphed into the intermodal sector during the seventies and actually flourished for a bit in the eighties.



allow me to educate you a wee bit .........

I don't need the link. I experienced it. Chasing freight all around the country due to poor railroad management, sometimes several weeks for a route of less than 2000 miles....pathetic. My grandfather owned one of the bigger carloading outfits, morphed into traditional international freight forwarding later (but I never worked for them). Intermodal only started in the late seventies/early eighties on the bigger scene (i.e. outside the US).
 
Mikado463

Mikado463

Audioholic General
I don't need the link. I experienced it. Chasing freight all around the country due to poor railroad management, sometimes several weeks for a route of less than 2000 miles....pathetic. My grandfather owned one of the bigger carloading outfits, morphed into traditional international freight forwarding later (but I never worked for them). Intermodal only started in the late seventies/early eighties on the bigger scene (i.e. outside the US).
Wrong, you never experienced PSR for it's inception started with Hunter Harrison.

For the record, North America is 'the big scene' with respect to intermodal, like no other country on earth
 
lovinthehd

lovinthehd

Audioholic Slumlord
OTOH it is somewhat a shame how poorly our railroad infrastructure actually functions. Why did truck traffic grow so easily?
Wrong, you never experienced PSR for it's inception started with Hunter Harrison.

For the record, North America is 'the big scene' with respect to intermodal, like no other country on earth
LOL the US is a small part of the bigger scene. We do have a very large railroad network and it's poorly run.
 
Mikado463

Mikado463

Audioholic General
Why did truck traffic grow so easily?
that's easy, intermodal partnership with Class One railroads. Example, JB Hunt, Schneider, UPS all have dedicated transcontinental train service. Do you think for one minute they have enough drivers to accomplish what they do without their railroad partnerships ? Just when I was starting to think you knew a thing or two .......


LOL the US is a small part of the bigger scene. We do have a very large railroad network and it's poorly run.
The North American rail network accounts for more ton miles of intermodal rail traffic than any other country on earth, I'd say that's more than a small part. Again, in so far as how it's run, show me you're metrics that back up your claim of 'poor'
 
lovinthehd

lovinthehd

Audioholic Slumlord
that's easy, intermodal partnership with Class One railroads. Example, JB Hunt, Schneider, UPS all have dedicated transcontinental train service. Do you think for one minute they have enough drivers to accomplish what they do with their railroad partnerships ? Just when I was starting to think you knew a thing or two .......




The North American rail network accounts for more ton miles of intermodal rail traffic than any other country on earth, I'd say that's more than a small part. Again, in so far as how it's run, show me you're metrics that back up your claim of 'poor'
I'm saying if the railroads were more efficient they'd negate some of the growth in over the road transport. Railroads are simply limited in many ways, often by management and performance. Thus the trucking.

Nice stat I suppose, we also have more rail miles than others. We can be better, and the railroads generally have not been in the forefront. They suck from my perspective as someone who had to deal with their poor performance.


ps Again, please tell us where in that industry you "peformed"
 
Mikado463

Mikado463

Audioholic General
Railroads are simply limited in many ways, often by management and performance.
and our infrstructure




We can be better
yes we can

They suck from my perspective as someone who had to deal with their poor performance.
as someone who started his career in the dog days of the mid-seventies I know all to well of poor performance and while we are far from perfect we are also far improved from where we were.


ps Again, please tell us where in that industry you "peformed"
started as a last trick yardmaster with the Penn Central railroad in upstate NY in 1974, currently part of a senior management team with four short line railroads. After 46 years I plan to retire at years end.
 
lovinthehd

lovinthehd

Audioholic Slumlord
and our infrstructure






yes we can



as someone who started his career in the dog days of the mid-seventies I know all to well of poor performance and while we are far from perfect we are also far improved from where we were.




started as a last trick yardmaster with the Penn Central railroad in upstate NY in 1974, currently part of a senior management team with four short line railroads. After 46 years I plan to retire at years end.
Thanks. 46 years is a very long time in the transport industry. I started when I was 16 but basically retired at 45, then ten years on the road mountain biking, then three more years working (the most miserable in my logistics life) before retiring again. I still have friends in the industry, too/still. Overall it sucks but the railroad end we all agree is the worst. You may have a different perspective of course :).
 
Mikado463

Mikado463

Audioholic General
Thanks. 46 years is a very long time in the transport industry. I started when I was 16 but basically retired at 45, then ten years on the road mountain biking, then three more years working (the most miserable in my logistics life) before retiring again. I still have friends in the industry, too/still. Overall it sucks but the railroad end we all agree is the worst. You may have a different perspective of course :).
a good friend of mine who retired at the end of last year had a 48 year railroad career. Back when he was a young lad (35) he did a 'Forest Gump'........ got on his bike(Rochester, NY) and 31 days later ended up in San Diego. At 67 he still averages 4-5000 miles a year pedaling his arse off !
 
highfigh

highfigh

Audioholic Overlord
Probably the generalized attacks on trumps opponents that make it seem like you are supporting trump... the kind that, when persuasive, increase the likelihood of a ttump victory.

so I guess some times people think that you are a trump supporter simply because you are actively engaged in improving his chances of winning.
You need to realize that, as much as you and others may dislike or hate Trump, the other candidates are disliked or hated just as much by others, but that doesn't preclude Trump being seen in an equally negative light. Biden was right- we don't want a revolution. Changes, yes but revolution, no. Sanders and Warren have no freaking idea how their plans would screw up this country or how they would be funded- all they do is pander to people who want something. Sanders didn't get what he wanted when he was young and he didn't bother to try to work harder to be better. Being elected doesn't mean he's better, it just means he doesn't need to look for a job. Warren placed third in her own state- what does that tell you?
 
JerryLove

JerryLove

Audioholic Samurai
You need to realize that, as much as you and others may dislike or hate Trump, the other candidates are disliked or hated just as much by others, but that doesn't preclude Trump being seen in an equally negative light.
The real you isn't who you secretly are on the inside. The real you is the sum of the choices you make and the actions you take.

People who are making generalized, public attacks against Trump's opponents are supporting Trump.

And people who dislike any candidate that operates within norms nearly as much as they dislike that traitor are compartmentalizing to support their cult. They are the "people who hear chocolaty cables" of politics.

Biden was right- we don't want a revolution. Changes, yes but revolution, no. Sanders and Warren have no freaking idea how their plans would screw up this country or how they would be funded- all they do is pander to people who want something.
The entire rest of the first world manages universal healthcare, and they do it at far lower costs that we do.

Universal healthcare is *far* from a revolution. You are brainwashed by a media that calls someone on the moderate right (like Biden) a left-wing candidate.

Sanders didn't get what he wanted when he was young and he didn't bother to try to work harder to be better. Being elected doesn't mean he's better, it just means he doesn't need to look for a job. Warren placed third in her own state- what does that tell you?
That you are a Trump supporter, no matter how much you protest that you don't like him.
 
JerryLove

JerryLove

Audioholic Samurai
Education 1st to 12th isn’t free in this Country it’s paid for by
Are you stupid or do you just think I am?

You are making an equivocation fallacy. I have to believe that there's a functioning brain cell in your head and you know full well what "free" means in this context. Which would seem to make your equivocation deliberate and your post disingenious.
 
JerryLove

JerryLove

Audioholic Samurai
Wow and where is that ? here in Pennsyltucky we have 'school tax' on our property, next you're gonna tell me something different ?? ......
Feel free to apply my post above to you as well.
 
Swerd

Swerd

Audioholic Spartan
The entire rest of the first world manages universal healthcare, and they do it at far lower costs that we do.

Universal healthcare is *far* from a revolution. You are brainwashed by a media that calls someone on the moderate right (like Biden) a left-wing candidate.
Gotta agree 100% with this.
 
highfigh

highfigh

Audioholic Overlord
The real you isn't who you secretly are on the inside. The real you is the sum of the choices you make and the actions you take.

People who are making generalized, public attacks against Trump's opponents are supporting Trump.

And people who dislike any candidate that operates within norms nearly as much as they dislike that traitor are compartmentalizing to support their cult. They are the "people who hear chocolaty cables" of politics.


The entire rest of the first world manages universal healthcare, and they do it at far lower costs that we do.

Universal healthcare is *far* from a revolution. You are brainwashed by a media that calls someone on the moderate right (like Biden) a left-wing candidate.


That you are a Trump supporter, no matter how much you protest that you don't like him.
You really like to point your bony finger and proclaim others as inferior, don't you? You just can't accept the fact that an attack on someone can't be taken at face value. I suspect that if I said I prefer coffee to tea, you would try to make it sound like I support Trump.

I wasn't referring to universal health care as the revolution, I was referring to Biden's comment- Sanders is too different for most people to accept and the Left is making that clear- they would rather have someone who's closer to the middle and WRT to your last statement, I agree but you must have missed my comments about the glaring flaws in the US system of health care. Problem is, the candidates aren't addressing the faults in a way that is logical and constructive. Drug pricing and denial of treatment absolutely need to change. The need for doctors and hospitals to negotiate their payment needs to change (although regional differences are understandable, within reason). I like the idea of a universal health care program but I don't trust our politicians to keep it clean.
 
Last edited:
Swerd

Swerd

Audioholic Spartan
You said a number of things that, personal politics aside, I find myself nodding in agreement.
Drug pricing and denial of treatment absolutely need to change.

The need for doctors and hospitals to negotiate their payment needs to change (although regional differences are understandable, within reason).
Yes! I believe these have become the biggest problems of what is overall a very complex problem. It's the private health insurance companies and their partners in crime, big pharmaceutical companies, that presently call all the shots. And it's no surprise that they make those calls to their own advantage.

I have an all too common example that I'm working on right now. I have Medicare A+B and a supplemental private health insurance plan to cover the well known gaps in Medicare. It's with CareFirst Blue Cross Blue Shield of Maryland. I also have dental insurance coverage with the same company. I normally pay for a year's coverage in full at the start of every year. This year, they dropped my dental coverage – without any prior notice – retroactive to the end of 2019. I only discovered this while at the dentist last week!

I paid them in full for 2020, and I have records to prove it. They're wrong about my not paying and they're in violation of the law about not giving written prior notice. Apparently, their business plan is to first make all choices in their favor, and only if the customer complains loud enough, do they come back with a different choice. They make more money that way, and don't seem to care about any possible negative consequences. I had to threaten legal action before anyone listened. I'm still angry enough to post the insurance company's name here. What ever happened to the business plan where the paying customer is always right?

And that's just one example of outrageous customer treatment by private health insurance or pharmaceutical companies. Their are far too many other examples of unwarranted denial of benefits. We're all familiar with them.

How much do private health insurance or pharmaceutical companies and their lobbies contribute to Presidential, Congressional, and Senatorial Campaign Committees? I don't know, but you can be certain it's a very large amount of money. And does this large amount of money contribute to their miserable attitude toward their customers? To me, the answer is clearly YES.

I'll come right out and say it plainly: Big Health Insurance and Big Pharma have bought protection from elected politicians. Those politicians block any legislation that would limit their excessive profits or punish them for their deliberate failures. These same politicians failed to block approval of the Affordable Care Act in 2010. But they kept trying to repeal it. When that failed they keep trying to disable it.

In case there is any doubt, it's the Republican Party that is responsible for this. The Democratic Party would like to see a single-payer nation-wide health insurance system.
I like the idea of a universal health care program but I don't trust our politicians to keep it clean.
The government is not the problem. Not unless you blame the government for NOT REGULATING the private health insurance & pharmaceutical companies enough. Only the honest politicians – if they get elected – can make the necessary changes. The present Republican government and it's political supporters, choose to allow only the health insurance and pharmaceutical companies to continue to call the shots. They do that because of money they receive from big health insurance and big pharmaceutical companies.

Those who, like yourself, say "they like idea of a universal health care program, but don't trust our politicians to keep it clean" are giving tacit approval of the present corrupt health care/insurance system. What would it take to move away from that unworkable position?
 
Last edited:
lovinthehd

lovinthehd

Audioholic Slumlord
Yeah we can only trust the gubmint with our largest expenditure, the muscle, the military.
 
highfigh

highfigh

Audioholic Overlord
Who would you trust? Industry?
With the right guidelines, maybe. The problem- government makes the guidelines, so I don't have complete trust in either. Our government has been allowed to become the self-serving turds they are by voters who couldn't be interested enough to vote against people who had been in office for too long or were unfit for the job but they used it against us. When left with the choice of someone we don't like vs someone we like even less, what can we do?
 
highfigh

highfigh

Audioholic Overlord
You said a number of things that, personal politics aside, I find myself nodding in agreement.
Yes! I believe these have become the biggest problems of what is overall a very complex problem. It's the private health insurance companies and their partners in crime, big pharmaceutical companies, that presently call all the shots. And it's no surprise that they make those calls to their own advantage.

I have an all too common example that I'm working on right now. I have Medicare A+B and a supplemental private health insurance plan to cover the well known gaps in Medicare. It's with CareFirst Blue Cross Blue Shield of Maryland. I also have dental insurance coverage with the same company. I normally pay for a year's coverage in full at the start of every year. This year, they dropped my dental coverage – without any prior notice – retroactive to the end of 2019. I only discovered this while at the dentist last week!

I paid them in full for 2020, and I have records to prove it. They're wrong about my not paying and they're in violation of the law about not giving written prior notice. Apparently, their business plan is to first make all choices in their favor, and only if the customer complains loud enough, do they come back with a different choice. They make more money that way, and don't seem to care about any possible negative consequences. I had to threaten legal action before anyone listened. I'm still angry enough to post the insurance company's name here. What ever happened to the business plan where the paying customer is always right?

And that's just one example of outrageous customer treatment by private health insurance or pharmaceutical companies. Their are far too many other examples of unwarranted denial of benefits. We're all familiar with them.

How much do private health insurance or pharmaceutical companies and their lobbies contribute to Presidential, Congressional, and Senatorial Campaign Committees? I don't know, but you can be certain it's a very large amount of money. And does this large amount of money contribute to their miserable attitude toward their customers? To me, the answer is clearly YES.

I'll come right out and say it plainly: Big Health Insurance and Big Pharma have bought protection from elected politicians. Those politicians block any legislation that would limit their excessive profits or punish them for their deliberate failures. These same politicians failed to block approval of the Affordable Care Act in 2010. But they kept trying to repeal it. When that failed they keep trying to disable it.

In case there is any doubt, it's the Republican Party that is responsible for this. The Democratic Party would like to see a single-payer nation-wide health insurance system.
The government is not the problem. Not unless you blame the government for NOT REGULATING the private health insurance & pharmaceutical companies enough. Only the honest politicians – if they get elected – can make the necessary changes. The present Republican government and it's political supporters, choose to allow only the health insurance and pharmaceutical companies to continue to call the shots. They do that because of money they receive from big health insurance and big pharmaceutical companies.

Those who, like yourself, say "they like idea of a universal health care program, but don't trust our politicians to keep it clean" are giving tacit approval of the present corrupt health care/insurance system. What would it take to move away from that unworkable position?
The only reason many people have a disagreement on personal politics is because they sense an affiliation with one party or the other- I don't like either enough to say I'm one of them.

If you have read my comments on many topics, you would have seen that I'm no fan of the insurance industry and it's not just health insurance. We're betting that we'll have a claim and they're betting against it, but they calculated the odds to the point that they KNOW it's unlikely, yet they charge us for covering people who couldn't make a good decision if, well, their life depended on it. THAT'S what I don't like about insurance- I don't want to pay for the stupid acts and choices of others because it places implied blame on those of us who don't cause the losses. Illness and the results of accidents can't be avoided, obviously, but when it's an act of carelessness or stupidity, I don't want to pay more for MY insurance.

I have also made a lot of comments about the money hidden by insurance companies in real estate and advertising- why would anyone want to use a company that spends so much for ads, naming rights, fancy new headquarters, etc? They're using the excess of the premiums to show off how well they're doing- it's great when they can come along and fund a facility that might need the influx of money, but they may be funding something a minority of their customers are interested in and don't give a choice to opt out.

If we look at the insurance industry profits, the percentage may be small, but by sheer volume, the amounts are huge. Take them out of health insurance and we'll save money, pre-extisting condition denials will end and the health care professionals will be able to treat patients whose cases were denied because the 'odds of a good outcome' may have been too low for their taste.

I fail to see how government is not the problem when you actually mentioned the payments to members of Congress- IMO, lobbying needs to be changed and in some areas, eliminated. WE already pay them- if they want more, they should leave and get a different job. Our government has been for sale for too long and it's not just one side.

This link shows that it's closer than many think-


It's not tacit approval, it's out of a sense of futility in thinking that it's going to change more than a little in my lifetime. You know that saying "Don't worry about the things you can't change"? We have had too many of those things forced on us to make me think we'll sway far in a short time- the Democrat primaries are a good example- they have already decided on those who won't be their candidate and are going through the motions for the public, IMO.

What would it take to change the position in your question? Make it known to Congress that we're sick of their crap and if necessary, have more recall elections, based on their votes for specific items, including taking money from lobbyists. The top ten who receive the most money who are in the Senate and House are split WRT party, the next five are 3:2 R to D.

Power gets money- they're jockying for position in Congress more than trying to do what the country needs and if we were to look at what the country needs from a bit of a distance, I think most would agree on the fundamentals. It's like what is said about the countries who are constantly at odds- it's not always the people, it's the governments.
 

Latest posts


newsletter
  • RBHsound.com
  • BlueJeansCable.com
  • SVS Sound Subwoofers
  • Experience the Martin Logan Montis
Top