patrick.net

FortWayne says

I don't think grass is greener on the other side.

If cost is one of your concerns, then it definitely is. The US spends more per capital on healthcare than any other civilized country. By FAR.

Ironman says

joeyjojojunior says

The US spends more per capital on healthcare than any other civilized country.

You can thank Obama and the Dems for NOT addressing that with their major healthcare reform bill of Obamacare?

Why didn't they address the costs??

How we reduce the cost of healthcare is the million dollar question. Here are are a few suggestions.
1. Revise/ change the liability laws.
2. Offshore our healthcare do other countries.
3. ....I don't know...please comment.

Strategist says

How we reduce the cost of healthcare is the million dollar question

just copy the healthcare system of any of the other developed countries, it will already be a huge imporvement

joeyjojojunior says

FortWayne says

I don't think grass is greener on the other side.

If cost is one of your concerns, then it definitely is. The US spends more per capital on healthcare than any other civilized country. By FAR.

That's because we are a very unhealthy nation. People stuff their faces all day with all kinds of junk food, there are consequences for that. Not to mention people get paid here more than other countries, prices do go up to absorb income.

They sure get touchy about a little sex slavery.

The Schear family of Huntington Beach says they were flying from Hawaii to Los Angeles last week when airline staff asked them to give up a seat occupied by their 2-year-old son and carry him on their laps for the duration of the flight.

The entire airline staff should be arrested for wreckless endangerment of a child. Do you have any idea how dangerous it is to have a two-year-old unbuckled on someone else's lap on an airplane if anything happened to the plane? Would you hold a two-year-old in your lap, unbuckled in a car? Of course not. The toddler would become a projectile in a crash. Imagine how much worse it would be in a crash landing of a plane or even in severe turbulence.

Also, how is the child supposed to breath during a drop in cabin pressure? There is only one oxygen mask per seat. Oh, does Delta not give oxygen to children even if the parents paid for the child's seat?

These assholes at Delta should be arrested for endangering the toddler's life and for threatening to arrest the family for protecting their child's life.

More reason to make overbooking illegal. It's blatant fraud. And the airlines should be forced to pay fines equal to all the revenue collected by overbooking over the past decade.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/dr-gridlock/wp/2017/05/04/family-booted-from-delta-flight-and-threatened-with-jail-after-refusing-to-give-up-toddlers-seat/?utm_term=.a504e94464db

Regional Politics PowerPost The Fix White House Courts and Law Polling Monkey Cage Fact Checker Post Politics Blog Opinions The Post's View Toles Cartoons Telnaes Animations Local Opinions Global Opinions Letters to the Editor Act Four All Opinions Are Local Book Party Compost Erik Wemple Five Myths In Theory The Plum Line PostEverything PostPartisan Rampage Right Turn The Watch Volokh Conspiracy DemocracyPost Sports Redskins NFL MLB NBA NHL AllMetSports Soccer

Massive lawsuits are the only way to get people to treat each other decently any more.

That baby was sneaking on the plane using someone else's ticket. The parents were probably breaking federal law. They are lucky that tsa didn't shriek eminent domain while giving two finger cavity searches. DVDA for the lawless.

Dan8267 says

Also, how is the child supposed to breath during a drop in cabin pressure? There is only one oxygen mask per seat. Oh, does Delta not give oxygen to children even if the parents paid for the child's seat

Good point, never considered this before.

In terms of the seat belts, you can't keep a toddler in that seat anyway, believe me. Those lap belts are effective for turbulence but not effective for crashes (unlike cars)

"Tatty, knowledge is your friend, here's what this bill does to reduce costs to the public"

It's exactly like I said. It does NOTHING to reduce the cost of service. It shifts cost from the wealthy to the poor, but doesn't do anything to make health care cheaper.

"That's because we are a very unhealthy nation. People stuff their faces all day with all kinds of junk food, there are consequences for that. Not to mention people get paid here more than other countries, prices do go up to absorb income."

I'd be interested to see what % of the US healthcare costs can be attributed to obesity.

But, your 2nd argument is a HUGE reason why healthcare should be controlled by the government. The free market does a horrible job in markets with very inelastic demand like healthcare. Profit maximizing companies will always raise prices to ridiculous levels--because they can.

BayArea says

Good point, never considered this before.

This is one of the reasons why airlines, including Delta, tell parents to purchase a seat for toddlers rather than putting them in their laps.

Dan8267 says

This is one of the reasons why airlines, including Delta, tell parents to purchase a seat for toddlers rather than putting them in their laps.

The ticket wasn't in his name.

Straw Man says

The ticket wasn't in his name.

So what. The facts are
1. The tickets were purchased by the family.
2. The seat was intended for the child.
3. Delta tells parents to purchase separate seats for their young children.
4. The child's safety was threatened by demanding it be placed on the parent's lap. See oxygen mask point.
5. This incident had absolutely nothing to do with whose name is on the ticket.
6. The sole reason the airline employees illegally ordered the parents to place the child on their laps is to save the airline from having to pay out the federally required compensation for denying the family their seats.
7. The airline has the right to deny the seats to the family, but they do not have the right to
- force the child to sit on the parents lap, endangering the child
- threaten the parents with arrest for not endangering their child
- split the family up by denying the child a seat but still charging the parents for theirs or not giving compensation for the loss of all three seats. You can't leave your child at the airport while you fly away.

The airline's action were criminal. The fact that the employees acted on behalf of a corporation should not protect them from the long arm of the long. If a person acting on behalf of a major corporation caused a toddler to die from directly endangering it's life, that's still criminal.

Dan8267 says

2. The seat was intended for the child.

At the time of purchase, it was intended for a different child. That is why it was in the other child's name. I believe that was the technicality that the airline used to take the seat back. The ticket is non-transferable, even between kids in the same family, and the airlines enforced that. So, it was probably legal, although tremendously dickish.

Another dickish thing that airlines do is enforce a 45 minute early rule for people traveling with children. I don't know what the age cutoff is, but my wife and I were pretty surprised when we got to the airport 40 minutes before our flight. Because we were travelling with a toddler, they had already sold our tickets to somebody else.

To add insult to injury, our tickets were American tickets flying on an Alaska Airlines flight or some such thing. So, on another technicality, they refused to put us on the other Alaska Airlines direct flight later that day. We had to go through American Airlines to get rebooked, and this required a multi-city flight from a different airport. A $50 Uber ride was the beginning of the rest of our fucked up day which of course was filled with more delays and cancellations. We had to stay over in another city that night and arrived at our final destination the following day.

The biggest dick-move that married people have to deal with is the fact that the airlines absolutely do not honor the seat reservations made through various online booking systems. That seems to mean fuck all by the time you check in.

Here's an hypothesis: Those to be ejected are picked by algorithms, because "People make mistakes, not the Holy Math". The algos don't select for nuance like same last name people on the same flight. The crews cannot reject the decision and must enforce it.

Dan8267 says

The ticket wasn't in his name.

So what.

So fact. It wasn't technically/legally his seat. It was just a seat which remained free because someone (his 18 y.o. brother in this case) didn't show up.

If they bought that seat in his name they wouldn't have the shitty day they ended up having.

Airlines need their own Right to Refuse Service signs:

"If you think paying for a ticket reserves your right to service, think again."

Pass the Air Traveller's Bill of Rights.

Clearly overbooking is also a safety issue.

YesYNot says

At the time of purchase, it was intended for a different child. That is why it was in the other child's name. I believe that was the technicality that the airline used to take the seat back. The ticket is non-transferable, even between kids in the same family, and the airlines enforced that. So, it was probably legal, although tremendously dickish.

Somebody else has bought the ticket they technically forfeited when the son whose name was on the ticket didn't show up.Why that person had to suffer? Because some family bought a cheap non-transferrable, fixed-date, non-refundable ticket but wanted it to be treated as something else?

joeyjojojunior says

The free market does a horrible job in markets with very inelastic demand like healthcare. Profit maximizing companies will always raise prices to ridiculous levels--because they can.

You have a good point, but frivolous lawsuits is still the main cause of ridiculous health care costs.

Dan8267 says

The entire airline staff should be arrested for wreckless endangerment of a child. Do you have any idea how dangerous it is to have a two-year-old unbuckled on someone else's lap on an airplane if anything happened to the plane?

It's also against Delta's own policy - that 2 year olds be in car seats.

I've struggled with airlines on this before, and had to google the company's own policy to show the Crew. Not only did they want my kid out of the car seat, but wanted to store AND charge us as checked baggage. This only happens on US Airlines, not the Argentinian or Panamanian Carriers.

Now that boomers don't have young kids, they want everything re-arranged to their convenience. Just like they killed affordable tuition and affordable housing starts after they graduated and brought a house.

Ironman says

FortWayne says

That's because we are a very unhealthy nation. People stuff their faces all day with all kinds of junk food, there are consequences for that.

Yet, there are some here that think that behavior should be rewarded with FREE healthcare (paid by others). Go figure.

When Marie Antoinette said "Let them eat cake" she did not literally mean it. Now they eat too much cake.

Lashkar_i_Trumpi says

Pass the Air Traveller's Bill of Rights.

Clearly overbooking is also a safety issue.

Overbooking has nothing to do with this particular case. Whether the seat they forfeited was filled via overbooking or via last-minute sale or by some passenger on stand-by doesn't matter. They didn't fucking have the fucking ticket for the fucking 2 y.o. child, but insisted on getting the seat, that's all.

Lashkar_i_Trumpi says

Not only did they want my kid out of the car seat, but wanted to store AND charge us as checked baggage.

Fake news: car seats and strollers are checked for free by all US carries. And every foreign carrier which flies to US for that matter.

Moreover, if they insist that you carry-on bag must be checked after you brought it on the plane and there is no space of it in overhead bins, they will also check it for free.

Straw Man says

Because some family bought a cheap non-transferrable, fixed-date, non-refundable ticket but wanted it to be treated as something else?

I don't know the full details, b/c it wasn't in the article, but I'm betting that they did check the kid in either at the counter or a kiosk. Otherwise, they wouldn't have been able to bring the carrier on.

So, the airline found out about the switcheroo somehow, either by the fact that the kid never showed an ID to TSA, because the passengers told the airline, or because the computer told them to kick the 18 yr old off the plane, and they went and found a 2 yr old in the seat. I agree with you that the airline had a technicality on their side, but I doubt it was really a problem caused by these people bringing one son instead of another to the airport.

It's still a dick-move. People are learning that the airlines will fuck you over at the drop of a hat if it is technically possible and in their short term best interest. This behavior and frequent delays devalue an airline ticket, by the way.

This still has to get through the Senate, right?

Seats need to be treated as a security, you buy it you own that seat until the airline gets you to your destination.
Don't sell it if you don't want it gone, and same for buying them. A big part of airline prices is the bulk manipulation of seats.
It's no different than Ticketmaster, then the thousands of investors who have an inside relationship to buy up 80% of a venue seats for an event then sell them a marked up prices.
On top of that manipulation, you can be kicked off the plane because one of their best butt buddies, needs that seat to put together a sweet 2000 seat deal he's working on, so the airlines oblige.
At least once you buy a scalped ticket you wont be thrown out of your seat, after you've sat down. Even if the ticket was bogus.
I saw Phish in 2012 NYE in Miami, my friend and I just showed up and bought a ticket outside.
We were seated inside, when an usher came over with a couple, who had tickets(theirs looked more official actually) that matched ours.
The guy scanned them both and they both passed, so he told my friend and I to go down into the general admission area on the floor. Which was cooler anyway.

You know what let the ticket scalpers sell airline tickets yeah!

Straw Man says

They didn't fucking have the fucking ticket for the fucking 2 y.o. child, but insisted on getting the seat, that's all.

They brought a ticket. One family member used it instead of another, and by using it they complied with Delta's recommendations for child seating. A child ticket may have been cheaper, so Delta got to keep the extra fare paid for an adult family member.

Kicking the whole family off the plane was horrible customer service.

Since the airlines won't do the minimum, the government has to. It's a small price to pay for the massive taxpayer subsidies, from the special-just-for-airlines lower gas tax rate to the construction and maintenance of airports from top to bottom.

Overbooking is a safety and efficiency issue, and it's getting more frequent now that the airlines have increased the average seating per plane.

How many flights are delayed ($$$), how many cops need to be called ($$$), how many other problems are related to overbooking situations on planes ($$$)?

Another great reform is month-by-month terminal gate rental, with premiums paid for premium timeslots, which will spread out the schedule and increase safety for ATC guys. Do away with hub airports.

rando says

This still has to get through the Senate, right?

The first time they tried this bill, the media and public got wind of it, and there was too much backlash to get it passed. This time, they gave the tea party some concessions, and then the bill was rammed through quickly, before the public figured out what was in it. There's no chance it will pass through the senate without major changes, and it is still unlikely that the Senate and House will actually agree on something. Even if it doesn't pass, the house Republicans can at least claim that they passed a repeal bill and the Senate dropped the ball when campaigning in 2 yrs. They even get to claim that they covered people with preexisting conditions, because they found $8 billion. This is enough to give each person with a preexisting condition around $100, but no matter. They'll say it was funded. This is 1 dimensional chess.

Dan8267 says

2. The seat was intended for the child.

The seat was purchased for a different child, not the one that was sitting in it.

Ironman says

Still running with that false narrative, are you? Try reading the other parts of the thread above.

blah blah blah false narrative blah blah

Your post added nothing of interest. You read some article on 'the hill' where people play a shell game with the definition of a preexisting condition. The gist of the article is that Obamacare places the cost of the high risk pool, which fails because it places the burden on too few people. Yet, Obamacare costs too much for the government and for the participants. The GOP solution is to just have the government pay for the high risk pool. So this $8Billion ($25 per citizen) will allow the government to cut a couple of hundred billion in taxes. In addition to the government saving $25 for each $1 spent, individuals on the market will have their premiums reduced by 40% by removing the high risk people. Win win win win win!!!! Everybody is winning!!!!! I love math!!!!!

Here's what Kaiser has to say about the number with preexisting conditions.

If this GOP bill does happen to pass, I hope that someone in the press makes a database of all of the people who end up getting no treatment and dying early due to the passage of the bill. It might be cathartic for the people who have to watch their loved ones die without treatment, and the journalist would probably get a Pullitzer.

YesYNot says

I believe that was the technicality that the airline used to take the seat back.

So they unethically used some technical ploy to fuck over their customers. That still doesn't make their reckless endangerment of the child or threats to the parents any less legal. And even if that ploy manage to get them not to have to pay the federal mandated amount to the parents for the child's seat, they would still have to pay the full mandated amount for each of the parent's seats. And the bad publicity is certainly more costly than simply paying a single person even the maximum amount to give up a seat.

Furthermore, this is yet another reason it should be utterly illegal to overbook. Overbooking is fraud. Plain and simple.

Lashkar_i_Trumpi says

Now that boomers don't have young kids, they want everything re-arranged to their convenience.

So fucking true. Can Boomers just not be selfish once in their lives?

APOCALYPSEFUCK_is_ADORABLE says

ONLY Singapore Air gets this really right. Families with kids are boarded and apparently settled before anyone else. At level-off cabin staff marks the infant and toddler seats with colored markers and 10 minutes later they reappear with foods for them, I am imagining here, in age appropriate preparations. 20 minutes after level-off, peace and quiet.

That sounds exactly right. For everyone on the flight. You give your kid a cookie from your bag, she won't want it, but if the stewardess brings them a bag of stale pretzels she will munch those happily for an hour!

ThreeBays says

Because the seat was booked in another person's name, it is perfectly legitimate for the airline to treat it as a "no show" and cancel that ticket on any remaining legs of the flight.

First of all, that's a shitty rule that exists only to defraud the customer. Second, that's no excuse for criminally endangering the life of a child. Third, that doesn't change the fact that overbooking is fraud and should be prosecuted as a crime.

Respectfully, in this particular case, people are blaming the wrong villain. They should demand the FAA change policy regarding "Lap Children: The Most Unsafe Passengers on a Plane". This case would not have happened if the airline had not been allowed to sell a supposedly "safe" (but really unsafe) lap child ticket for the 2yo.

As for overbooking, the solution is as Lashkar said, a passenger bill of rights requiring minimum compensation for passengers who get bumped. These passengers and most others bought the cheapest tickets available, ignoring fine print that is deliberately too long and complicated to read and compare from one airline to another. As long as airlines can sell tickets too confusing to compare, they can appear to compete on price while really competing on confusion. Airlines have a right to re-sell a no-show's empty seat, and in fact they should do that rather than wasting fuel flying empty seats, but where they must accomodate a "must-ride" (e.g. the Dao case) they should be required to offer enough to get volunteers instead of ejecting passengers from seats the passengers had paid for.

BTW, Scott Adams described this type of "market" very well as a "Confusopoly". It applies especially strongly in the medical insurance sector. As long as they can keep you confused and asking the wrong questions, they don't have to worry about your answers. As long as they can confuse the market, they don't really need to compete on value.