Honestly I wouldn't want any of my utilities to be completely privitized and they're not, the FCC regulates telephones, without their regulations the available phone service of landline phones would be akin to cell phones and the prices would likely be a lot higher.  In the energy sector we saw what happened when we allowed a company free roam, that company was enron and they basically just squeezed profits from california by shutting off power for no reason other than the fact that when people are without power for a little while they are much more willing to pay higher prices to get it back and it was all legal at that time.  How would you like it if your power or water or phones were shut off for a week just so that you would be more willing to pay an exorbitantly higher price for them?

One of the primary reasons why costs of services can increase when they're privatized in developed nations is because these services are being subsidized by the government when they are run by the government. With public insurance, electricity and many other utilities, and countless other crown corporations, the actual costs of the service are hidden from users. If you account for the actual cost to the end user (including taxes) for government run services the private sector rarely costs more.

With that said, claiming that a private corporation can provide a better product/service for less than the government can offer that same service for is not (necessarily) a statement that the private corporation should be completely unrestricted in how they offer that service. In most cases private corporations operating under the supervision of the government (where the government acts like a referee) can provide nearly ideal outcomes. Simple/well thought out regulations and effective/efficient oversight over private corporations will provide far better outcomes than the government operating a service.

That was nice of you to pick and choose what parts of that article you wanted us to see for us.

England:

The impact of private sector participation can vary substantially from one case to the other. In the case of water privatization in England, tariffs increased by 46% in real terms during the first nine years and operating profits have more than doubled ( 142%) in eight years. On the other hand, privatization increased investments (in the six years after privatization the companies invested £17 billion, compared to £9.3 billion in the six years before privatization) and brought about compliance with stringent drinking water standards and led to a higher quality of river water.[5] However, it has been also argued that privatisation has led to both a decline in quality and supply with much of the infrastructure being left to decay

Bolivia

When Bolivia sought to refinance the public water service of its third largest city, the World Bank required that it be privatized. Which is how the Bechtel Corporation of San Francisco, (California, U.S.A.,) gained control over all of Cochabamba's water; even that which fell from the sky[citation needed], i.e., rainwater. Bechtel was granted the power to seize the homes of delinquent customers. In response, Bolivians took to the streets.[7]

Following the Cochabamba Riots of 2000 in Bolivia, Cochabamba's water system is now run by an organization of community and government representatives. Though at a World Bank secret[8][9] tribunal, Bechtel is seeking "compensation for damages" from Bolivia in the amount they would have profited. Bechtel is demanding "at least US $25 million" — which is equal to 1.7% of Bolivia's public spending (as such a sum could finance 125,000 new connections to the public Cochabamba water system); "or 125,000 new water connections in Cochabamba

That's right, a private company that was in charge of the water and they seized peoples homes if they were unable to pay for the cost of water, they literally kicked their customers out onto the streets and took everything they had.  The situation got so bad that the people rioted and demanded public water services.

Private water sources may increase availability to water, but it doesn't mean the people can afford it.  In africa the coca-cola corporation is the only source of water in many areas, yet they charge exorbitant prices for water because they know people need it, a bottle of water costs double the price of a bottle of coke.

Honestly I wouldn't want any of my utilities to be completely privitized and they're not, the FCC regulates telephones, without their regulations the available phone service of landline phones would be akin to cell phones and the prices would likely be a lot higher.  In the energy sector we saw what happened when we allowed a company free roam, that company was enron and they basically just squeezed profits from california by shutting off power for no reason other than the fact that when people are without power for a little while they are much more willing to pay higher prices to get it back and it was all legal at that time.  How would you like it if your power or water or phones were shut off for a week just so that you would be more willing to pay an exorbitantly higher price for them?

she could be a female Bush! she is a Republican right?

maybe that was a little harsh.

you watch Presidential speech's? without falling asleep? your tough, i couldn't do it!

Bush was a far better president then Obama. That's how bad Obama is.

There is no way to measure Bush's 8 years against Obama's 18 months and make any kind of meaningful comparison or decision.  You can not in any way see the results of any of Obama's major moves.  Health care won't even kick in for years, they haven't even gone through a whole budget cycle, the stimulus money hasn't even been spent yet, etc. etc. etc.  

It's stuff like that just points out how completely not thoughtful you are on the subject.  You may disagree with his policies, his personality, his height, or whatever.  You may think he may end up eventually being considered a bad president historically.  But you can not make any meaningful judgement on his presidency at this point, for good or bad.  It's pointless to do so.

By all means have your opinion.  But try and state it with some thoughtfulness and looking at the whole picture.  I know you're trying to get down to the level of the people that can't manage to watch apolitical speech without falling asleep or sucking their toes, but really....

There is no way to measure Bush's 8 years against Obama's 18 months and make any kind of meaningful comparison or decision.  You can not in any way see the results of any of Obama's major moves.  Health care won't even kick in for years, they haven't even gone through a whole budget cycle, the stimulus money hasn't even been spent yet, etc. etc. etc.  

It's stuff like that just points out how completely not thoughtful you are on the subject.  You may disagree with his policies, his personality, his height, or whatever.  You may think he may end up eventually being considered a bad president historically.  But you can not make any meaningful judgement on his presidency at this point, for good or bad.  It's pointless to do so.

By all means have your opinion.  But try and state it with some thoughtfulness and looking at the whole picture.  I know you're trying to get down to the level of the people that can't manage to watch apolitical speech without falling asleep or sucking their toes, but really....

It's really not worth my time, as it's not about trying to change someone's mind.  It ain't happening in either direction.  We'll see, as we usually do, in about 10-20 years who was right.  When the sheep run back to "safety" 2.5 years from now (and to a lesser extent this fall) and go back to Bush-style policies - which is exactly what Boehner is promoting - and everything cycles back to what started all this mess in the first place, I hope you all enjoy it immensely.  

Health care was a ticking time bomb in this country.  Now costs will be up slightly, but virtually everyone will get health care - - and the end result of it isn't a complete meltdown for the small businesses and working/middle classes the way we were headed.   I'm sorry, but you can't put a price on taking care of your citizens.   We're willing to spend trillions to protect 4,000 people from dying in an attack but we're not willing to spend the same to help millions stay healthy and safe and productive?  Ridiculous.  Mafoo- you're quick to cite the CBO when you feel lie it will help, but never when they say the opposite.  Read the fine print.  Compare the original CBO report six weeks before the bill passed to the one that actually passed after the moderate/right concessions were made to get the last few votes.  It doesn't go far ENOUGH to really hit the cost points.  (And by the way, I assume you are in favor of ending the Bush tax cuts if you care what the CBO has to say about things so much.)

If he does nothing else in his presidency, he has changed the way we view and understand health care, and in a way that we will look back at the way we were doing things in 2005 and think we were insane.  It may not be in the exact form that passed, but it will be different and caused from this first step.  And it's historic and something to be proud of.

Again, I already know your responses, and I really don't care, and I don't plan to come back and read the demands that the poor kid with cancer is plum out of luck because the wealthy guy with the sweet hookup has to pay an extra $50 a month.  That the girl in my class who died of organ failure in the waiting room while the private hospital squabbled over her unemployed parents' lack of insurance was just screwed because her parents didn't want her to live enough.  If they did, they would have just wished themselves CEO of Apple or something.  That my friend who is unemployed after cutbacks and goes out and looks for suitable work every day should just kill herself and stop being a drain on society.  My next door neighbor did that when I was little.  Didn't work out so well for his kids.  Can the government solve all these issues alone?  No.  We all pitch in directly as well.  But without that net, it'll be chaos.  

I'll stand by my original point.  He's less than 20 months into a 48 month term, inheriting perhaps one of the 5 worst situations for an incoming president in our history.  He's facing a completely oppositional party and made the mistake of believing that they did want to compromise on some points, and he has a gutless bunch of moderate "dems" in the middle that want only to keep their jobs.   And the item that he spent almost the entire first year on can not in any way be fairly judged for ten years.  There's no way to judge his presidency as "worst" or "best" or "average" or anything at this point.  We can barely now really get a grasp on the Bush years.  We'll need another decade or so.  Hell, we're just now getting a handle on Clinton/Bush I/ Reagan.  Don't confuse disagreement with policy with some sort of miraculous ability to see outcomes that no one can see, particularly on the economy, which is the definition of unknowable, even by the most brilliant economists.   

It's really not worth my time, as it's not about trying to change someone's mind.  It ain't happening in either direction.  We'll see, as we usually do, in about 10-20 years who was right.  When the sheep run back to "safety" 2.5 years from now (and to a lesser extent this fall) and go back to Bush-style policies - which is exactly what Boehner is promoting - and everything cycles back to what started all this mess in the first place, I hope you all enjoy it immensely.  

Health care was a ticking time bomb in this country.  Now costs will be up slightly, but virtually everyone will get health care - - and the end result of it isn't a complete meltdown for the small businesses and working/middle classes the way we were headed.   I'm sorry, but you can't put a price on taking care of your citizens.   We're willing to spend trillions to protect 4,000 people from dying in an attack but we're not willing to spend the same to help millions stay healthy and safe and productive?  Ridiculous.  Mafoo- you're quick to cite the CBO when you feel lie it will help, but never when they say the opposite.  Read the fine print.  Compare the original CBO report six weeks before the bill passed to the one that actually passed after the moderate/right concessions were made to get the last few votes.  It doesn't go far ENOUGH to really hit the cost points.  (And by the way, I assume you are in favor of ending the Bush tax cuts if you care what the CBO has to say about things so much.)

If he does nothing else in his presidency, he has changed the way we view and understand health care, and in a way that we will look back at the way we were doing things in 2005 and think we were insane.  It may not be in the exact form that passed, but it will be different and caused from this first step.  And it's historic and something to be proud of.

Again, I already know your responses, and I really don't care, and I don't plan to come back and read the demands that the poor kid with cancer is plum out of luck because the wealthy guy with the sweet hookup has to pay an extra $50 a month.  That the girl in my class who died of organ failure in the waiting room while the private hospital squabbled over her unemployed parents' lack of insurance was just screwed because her parents didn't want her to live enough.  If they did, they would have just wished themselves CEO of Apple or something.  That my friend who is unemployed after cutbacks and goes out and looks for suitable work every day should just kill herself and stop being a drain on society.  My next door neighbor did that when I was little.  Didn't work out so well for his kids.  Can the government solve all these issues alone?  No.  We all pitch in directly as well.  But without that net, it'll be chaos.  

I'll stand by my original point.  He's less than 20 months into a 48 month term, inheriting perhaps one of the 5 worst situations for an incoming president in our history.  He's facing a completely oppositional party and made the mistake of believing that they did want to compromise on some points, and he has a gutless bunch of moderate "dems" in the middle that want only to keep their jobs.   And the item that he spent almost the entire first year on can not in any way be fairly judged for ten years.  There's no way to judge his presidency as "worst" or "best" or "average" or anything at this point.  We can barely now really get a grasp on the Bush years.  We'll need another decade or so.  Hell, we're just now getting a handle on Clinton/Bush I/ Reagan.  Don't confuse disagreement with policy with some sort of miraculous ability to see outcomes that no one can see, particularly on the economy, which is the definition of unknowable, even by the most brilliant economists.