Sign In | Create an Account | Welcome, . My Account | Logout | Subscribe | Submit News | Newspaper contacts | All Access E-Edition | Home RSS
 
 
 

Behind the state store sale

February 14, 2013

Governor Corbett is proposing to auction off Pennsylvania’s state liquor stores....

« Back to Article

 
 
sort: oldest | newest

Comments

(39)

Tedeaux

Feb-14-13 3:43 AM

I believe all have to do is look at what the majority of the other states in the union do with the problem of alcohol sales to see that privitized liquor outlets is not that bad of a deal. Where you really lost me was your comparison of the medical field. You should especially know that government involvement in the medical industry breeds mediocrity that cost lives in the end.

11 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

mikekerstetter

Feb-14-13 3:43 AM

Time for PA to come in to the 21st century with it's beer, wine and liquor sales.

12 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

eriklatranyi

Feb-14-13 5:54 AM

Dr. Vosk is well-known for his liberal fantasies.

Medicare fraud costs taxpayers about $60 billion per year. So much for the ludicrous argument that the private sector is more wasteful than gov't.

As was revealed by the Sen Menendez, child sex scandal, doctors and politicians already work together to cheat taxpayers and enrich themselves via the gov't system.

13 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

gavinf56

Feb-14-13 6:10 AM

Drink!

4 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

MrShaman

Feb-14-13 6:46 AM

"Dr. Vosk is well-known for his liberal fantasies.

Medicare fraud costs taxpayers about $60 billion per year. So much for the ludicrous argument that the private sector is more wasteful than gov't." - eriklatranyi

*

Two things, Skippy....

*

See:

U.S. Recovers $4.2 Billion From Healthcare Fraud Probes: Report (Reuters)

*

See:

BILL MOYERS JOURNAL | Wendell Potter | PBS (YouTube)

*

You should have both digested, before 12:00, and not miss Porky Limbaugh's Comedy Revue.

6 Agrees | 7 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

VinceKnauff

Feb-14-13 7:04 AM

Wikipedia says that the state stores have been operating at a net loss for the last three years. Dr. Vosk must be basing his $400 million figure on sales and alcohol taxes, which would be collected anyway if the stores were privatized. Dr. Vosk just can't bear to see a government bureaucracy go away, no matter which it is.

10 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

MimLogue

Feb-14-13 7:29 AM

Its pension busting not union busting, the pensions on these state employees are costing taxpayers early retirements and paid health insurance is costing business owners more in taxes get on a level playing field .I agree with the governor on this one 100%

10 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

MimLogue

Feb-14-13 7:38 AM

Drivers license renewals are another waste of government administration, Issue one license and make it the law you must get a reissue when u move. U cant register a vehicle unless your address matches.Save a lot of bureaucratic bull.

7 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

GoBB62

Feb-14-13 8:10 AM

Conservatives often get defined as people who hold on to outdated ideas.

So that means that the leftists who cling to the outdated idea that the state should control the sale of liquor are now defined as conservatives.

Oh, the irony!

8 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

WillAcker

Feb-14-13 8:12 AM

For someone who claims to be an MD not knowing that the $390M collected by the PLCB is taxes and wouldn't be lost, isn't very smart.

10 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

GoBB62

Feb-14-13 8:13 AM

I should say "a monopoly" on the sale of liquor.

5 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

CMReeder

Feb-14-13 8:26 AM

Here we go more freedom in liquor sales. Privatizing the liquor stores does not get you more competition nor will it lower costs. All states still regulate liquor, wine, beer no matter who is doing the retail of it.

2 Agrees | 11 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

WillAcker

Feb-14-13 8:28 AM

@ CMReader - How do you explain Washington going from 313 stores under government control to 1500 stores when privatized? Isn't that more competition?

12 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

MoMRNRmR

Feb-14-13 8:49 AM

The state should get of the liquor business. And a person should be able to purchase beer at the grocery store or a convenience store! Bars in Pennsylvania can charge whatever they want for a six pack and you should not have to buy a case at beer distributor, in order to get a good deal.

12 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

spike2

Feb-14-13 9:04 AM

All competition does not equal lower prices. Anyone ever buy anything listed as "fair trade"?

2 Agrees | 6 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

CMReeder

Feb-14-13 9:30 AM

Is that 1500 individually own stores or several chains running all the liquor sales? Washington still controls the sale of liquor.

2 Agrees | 7 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

gavinf56

Feb-14-13 9:31 AM

Hmmm, if it's such a good idea for the state to be selling distilled spirits, perhaps they should get into tobacco products. Just think of the jobs and revenue that would create. (sarcasm font used)

6 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

philunderwood

Feb-14-13 9:48 AM

Maybe the state should take over something as important as the distribution and sale of food and dairy products. Just think of the amount of revenue that could be generated by that, not to mention the benefits in consumer prices and store efficiency.

I borrowed Gavin’s sarc font

8 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

enigma

Feb-14-13 9:49 AM

Apparently, Dr. Vosk will believe any lie told to him unless it is told by a Republican. The 5% (not 1.4%) overhead in Medicare and the $400 million in liquor profits are both illusions. Unlike the private sector, the government can hide the cost of running things. Most of medicare's costs are paid for by the GSA and HHS. If those numbers were counted, it would be much more than 20%. State store costs are largely absorbed by the PLCB so bye-bye 400 million. If the government is so good at running business, then maybe they should run all business, which is exactly what Communists like Vosk want, but it has never worked and never will. Even if it could work it would be the end of freedom. Government's place is not in the marketplace. P.S. If you don't want liquor sold by private companies, maybe we should just ban it.

8 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

enigma

Feb-14-13 9:58 AM

Spike2,"All competition does not equal lower prices. Anyone ever buy anything listed as "fair trade"?"

"Fair trade" is a liberal term in which fair means to give the advantage to someone who can't compete and therefore needs an unfair advantage. It is the opposite of competition and that is why it raises prices. It's just like everything liberals call fair, like paying your fair share means paying for everybody else. Don't be taken in by liberal speak, their terms never mean what the words that make them up mean.

10 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

philunderwood

Feb-14-13 10:15 AM

Getting at the truth isn’t the goal of progressives, convincing themselves and others is their goal. If you believe perception is reality that makes perfect sense; if you believe reality exists independent of anyone’s perception then distorting facts is dishonest and deceptive.

7 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

MrShaman

Feb-14-13 11:27 AM

"So that means that the leftists who cling to the outdated idea that the state should control the sale of liquor..." - GoBB62

*

Yeah...you let us know, the first time you meet a "leftist" who thinks the state should control the sale of liquor.

0 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

VinceKnauff

Feb-14-13 11:37 AM

Shamwow - "Yeah...you let us know, the first time you meet a "leftist" who thinks the state should control the sale of liquor."

Hey Shammie - did you read this letter?

5 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

MrShaman

Feb-14-13 11:40 AM

"Apparently, Dr. Vosk will believe any lie told to him unless it is told by a Republican. The 5% (not 1.4%) overhead in Medicare and the $400 million in liquor profits are both illusions. Unlike the private sector, the government can hide the cost of running things. Most of medicare's costs are paid for by the GSA and HHS. If those numbers were counted, it would be much more than 20%." - enigma

*

Try, again, Skippy.

*

See (the transcript at):

Bill Moyers Journal . Wendell Potter on Profits Before Patients | PBS

*

I think there's a lil' more value in what a "whistleblower" (who was formerly a Public Relations rep for CIGNA) says....as-opposed to what some T-Bagger insists. Even Wendell Potter ADMITS Medicare-admin expenses are "three percent or so."

2 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

CMReeder

Feb-14-13 12:16 PM

Gavin, every state controls the selling of 'spirits' as you put it.

1 Agrees | 6 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Showing 25 of 39 comments Show More Comments
 
 

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

*Your email address:
*Password:
Remember my email address.
or
 
 
 

 

I am looking for:
in:
News, Blogs & Events Web