Let's see, Conservatives don't want Single Payer (Universal Health Care), a Public Option, or even a Co-Op included in health care reform.
What reforms or solutions are the Conservatives bringing to the table?

Comments

• If only the Conservatives were half as good with solutions as they are with slogans and fear mongering, they might actually be a decent party...+4

  • Report
  

  by Big B on August 19th, 2009

• JudgeBill: Really? Every ranking on quality of care, including the 2000 WHO report, lists the U.S. as number one in quality of care. If you want to have an intelligent debate on this subject, you have to start with accurate facts.
  …
  Where the U.S. ranks lower is in distribution, and cost, of care. Of course, conservatives know that the cost of care is directly proportional to our quality of care, which is why they oppose they oppose government takeover of insurance.

  • Report
  

  by OhLook - IamNoLongerAnonymous on December 28th, 2009

Comments

• There you have it, instead of fighting for middle/working class folks, the Conservatives and Blue Dogs are representing the private health care CEO's/"Death Panels".
  .
  I expect this from the Conservatives, but the Blue Dogs are just disgraceful. If the Blue Dogs blow this up, I really hope it ends their political careers...+4

  • Report
  

  by Big B on August 19th, 2009

• send along those sentiments, respectfully, to those pesky blue dogs.

  • Report
  

  by Bob on August 19th, 2009

Comments

• Looks like the "Country First" crowd is putting politics first...+4

  • Report
  

  by Big B on August 19th, 2009

• I dunno. It's scary out there though. Very scary. Happy Thursday m'dear! :)

  • Report
  

  by RosieGHM Jetpacker on August 20th, 2009

Comments

• I think it was Lawernce O'Donnel that pointed out, if Conservatives are so against socialized medicine; then they need to draft a bill to eliminate Medicare.
  .
  I still have yet to hear the Obama administration drive this point home...+4

  • Report
  

  by Big B on August 20th, 2009

• If socialized medicine is the hideous thing GOPers claim it is, then Medicare, Medicaid and the Veteran's Administration all need to go. I'd love to see what would happen to the GOPers if they killed all three.

  • Report
  

  by Jim in a Nautilus COAT on August 20th, 2009

• Jim, Medicare and Medicaid are social insurance programs -- not socialized medicine.
  .
  The VA actually is socialized medicine. It's a government owned and operated network of hospitals and other facilities staffed by federal employees who provide health care services paid for by the General Fund of the United States Treasury, which is financed by a progressive income tax structure based on ability to pay.
  .
  In other words, from each according to his abilities (the taxes) and to each according to his needs (VA health care). That's as socialist as it's possible to get -- the difference is that we feel (rightly) that we owe these guys. And we're not doing enough as it is.
  .
  But, I've noticed that as this debate has started to run around in circles people are forgetting the distinction between health care financing (insurance) and health care delivery (doctors, nurses, hospitals and pharmacies).
  .
  Health care financing is the only thing that's on the table right now.

  • Report
  

  by ChrisDC on September 5th, 2009

• I'm using the GOPers own admittedly wrong definition of socialized medicine. Even a public option is a "Government takeover of the entire health care industry."

  • Report
  

  by Jim in a Nautilus COAT on September 9th, 2009

• I'm not going to concede their point on this. Especially since even they say that it's inaccurate.
  .
  The constant shifting and twisting of terminology is the most powerful tool in the toolbox of those who want to look like they're having a fight other than the one their actually having, or when they want to prevent the enactment of something about which there is agreement (i.e., picking a fight that doesn't actually exist).
  .
  Republicans do this by yelling "socialized medicine," to scare people on the right (and in the center, and the center left) who oppose that, when they know that isn't even on the table as an option.
  .
  Honestly, Democrats do the same kind of thing by talking about "health care reform" and "universal health care" to appeal to their left flank when they know the only thing under discussion is insurance reform.
  .
  These tactics work only to the extent that we dance to the tune they're piping out. I'm not in puppet mode these days. Sorry for the strident tone.

  • Report
  

  by ChrisDC on September 10th, 2009

• Wouldn't it be a different world if we could all stick to such honest debate?

  • Report
  

  by Jim in a Nautilus COAT on September 10th, 2009

• I have noticed that nobody in favor of the current healthcare (or more accurately, health insurance) reform bills on the table are interested in discussing the merits of their position, so I am not expecting an answer; but I am going to bring up these points anyway.
  
  First you state: “They would like to eliminate Medicare and Medicaid as long as the Democrats would take the fall for it.” This is a political argument that avoids addressing the republicans concerns. Medicare is already grossly under funded and the problem is getting worse as more and more baby boomers near retirement. So what is wrong with wanting to get rid of a failing system?
  
  Second, you state: “And although they have deregulated healthcare down to the point where just 6 companies hold a virtual monopoly in the insurance marketplace and are virtually exempt from antitrust regulations, they'd love to deregulate some more and lower the medical care industry's taxes.” Well, this is a lie, or just pure ignorance on your part.
  
  Your argument erroneously assumes that the 270 million of Americans who have health coverage have the coverage by way of insurance. Many Americans have health coverage through a single or multiemployer health plan. These plans are non-profit and heavily regulated by the federal government.
  
  Your argument is also faulty because REGULATION (not deregulation) has caused the oligopoly (not monopoly) of health insurance companies. Although the Constitution does not give Congress the authority to create a government run healthcare system, it does give it the power to regulate interstate commerce (and insurance is commodity that could, and would, be sold in interstate commerce). Of course, the only reason it is not sold in interstate commerce is because the federal government REGULATED (i.e. passed a law) that gave 100% of the oversight of health insurance to the states.
  
  Of course, this all begs an obvious question: If we know that government cannot manage things more efficiently than the private sector (e.g. compare the U.S.P.S. to Fed Ex, public roads to private toll roads, under funded Medicare with any insurance company), and we know that competition drives down prices, and we know that there is limited competition in the INSURANCE market (although not necessarily in the healthcare plan market), WHY WOULDN’T YOUR FIRST RECCOMENDATION BE TO PROMOTE COMPETITION AS OPPOSED TO HAVING A GOVERNMENT TAKE OVER?

  • Report
  

  by OhLook - IamNoLongerAnonymous on January 7th, 2010

• OhLook at OhLook make up facts on the fly. Lie number one: "I have noticed that nobody in favor of the current healthcare." You have only to read the discussions here to see that's a lie. And on the national stage, it hasn't been Democrats inveinting "Death Panels" and trumpeting a Public Option that would have only been available to 2% or less of Americans as a "Government takeover of the entire Healthcare System."
  
  Republicans opposed the creation of Medicare, have consistently fought it, have proposed privatizing it (how well that would have worked when the economy tanked and 401K plans lost over half their value. You say Medicare needs funding. Fund it. Our bridges and highways need repair too. THe way to "fix" that problem isn't to cut off what funding they get, it's to man up and pay to fix them.
  
  As to health insurance consolidation, again, you are lying or misinformed. What I said is quite true. Here is what the AMA says about it. "The American Medical Association reports that 94 percent
  of insurance markets in the United States are now highly concentrated. Contrary to industry assertions, these mergers have undermined market efficiency; premiums have skyrocketed, increasing more than 87 percent, on average, over the past six years."
  
  You can read a PDF on it here: http://hcfan.3cdn.net/1b741c44183247e6ac_20m6i6nzc.pdf
  
  I take it you are either a health insurance employee, lobyist or paid shill. Your talking points are a wish list of their desires to 'fix' thanks so that in the next decade, their profits can go up not just 3 times faster than US wages, but 5 or 6 times faster. There is still a it of life left to suck out of the people. Letting insurance companies sell across state borders would do to regulation (which is largely at the state, not federal level) just what it did to banking and the credit card industry. Companies would immediately buy out the legislatures of a few small, poor states, get laws enacted to their liking, and all locate there. That same plan is why credit card companies can charge rates today that used to get the Mafia loan sharks thrown in jail.
  
  And the final lie, which has been driven into the national consciousness to the point it's now a meme, is that "Gubment can't do nutin rite anyhows." Look at the Post office. OK, let's do. What does it cost to mail a first class letter across town? Right now, it's a blistering $0.44 with the USPS. UPS can do the same job for you for a mere $16.26. Now that's efficiency for you. FedEx is even higher.
  
  Same story goes for package delivery. Whether is is ground, 3-2 day or overnight; the USPS is a way better deal.
  
  In answer to your final question about competition, that is exactly what the Public Option would do. If the Gubment turns out to be so lousy at offering healthcare insurance, people simply wouldn't sign up for it.

  • Report
  

  by Jim in a Nautilus COAT on January 7th, 2010

• Jim: This entire thread is a prime example of what I am talking about. Everyone is throwing around conclusions, but nobody is arguing facts to support those conclusions (i.e. the merits).
  …
  And your most recent comment only reinforces my point. You state: “Public Option that would have only been available to 2% or less of Americans as a "Government takeover of the entire Healthcare System."” Why are you limiting “government takeover” to the public option. Every bill being discussed in Congress contains provisions that dictate who insurance companies must cover and what they must cover. That is a government takeover.
  …
  “Republicans opposed the creation of Medicare….” Of course they did. Unlike Democrats, Republicans know how markets work. Medicare was destined to fail from the start. And FYI: a 401k plan that dropped in value (and will likely recover) is better than a public social security without money to provide benefits. But I notice you keep making the same logical fallacy over and over. A 401k plan is only one type of private retirement investment (just as insurance is only one of numerous ways people get health coverage). The world is not as binary as you make it out to be.
  …
  “You say Medicare needs funding. Fund it.” Tell that to victims of Bernie Madoff. Medicare is a state run Ponze Scheme. There is no money to fund it. This is the concept that democrats do not seem to get: private investment works because companies borrow money to make money. This does not happen with tax money.
  …
  “As to health insurance consolidation, again, you are lying or misinformed.” There you go arguing your agenda, without even reading what I wrote. INSURANCE is ONE WAY that Americans pay for healthcare. Even if you truly had a monopoly on healthcare INSURANCE (i.e. one insurance company), you would still have competition because of single-employer and multi-employer plans. Again, you seem to be thinking in the binary: insurance company or government mandate. The reality is that you are ignoring all the alternatives to these two options.
  …
  “I take it you are either a health insurance employee, lobyist or paid shill.” Yes, keep ignoring the merits by making an illogical ad hominem remark. And FYI: I (like the nearly 150 million other people in America who oppose a government takeover) are none of the above. I do not work in insurance or am a lobysit, and nobody paid me anything. I just happened to be an informed citizen. Now are you going to make a single meritorious argument?
  …
  “their profits can go up not just 3 times faster than US wages, but 5 or 6 times faster.” Who profits? The insurance companies’? Well, if you weren’t so busy arguing an agenda, and bothered to look at the facts, you would notice that insurance profits have remained consistent. Insurance rates are going up because insurance expenses are going up.
  …
  “Companies would immediately buy out the legislatures of a few small, poor states, get laws enacted to their liking, and all locate there.” Again, you have no clue what you are talking about. Credit cards are regulated by the federal government. Thus, buying out legislatures of a state would do nothing. In fact, the 30% interest rate is illegal in every state. Yet, it is legal in credit cards solely because federal law preempts state laws. Moreover, even if credit card were regulated by the state, the state of incorporation does not matter. For example, if California says that anything over 15% is usury, and Ohio says anything over 10% is usury, the California company would be capped at 10% for all customers in Ohio.
  …
  “UPS can do the same job for you for a mere $16.26. Now that's efficiency for you. FedEx is even higher.” I would expect an illogical argument from you. Fed Ex is in the business of shipping PACKAGES not letters. Why do so many people use Fed Ex and UPS to ship packages? Well, they wil

  • Report
  

  by OhLook - IamNoLongerAnonymous on January 7th, 2010

• “UPS can do the same job for you for a mere $16.26. Now that's efficiency for you. FedEx is even higher.” I would expect an illogical argument from you. Fed Ex is in the business of shipping PACKAGES not letters. Why do so many people use Fed Ex and UPS to ship packages? Well, they will pick it up from my location at my schedule, the charge less to ship it, the deliver quicker, and they provide better insurance. And they do this all without any tax subsidies (unlike the USPS).
  ….
  And even then you are still resorting to lies to make your argument. I can ship a 1 lb box across many zip codes via Fed Ex for under $4.00.
  ….
  “If the Gubment turns out to be so lousy at offering healthcare insurance, people simply wouldn't sign up for it.” Wrong again. If the government were simply another player in the insurance market, you would be right. However, the government has several unfair advantages. First, many of their costs are subsidized by tax dollars, whereas insurance companies pay for everything out of their revenue. Second, the healthcare bills regulate insurance companies, but not the government.

  • Report
  

  by OhLook - IamNoLongerAnonymous on January 7th, 2010

• I actually used the UPS website to look up their pricing, but rather than quibble ovcer that, I'm going to switch to your style of argument. It's sooooo much easier.
  
  Ready? Everything you have said is a lie. Everything I say is true. Why do you keep insisting on using lies?

  • Report
  

  by Jim in a Nautilus COAT on January 8th, 2010

• I didn't really expect you to support your view with facts. Luckily in America, you are entitled to have an agenda with no logical basis for it. Let me know if you ever want to have a discussion on the merits?

  • Report
  

  by OhLook - IamNoLongerAnonymous on January 9th, 2010

• So teh UPS online calculator isn't a fact, heh? Only things you say are facts. No wonder you think you are objective and everyone else is not. This is pointless. Anyone who cares to can review the discussion and see who is using facts and who uses nothing but self-referential tautology. PLONK.

  • Report
  

  by Jim in a Nautilus COAT on January 13th, 2010

• The cost to ship a package is a fact, but not when you simply make it up. Fed Ex will ship a package across town for a couple bucks (i.e. much less than the $16.26 you made up to make you point.
  ...
  But nice to say you are still commenting without saying anything on topic.

  • Report
  

  by OhLook - IamNoLongerAnonymous on January 13th, 2010

• Still at your lying, I see. Here's the UPS calculator. http://www.theupsstore.com/qcc/qcc.asp
  
  I entered the following parameters:
  Shipping from Boston, MA 02113
  Shipping to Boston MA 02116
  (BRT, I wald that distance all the time. It's less than 2 miles)
  
  I chose a UPS letter pack. Dimensions 10.5" long by 3.5 inches hogh by 0.1 inch thick. Weight 0.1 pound. No expedited delivery or special services of any kind.
  
  I just checked the FedEx calculator. http://fedex.com/ratefinder/standalone?method=getQuickQuote
  
  Their best price if you drop the package of to them is $8.97
  
  The US Post Office still wins at $0.44. The Post Office has great rates for small packages, too. Big corporate accounts with lots of daily shipping and scheduled pickups can negotiate much better rates with the private carriers, but the argument that the private carriers are far more efficient then the US Post Office is utterly false. I know it's off topic. So why did you bring it up?

  • Report
  

  by Jim in a Nautilus COAT on January 14th, 2010

• Again, UPS and Fed Ex are not in the business of shipping correspondence. The conversation at hand is efficiency, not who charges the lowest price to ship a letter two miles. If Fed Ex was in the business of shipping daily correspondence, it would do it cheaper than the USPS, just as it does it cheaper and more efficiently with packages.
  
  For example, I can ship an 18 pound package from Pasadena (91101) to Boston (02113) for $23.76 via USPS, and it will get to you in 8 days. Or can I ship an identical package via Fed Ex for $17.65, and it will get to you in only 5 days.
  
  Wait, it gets better. Fed Ex will track my package every step of the way. USPS won’t do that. If Fed Ex loses my package, Fed Ex is liable for its loss.
  
  And since we are talking about efficiency, Fed Ex will do it all for only $17.65. The USPS will do it for $23.76 PLUS $40 billion dollars in tax money that subsidizes the USPS.
  
  USPS has a budget of about $80 billion, and revenues of about $40 billion. The rest, of course, comes from taxes. Fed Ex pays everything out of its revenue. If Fed Ex had 50% of its budget paid for with taxes, it could ship my package for $8.83, or 37% of what USPS can ship it for. And USPS is this inefficient, despite not seeking a profit.
  
  And by the way, even Barack Obama has acknowledged the inefficiency of the USPS, yet you are so dead set on rationalizing your agenda, that you are going to contradict this nation’s biggest proponent of government run programs.
  
  So are you ready to actually discuss the merits of your viewpoint, or do you want to keep rationalizing.

  • Report
  

  by OhLook - IamNoLongerAnonymous on January 15th, 2010

• You can select just the right set of parameters and get UPS or FedEx to be cheaper, but if your 18 pound item fits in wither the small, meduium or large Priority Mail flat-rate box, it will ship from Pasadena to Boston in 2 days and for much less than either private carrier charges. The Small Box: 8-5/8" x 5-3/8" x 1-5/8" goes for $4.95. The Medium Box: 13-5/8" x 11-7/8" x 3-3/8" or 11" x 8-1/2" x 5-1/2" is $10.70. The Large Box: 12" x 12" x 6" is $14.50.
  
  The urban legend that the USPO is taxpayer supported is just that, an urban legend. The Post Office has been self funded by revenues generated by its services now for over 30 years.

  • Report
  

  by Jim in a Nautilus COAT on January 15th, 2010

• You guys are missing the fact that your argument reinforces the basic point about health care financing (i.e., insurance).
  
  The distinction that you're talking about is not between private enterprise and a government program -- it's the difference between unregulated business enterprises and a public utility.
  
  FedEx and UPS make lots and lots of money because they get to cherry pick which locations they do and do not serve. The USPS is there as the safety net that serves places those companies will not.
  
  Similarly, Medicare was established as a public safety net in the 1960's when businesses realized that promising perpetual health care for employees, even after retirement, was draining them dry.
  
  Rather than regulating insurance like a utility (if you want to serve anybody, you have to serve everybody on equal terms), they simply decided to assume as a social responsibility the health coverage of those people (seniors) off of whom the insurance companies could not make money.
  
  And then people turn around and complain that Medicare doesn't run at a profit? Of course it loses money -- it was designed to relieve insurance companies of a market segment about which they had themselves already concluded they could not make money.
  
  And, yes, it is under-funded. Because each year, when the Congress tries to make a stab at making the budget deficit look better than it actually is, they cut Medicare reimbursement rates in the knowledge that the private sector will pick up the slack.
  
  That's what will happen with a "public option," that isn't universal. It will be Medicare 2.0.
  
  I'm in this strange position where I honestly feel that a single-payor national health insurance plan is one good way to go -- but that the only other good way to go is to keep health insurance entirely private, but treat it like a utility.
  
  The problems arise when you try to split the difference. A mixed system is always going to be subject to distortion driven by the differential incentives of private sector investors and public sector advocates.
  
  Unless it's entirely one way or the other, these funding distortions are going to continue to happen.
  
  Either treat private health insurers like utilities, or put them out of business and do all the cost-shifting (which is the fundamental purpose of insurance, anyway) in the public domain.

  • Report
  

  by ChrisDC on January 16th, 2010

• We're on the same page, Chris. I have said from the start that the only way to really fix healthcare is to switch to a single-payer system or to regulate insurance like we do utilities. The problejm is the country has gotten so brainwashed with free-market ideology that it can't even think rationally about such an answer. Screams of socialism and communism erupt the moment you mention such an idea.

  • Report
  

  by Jim in a Nautilus COAT on January 16th, 2010

• “You can select just the right set of parameters and get UPS or FedEx to be cheaper, but if your 18 pound item fits in wither the small, meduium or large Priority Mail flat-rate box ….”
  
  Again, you are so busy rationalizing your view but trying to find areas that USPS is cheaper, you are ignoring the underlying point: EFFICIENCY. The USPS has less than 40% charge of the package delivery business.
  
  Moreover, the USPS pays Fed-Ex to deliver its packages. Let me repeat, the USPS knows that it is so inefficient, that it can save costs by simply paying Fed Ex to make its package deliveries. This has been going on since 2001.
  
  “The urban legend that the USPO is taxpayer supported is just that, an urban legend. The Post Office has been self funded by revenues generated by its services now for over 30 years.”
  
  Um, how do you define “taxpayer supported”? The Postal Reorganization Act of 1970 removed the Postal Service’s line item appropriation, but that does not mean it is not tax payer supported. First, the USPS receives about $100 million each year from the President’s budget. Second, the USPS does not pay for it security equipment and protocols. Third, the USPS does not pay for any of its property (and of course, it does not pay property taxes at all). Fourth, much of it investigation costs are performed by other agencies (and thus is paid by tax payers); Fifth, all of its legal costs are handled by the DOJ, and paid for with tax dollars. Sixth, all judgments are paid for by the general fund. Seventh, all employee benefits costs are paid for with tax dollar (note: in 2006 this was supposed to change, and USPS was supposed to pay about $5 billion a year to fund this benefit, but half of the $5 billion is still being subsidized).
  
  In fact, let’s go through the other advantages the USPS has (which Fed Ex does not):
  
  * USPS has a below-market-rate revolving credit line with the Department of Treasury for $15 billion, including the ability to borrow $600 million on "same-day notice."
  * USPS is exempt from local zoning laws
  * USPS is exempt from most federal, state, and local taxes
  * USPS has the right of eminent domain
  * USPS does not have to pay parking tickets or vehicle registration costs (In New York City alone, Fed Ex pays $18 million / year in parking tickets)
  * USPS is exempt from many employment-related laws
  * USPS is allowed to regulate its own competition. Regulations include requiring that competitors charge the greater of $3.00 or twice the applicable U.S. Postage.
  * USPS cannot go bankrupt and can take advantage of sterling credit backed by the full faith of the U.S. government in contracting with suppliers
  * USPS is exempt from U.S. anti-trust laws in areas where it has a monopoly "commanded by government as sovereign."
  * USPS is represented by the U.S. Attorney General in court, with all the special procedural and other advantages enjoyed by the U.S. Department of Justice.
  
  
  So how is USPS more efficient?

  • Report
  

  by OhLook - IamNoLongerAnonymous on January 17th, 2010

• Chris:
  
  “FedEx and UPS make lots and lots of money because they get to cherry pick which locations they do and do not serve. The USPS is there as the safety net that serves places those companies will not.”
  
  Really? Where does Fed-Ex or UPS not serve to save costs?

  • Report
  

  by OhLook - IamNoLongerAnonymous on January 17th, 2010

• UPS and FedEx pickup and delivery service is restricted in some areas. All residential deliveries cost more than delivery to daily-drop customers. Likewise home pickup carries a surcharge. Remote delivery sites pay a fuel surcharge. These pricing practices are perfectly legitimate. They do represent real costs for the particular service. But they leave certain customers at a distinct disadvantage.
  
  Now, as to your list of advantages that help the Post Office deliver services at a lower cost than private, for-profit carriers; let's remember how we got into a discussion about the relative merits of the Post Office versus UPS to begin with. We were talking about health care, and you claimed that everything the government does is done less efficiently than private enterprise. You offered the USPS as an example.
  
  Now you want to take away all the things that make that quasi-government operation more efficient than UPS so your false claim can be rendered true. Sorry. No dice. The Post Office operates at a lower cost structure than UPS and FedEx precisely because they have those advantages.
  
  That does not mean I am a communist and want to transfer all private enterprise to government ownership. Before you even go there, let me categorically state I do not believe that. The post office is a unique business that delivers a commodity service vital to the smooth functioning of our society. It makes good sense to give it the Government advantages it enjoys. NASA makes sense as a Government enterprise. Look at all the technology that has spun out of it unencumbered by patents that would severely restrict its use if NASA were a for-profit business.
  
  Even though much of the nation's electric power is delivered by private enterprise, having a Public Utilities Commission to oversee it makes sense. Energy supply is vital to survival for many of us. We saw with Enron's deliberate rolling blackouts in California what private enterprise might do to inflate prices of a vital commodity like energy if given free reign outside any regulatory structure.
  
  But I strongly believe in free enterprise as the engine of innovation. I own a small business. I am a capitalist through and through. I'm just a pragmatic enough one to realize that if we do not get health care costs in line with general inflation, they will soon bankrupt our nation. Costs have been going up at 3 to 5 times inflation now for 4 decades and will soon represent 25% of the US Gross Domestic Product. Our system excludes 47 million Americans and is twice as expensive as ones that deliver better longevity to all their citizens at half the cost in GDP. Clearly, our system can be made better and must be if we are to enjoy our customary standard of living much longer.

  • Report
  

  by Jim in a Nautilus COAT on January 18th, 2010

• “Now you want to take away all the things that make that quasi-government operation more efficient than UPS so your false claim can be rendered true.”
  
  On the contrary. First, the USPS is not more efficient. Second, all the advantages that the USPS has does not do anything for efficiency. The fact that the USPS bans private carriers from carrying daily correspondence does not mean the USPS is more efficient. Rather, it just means that other carriers cannot compete. Remember, the topic of conversation is EFFICENCY.
  
  “Sorry. No dice. The Post Office operates at a lower cost structure than UPS and FedEx precisely because they have those advantages.”
  
  Again, despite these advantages, Fed Ex can still deliver a package for less than USPS.
  
  “It makes good sense to give it the Government advantages it enjoys.” If such advantage actually allowed for greater efficiency, I would completely agree. But again, if the competitive free market can provide better service for less, we should leave it to the competitive market.
  
  “NASA makes sense as a Government enterprise. Look at all the technology that has spun out of it unencumbered by patents that would severely restrict its use if NASA were a for-profit business.”
  
  Expect the majority of NASA’s budget goes to paying for private contracts with Lockheed Martin, Boeing, and the like. However, NASA does serve a government function, so I do not think NASA should be abolished.
  
  “Even though much of the nation's electric power is delivered by private enterprise, having a Public Utilities Commission to oversee it makes sense.”
  
  Yes it does, but only because efficient competition cannot exist without a central infrastructure. Electricity must be supplied through wires. It would be inefficient (if not impossible) to run multiple wires to every home in order to allow for a competitive marketplace. Thus, it makes sense to allow for a single infrastructure. Of course, we don’t have such a problem wit healthcare.
  
  
  “We saw with Enron's deliberate rolling blackouts in California what private enterprise might do to inflate prices of a vital commodity like energy if given free reign outside any regulatory structure.” Again, this would not be a problem in a competitive marketplace. If Enron wants to implement rolling blackouts, its competitor would happily take over their business. But since a competitive marketplace is not practicable with energy, government regulation is needed.
  
  “I'm just a pragmatic enough one to realize that if we do not get health care costs in line with general inflation, they will soon bankrupt our nation. Costs have been going up at 3 to 5 times inflation now for 4 decades and will soon represent 25% of the US Gross Domestic Product.” Well, then why not suggest something that will actually control healthcare costs? Absent rationing, changing who pays for healthcare is not going to lower the cost of healthcare.
  
  “Our system excludes 47 million Americans and is twice as expensive as ones that deliver better longevity to all their citizens at half the cost in GDP.” Yes, but no healthcare system is able to provide a better quality of care than the U.S. system. Moreover, if your goal is better longevity, we can achieve that without changing our healthcare system at all. America’s life expectancy is lower than all developed nations because America is the fattest country of all developed nations, and America has a higher than average traumatic injury rate. Giving 100% of people health coverage, for free or otherwise, will do nothing for this obesity and traumatic injury problem. Less than 10% of the U.S. population has no health coverage, yet over 60% of the U.S. population is overweight. The high cost of healthcare in the U.S. is a direct result of the need to care for so many unhealthy people, not inefficiencies in healthcare distribution.

  • Report
  

  by OhLook - IamNoLongerAnonymous on January 18th, 2010

• I have cited the pricing comparison that show the USPS is way less expensive than either UPS or FedEx for package delivery. I gave links to them. You simply come back with your alternate reality. I've had enough of it. Let's just agree to disagree. When posted facts on the USP, USPS and FedEx websites are not enough to prevail, it's clear facts aren't even a part of the debate.

  • Report
  

  by Jim in a Nautilus COAT on January 19th, 2010

• “I have cited the pricing comparison that show the USPS is way less expensive than either UPS or FedEx for package delivery.” Um, no you didn’t. You linked to show that USPS’s daily mail delivery is cheaper than UPS and Fed Ex’s package delivery. Of course, I then pointed out your fallacy. First, it is ILLEGAL for FED-EX and UPS to engage in daily mail delivery. The government has granted USPS a monopoly on daily delivery.
  ….
  I, of course, then pointed out that Fed Ex can deliver a PACKAGE in less time, and for less money than USPS. I also pointed out that the USPS pays Fed Ex to ship packages for USPS because Fed Ex is so efficient, that it is cheaper to hire Fed Ex than to simply have USPS ship the packages themselves.
  …
  “When posted facts on the USP, USPS and FedEx websites are not enough to prevail, it's clear facts aren't even a part of the debate.” You simply do not want facts to be part of the debate because you know the facts contradict your agenda.

  • Report
  

  by OhLook - IamNoLongerAnonymous on January 20th, 2010

• “I have cited the pricing comparison that show the USPS is way less expensive than either UPS or FedEx for package delivery.” Um, no you didn’t. You linked to show that USPS’s daily mail delivery is cheaper than UPS and Fed Ex’s package delivery. Of course, I then pointed out your fallacy. First, it is ILLEGAL for FED-EX and UPS to engage in daily mail delivery. The government has granted USPS a monopoly on daily delivery.
  ….
  I, of course, then pointed out that Fed Ex can deliver a PACKAGE in less time, and for less money than USPS. I also pointed out that the USPS pays Fed Ex to ship packages for USPS because Fed Ex is so efficient, that it is cheaper to hire Fed Ex than to simply have USPS ship the packages themselves.
  …
  “When posted facts on the USP, USPS and FedEx websites are not enough to prevail, it's clear facts aren't even a part of the debate.” You simply do not want facts to be part of the debate because you know the facts contradict your agenda.

  • Report
  

  by OhLook - IamNoLongerAnonymous on January 20th, 2010

• I posted links to package delivery also. USPS was half the cost of UPS and FedEx on a whole range of packages. And there is no surchaarge for home pick up, home instead of business delivery or fuel charge. This are the facts I am speaking of.
  
  If you can refute them, go ahead. Just calling me a liar when you don't like my facts is not refuting the facts.

  • Report
  

  by Jim in a Nautilus COAT on January 20th, 2010

• “If you can refute them, go ahead. Just calling me a liar when you don't like my facts is not refuting the facts.”
  
  First, you did not link to anything. You did point out that USPS has some flat rate boxes, which in some cases could be cheaper.
  
  But again, why not get to the actual merits of this argument? The topic of conversation is EFFICIENCY. If you were to look at the average cost of shipping a package with Fed Ex verses USPS, Fed Ex would be about 25% cheaper. Since we will not agree on anything by comparing shipping rates, why not address the other points that speak to efficiency? For example,
  
  1) How do you refute President Obama’s statement that the USPS has much inefficiency that could be improved upon?
  
  2) And if USPS is so efficient, why are they paying Fed Ex to ship their packages?

  • Report
  

  by OhLook - IamNoLongerAnonymous on January 21st, 2010

• OK, the Postal Service contracts with FedEx for airport to airport express delivery of overnight packages and long-distance first class mail, which they box. FedEx is set up to do that efficiently, and it's a small part of what the USPS does, so it makes good sense. http://www.usps.com/communications/news/press/2006/pr06_048.htm
  
  Of course the post office could be made more efficient. Just about everything can, and should.
  
  There's a wonderful shipping calculator site called www.shippingsidekick.com. You enter the state and zip your are shipping from and to, the weight of the package and what kind of packaging, and whether you are going to take it to a shipping counter, have a regular pick up, or call for a pickup.
  
  To keep things fair, I said I'd take it to a counter. Only the post office picks up at residential stops for free. I said it was going to a residential address. Here's what I tested:
  
  From MA 02110
  To CA 90210
  Shipping Friday 1/22/10
  10 Pounds 0 ounces
  
  Saturday
  AM only UPS can do. Cost is $153.38 and it's there by 9:00 AM.
  USPS wins the cost though. If you are willing to wait till noon, they will do it for $62.05 where Brown wants #120.21
  
  Monday
  USPS wins BIG. If it fits any of their 3 standard boxes it is $4.95 for small, $10.70 for medium and $14.50 for large. If it doesn't fit any of these USPS still wins at $30.40.
  FedEx is next at $88.86 for 10AM and $77.83 for 3PM.
  Brown is the looser at $137.33 for 8:30 AM and $93.79 for end of day.
  
  If you are willing to wait till Saturday, USPS will take the any-size box for $16.17
  
  So USPS is less expensive for package shipping for the average Joe. If you are a big business with daily pickups and lots of tonnage, you negotiate rates with all three, and go with the one that gives you the best deal. But most Americans aren't big companies and don't have a daily schedule with a for profit carrier. The USPS is the only one of the three that takes on the costly burden of visiting virtually every household and every drop box everywhere in the USA 6 days a week.
  
  They do what they do very efficiently, as the above numbers show. Imagine the costs if FedEx and UPS had to drive to every location in every address in the US every day just to drop a letter or two, or occasionally pick up a package or letter going out.
  
  Mind you, I just picked those addresses and the weight out of thin air. I did not run test after test till I found a formula that gave me the answer I wanted. I really wanted to see if, by chance you were right. You weren't.

  • Report
  

  by Jim in a Nautilus COAT on January 21st, 2010

• “FedEx is set up to do that efficiently, and it's a small part of what the USPS does, so it makes good sense.”
  
  How does it make good sense? The USPS is much larger than Fed Ex, and therefore, has economies of scale on its side. Moreover, USPS already delivers mail throughout the country, so it already has the infrastructure to deliver packages as well. Thus, how is it possible for Fed Ex to be more efficient here?
  
  “Of course the post office could be made more efficient. Just about everything can, and should.“
  I 100% agree. The post office should be vastly more efficient. Again, due to its size, it has economies of scale on its side. But the whole point is that, despite the fact that government SHOULD be more efficient, it is not more efficient in any sector.
  
  
  “So USPS is less expensive for package shipping for the average Joe.”
  I think that we have already established that your methodology is flawed. Moreover, the question at hand is efficiency, NOT who will ship a package the cheapest. The only way to use the cost of shipping as a measure of efficiency is to average the cost over all destinations, which cannot practicably done by use typing in data points into a shipping calculator.
  
  “If you are a big business with daily pickups and lots of tonnage, you negotiate rates with all three, and go with the one that gives you the best deal.”
  Which only reinforces my point. Comparing the cost to ship a single package does not reflect efficiency.
  
  “But most Americans aren't big companies and don't have a daily schedule with a for profit carrier.”
  This is true, but remember, the question at hand is which entity is more efficient. I
  “The USPS is the only one of the three that takes on the costly burden of visiting virtually every household and every drop box everywhere in the USA 6 days a week. “
  
  Yes, but only because IT IS ILLEGAL for private industry to do this. You are so busy rationalizing your view, that you are ignoring the merits of this debate. Just because the law says Fed Ex cannot provide daily delivery does not mean that Fed Ex would be less efficient at doing this. Again, the question at hand is EFFICIENCY.
  
  “Imagine the costs if FedEx and UPS had to drive to every location in every address in the US every day just to drop a letter or two, or occasionally pick up a package or letter going out.”
  
  Do you even know what EFFICIENCY is? Yes, their costs will be higher. But the question at hand is would their costs be lower than the USPS’s costs. That is the measure of efficiency. Of course, we already know that USPS pays Fed Ex to ship their packages. They do this because it is cheaper (i.e. less efficient) for USPS than shipping the packages themselves.
  
  “I did not run test after test till I found a formula that gave me the answer I wanted. I really wanted to see if, by chance you were right. You weren't.”
  
  You are not very logical, are you? My example looked at shipping a package from me to you, and it was far cheaper to do it Fed Ex. Thus, you were wrong. Of course, as mentioned before, the debate is on EFFICENCY, not on who ships a single package from point A to point B cheaper.
  
  So do you actually have any evidence that USPS is more EFFICIENT?

  • Report
  

  by OhLook - IamNoLongerAnonymous on January 22nd, 2010

• I'm tired of arguing about FedEx and the USPS. Believe what you will. Let's agree to disagree.

  • Report
  

  by Jim in a Nautilus COAT on January 24th, 2010

• I agree, so do you actually want to get to the merits of your agenda?

  • Report
  

  by OhLook - IamNoLongerAnonymous on January 25th, 2010

Comments

Comments

Comments