Postal Service an Indicator of potential Healthcare System?

[blazerboy30]

The government needs to show the citizens that they can run a federal program efficiently before expecting us to let them handle our healthcare.

The U.S. Postal Service, struggling with a massive deficit caused by plummeting mail volume, spends more than a million dollars each week to pay thousands of employees to sit in empty rooms and do nothing.

Link To Article

 

[44Thrilla]

Unless they come up with a way to heal ailments and illnesses over the interwebz, then I don't think this connection can be made.

 

[blazerboy30]

Unless they come up with a way to heal ailments and illnesses over the interwebz, then I don't think this connection can be made.

Really?

Can you provide some examples of a government-run program being more efficient than a private program?

 

[BTOWN_HUSTLA]

i think the postal service is a "best case scenario" for government healthcare.

 

[Denny Crane]

I don't think the post office is a good comparison. For the most part, it's been semi-private and it's always been a hell of a deal to be able to send a piece of mail from Seattle to Miami for $.44 (and it was a lot less for years).

Now people are using email and other electronic means to send much of what used to be mail, so the post office is hurting from that.

I don't feel the government is good at much but writing checks. The GI bill and VHA loan programs are among the best government has ever undertaken.

I think nationalized health care would be more like the DMV. And oddly, those who like big government have a good time at the DMV like it's a party or something.

 

[44Thrilla]

Really?

Can you provide some examples of a government-run program being more efficient than a private program?

Hey, I'm not a huge fan of government run health care. I'm just saying I think the reason the USPS is failing is because the only real use for regular mail nowadays is to send packages, something that UPS and FedEx specialize in. There's no need for regular mail anymore.

 

[blazerboy30]

Hey, I'm not a huge fan of government run health care. I'm just saying I think the reason the USPS is failing is because the only real use for regular mail nowadays is to send packages, something that UPS and FedEx specialize in. There's no need for regular mail anymore.

This is the point. FedEx and UPS can provide the same service as USPS, for cheaper, and still make a profit.

I want to see the government do something the private industry provides, but more efficiently and cheaper. So far they haven't done it, but they claim they can do it for healthcare.

 

[yakbladder]

The Postal Service is semi-private as Denny mentioned. This is a poor example. And postal service is completely separate from health care. That's like me saying the government does a great job of ordering tanks so they'd be awesome at ordering MRIs.

 

[blazerboy30]

The Postal Service is semi-private as Denny mentioned. This is a poor example. And postal service is completely separate from health care. That's like me saying the government does a great job of ordering tanks so they'd be awesome at ordering MRIs.

Can you provide some examples of a government-run program being more efficient than a private program?

 

[barfo]

And oddly, those who like big government have a good time at the DMV like it's a party or something.

Link?

Speaking only for myself, I haven't been to the DMV since 2003. Looks like I'll have to go in again in 2011.

barfo

 

[yakbladder]

Can you provide some examples of a government-run program being more efficient than a private program?

My post was about the Post Office being a bad example. I could take a look for examples if you'd like and see what it looks like out there. But I'd also like to see a health care plan that isn't so focused on profit it overlooks health, even at the cost of some efficiency. I don't think that's too much to ask, is it?

 

[TradeNurkicNow]

It'll probably be more like this

[video=youtube;u8yoSAiwY18]

 

[bodyman5001]

This does point out something about government. The government doesn't like to spend less or reduce services. If we spent 10 zillion dollars on healthcare and someone discovered a magic super pill that kept anyone from ever getting sick again they would want to keep spending 10 zillion dollars on it.

 

[MARIS61]

Really?

Can you provide some examples of a government-run program being more efficient than a private program?

You already have:

The USPS has no peer in the world, gets no tax dollars, and has been pretty much self-sufficient since it's inception as the Postal Department in 1775 with Benjamin Franklin as the first Postmaster General with a few small exceptions such as during war years and the depression.

As with the rest of the world's public and private entities it has struggled in 2007 and 2008.

http://www.usps.com/postalhistory/_pdf/PiecesofMail1789to2008.pdf

This "standby time" is mostly a ploy by management to influence labor negotiations coming up, and part of the ongoing scheme by Republicans (first Reagan, then Bush Jr.) to dismantle (privatize) the USPS.

 

[Sug]

This is the point. FedEx and UPS can provide the same service as USPS, for cheaper, and still make a profit.

I want to see the government do something the private industry provides, but more efficiently and cheaper. So far they haven't done it, but they claim they can do it for healthcare.

Medicare.

 

[Sug]

I have a question. How much money does the USPS receive from the government?

 

[MARIS61]

I don't think the post office is a good comparison. For the most part, it's been semi-private and it's always been a hell of a deal to be able to send a piece of mail from Seattle to Miami for $.44 (and it was a lot less for years).

Now people are using email and other electronic means to send much of what used to be mail, so the post office is hurting from that.

I don't feel the government is good at much but writing checks. The GI bill and VHA loan programs are among the best government has ever undertaken.

I think nationalized health care would be more like the DMV. And oddly, those who like big government have a good time at the DMV like it's a party or something.

DMV is State government, a rung on the government ladder I'd like to see eliminated.

 

[MARIS61]

I have a question. How much money does the USPS receive from the government?

The last tax dollar it received was in 1982.

 

[MARIS61]

This is the point. FedEx and UPS can provide the same service as USPS, for cheaper, and still make a profit.

They can't even come close.

Carry your letter coast to coast for 44 cents?

Deliver your company's ad flyers door to door for a few pennies each?

They put the USPS at a disadvantage comparison-wise by only doing the high-profit part of the job while not providing the main part of the service and the whole reason the USPS exists. To ensure citizens can communicate unhampered.

 

[barfo]

This does point out something about government. The government doesn't like to spend less or reduce services.

Oddly enough, the story says that the government would like to spend less but is prevented from laying the extra staff off by the union contract (which, admittedly, they signed). The postal service is in fact lobbying to be allowed to reduce services (to 5 days per week).

So, I'm not sure this example agrees with your conclusions.

barfo

 

[barfo]

They can't even come close.

Carry your letter coast to coast for 44 cents?

Deliver your company's ad flyers door to door for a few pennies each?

Absolutely right.

However, as long as we are on the subject, the USPS should not be delivering ad flyers door to door for pennies. It's a monumental waste of resources, and something that should not be subsidized in any way. In fact I think it should be banned.

barfo

 

[TradeNurkicNow]

Absolutely right.

However, as long as we are on the subject, the USPS should not be delivering ad flyers door to door for pennies. It's a monumental waste of resources, and something that should not be subsidized in any way. In fact I think it should be banned.

barfo

Slow down there, communist.

 

[blazerboy30]

Oddly enough, the story says that the government would like to spend less but is prevented from laying the extra staff off by the union contract (which, admittedly, they signed). The postal service is in fact lobbying to be allowed to reduce services (to 5 days per week).

So, I'm not sure this example agrees with your conclusions.

barfo

It shows how bad the government is at making good, or efficient business decisions.

 

[blazerboy30]

Medicare.

You forgot the sarcasm smiley.

 

[barfo]

It shows how bad the government is at making good, or efficient business decisions.

Does GM show how bad the private sector is at making good, efficient business decisions?

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

They can't even come close.

Carry your letter coast to coast for 44 cents?

Deliver your company's ad flyers door to door for a few pennies each?

They put the USPS at a disadvantage comparison-wise by only doing the high-profit part of the job while not providing the main part of the service and the whole reason the USPS exists. To ensure citizens can communicate unhampered.

To be fair, I do believe the USPS is the only entity allowed by law to deliver letters.

We don't know if FedEx could do it cheaper or better.

 

[mook]

This is the point. FedEx and UPS can provide the same service as USPS, for cheaper, and still make a profit.

Not really true. My wife's business ships thousands of packages a year. Nearly everything is by USPS because it's just cheaper and more convenient. We've looked at UPS and FedEx, and for our particular parcels it just makes more sense to go USPS.

We ship stuff that's either under 5 ounces or qualifies for Media Mail. It's shocking how cheap and efficient it is.

We probably have one mis-shipment a month, and a lot of the time we suspect theft at the delivery location. UPS, in comparison, lost one package from a vendor last week. (We get about a dozen or so UPS shipments a month, so that's a much bigger error rate.) From my experience, the USPS is the least likely to fail at performing to expectations.

As for profitability, UPS, FedEx and the USPS have all had really bad years. The economy sucks. If people buy less stuff, they need less stuff shipped. Add in increases in bandwidth on the internet, and it's pretty easy to see why they all are struggling.

Anyway, I do see some similarities between this and health care. The USPS in the analogy is the public option. FedEx and USPS are the private insurers. Each seems to fill a particular niche, but each has drawbacks. It's hard to imagine a private company building the infrastructure needed to replace what the USPS does, and it's hard to see how private industry would want to insure, say, a 50 year old man with terminal cancer.

 

[BLAZER PROPHET]

All I can say is that I never want a postal carrier operating one me.

 

[mook]

To be fair, I do believe the USPS is the only entity allowed by law to deliver letters.

We don't know if FedEx could do it cheaper or better.

Maybe you could argue that it's crowded out in our country by the USPS. But you would think that if it was possible to replace that industry, some country somewhere would ditch their postal system and let FedEx or UPS or a local private carrier manage it.

Yet in country after country it's always been a government-initiated program.

This, again, is why I'm always so suspicious of the idea that there's a truly free market solution to delivering health care. If it is possible, why isn't it being done somewhere? How come there's no shining beacon of free-enterprise health care that all free marketers can point to and say, "Look, XYZ country is doing it! We can too!"

Instead, all the examples of health care success (lower cost, higher satisfaction) are found in countries with more left-leaning systems than ours. Similarly, the lowest cost/highest satisfaction solution for delivering very small parcels and letters in pretty much every industrialized country is a government initiated (and perhaps quasi-privatized) postal system.

 

[Denny Crane]

Maybe you could argue that it's crowded out in our country by the USPS. But you would think that if it was possible to replace that industry, some country somewhere would ditch their postal system and let FedEx or UPS or a local private carrier manage it.

Yet in country after country it's always been a government-initiated program.

This, again, is why I'm always so suspicious of the idea that there's a truly free market solution to delivering health care. If it is possible, why isn't it being done somewhere? How come there's no shining beacon of free-enterprise health care that all free marketers can point to and say, "Look, XYZ country is doing it! We can too!"

Instead, all the examples of health care success (lower cost, higher satisfaction) are found in countries with more left-leaning systems than ours. Similarly, the lowest cost/highest satisfaction solution for delivering very small parcels and letters in pretty much every industrialized country is a government initiated (and perhaps quasi-privatized) postal system.

I meant this:

http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=3111

US Postal Service: A Government Protected Monopoly

by Edwin Feulner (September 23, 2003)
If I tell you, "The check's in the mail" you probably won't look for it any time soon--if at all. But if I tell you I've sent the check via FedEx, you'll probably plan a trip to the bank.

We know we can count on private services such as FedEx and United Parcel Service to deliver on time. If they didn't, they'd go out of business. And we also know--many of us from bitter experience--that we always can't count on the post office.

That's because the post office is a government-protected monopoly; 19th century laws make it illegal for anyone else to deliver letters. It's also exempt from state and federal taxes and free from most government regulations. That combination is a recipe for disaster.

A recent report from the President's Commission on the United States Postal Service recognized these problems and recommends creating a Postal Regulatory Board to supervise the post office. This would be a welcome step, but we shouldn't stop there. The overall goal is to make the post office more efficient and user-friendly. That's why it's time to break the post office's monopoly and privatize the delivery of mail.

Right now, there's no competition in the letter-delivery business. Almost all letters must be sent through the post office, unless the letter is "extremely urgent." The post office even gets to set the minimum price its private competitors can charge: A letter must cost at least $3 or twice the applicable first-class rate to qualify as urgent.

But if Congress changes the law, private companies could go head to head with the post office. Competition would bring down prices, and the post office would have to become more responsive to customers if it wanted to survive.

----

more at the link.

I suggested a public option where no govt. money is put into the system or taxes raised to fund it. That would be the equivalent of USPS competing against the obviously successful package carriers.