A Health Care Scenario

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Navaja

That sounds like Obama on one of his talks, trying to sell that the idea that the Postal Service doesn't have an impact on UPS or FedEx.It doesn't. The later are, in fact, effecting the former. The whole reason that USPS has increased service in the package delivery channel is because of these two stellar competitors and the loss of letter carrying revenues due to email. Overnight package delivery was UPS/FedEx first, USPS second.

Let me educate you a little bit, UPS and FedEx are successful private parcel delivery services, USPS is a government mail delivery organization. The parcel delivery of USPS is subsidized by he First Class Mail. That tells you that USPS doesn't follow fair competition practices and they can have the luxury of loosing money, all they do is raise the price of the First Class Mail.
I fail to see how UPS/FedEx have been unsuccessful in competing with the package delivery arm of the USPS. The USPS may be cheaper but it isn't better. Ever try and track a package with USPS? It plain sucks compared to the tracking you get with the other two. BTW- They are not allowed, by law, to raise the price of first class postage any faster than the US consumer index increases.

Does this give you a clue how the government will run health care? Reducing services and raising taxes.
The Government doesn't want to run healthcare, they want to control the pricing. For now anyway.

---

0123456789

I think you are forgetting one important thing regarding the USPS vs FedEx and UPS - we are not mandated to use, or pay for, the USPS.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by honedright

I think you are forgetting one important thing regarding the USPS vs FedEx and UPS - we are not mandated to use, or pay for, the USPS.

---

This is true. I don't think it is a good example to use in the health care scenario. It is, however, a great example of how individual firms can compete against the government in a fair fight.

Navaja incorrectly made the point that the government gives the USPS an advantage and it does not. We choose to use the usps or not and it only gets revenue from postage turnover.

If health INSURANCE is mandated (i.e. you can choose, but you must make a choice and can't elect to not be covered) it may return certain hospitals to profit. It is interesting to consider that effect as there are many pluses and minuses.

Good discussion so far!

-Rob

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sicboater

This is true. I don't think it is a good example to use in the health care scenario. It is, however, a great example of how individual firms can compete against the government in a fair fight.

Navaja incorrectly made the point that the government gives the USPS an advantage and it does not. We choose to use the usps or not and it only gets revenue from postage turnover.

If health INSURANCE is mandated (i.e. you can choose, but you must make a choice and can't elect to not be covered) it may return certain hospitals to profit. It is interesting to consider that effect as there are many pluses and minuses.

Good discussion so far!

-Rob

---

To end this issue with UPS/FedEX vs USPS, the fact of the matter is that if you'd like to mail a letter, you're mandated to buy a stamp from the Post Office and your're, weather you like it or not, subsidizing the USPS' package delivery system. This allows the USPS to advertise prices for parcel delivery that are way under those by the other two carriers.
The fact people don't use the USPS system will eventually lead to cost reduction by decreasing service.

The point been, that goverment intrusion not necessarily means lower costs, they may be able to offer "affordable" health care (nobody knows exactly what that means) and recover the difference through other means.

Gentlemen, it's getting late and I have to watch the World Series