Quote Originally Posted by sicboater View Post
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