On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 19:23:51 -0500, "Tom Littleton"
wrote:


"David LaCourse" wrote in message
news:2009121421485178840-dplacourse@aolcom...
The post office has been operating at a loss for, how long? It's just
like Medicare and Medicaid which are both running in the red.

since when does 'operating at a loss' equal 'doing a bad job'? All three
examples given are tasked with responsibilities that no private corporation
would touch.
Medicare and Medicaid run at a much lower administrative overhead than
private health insurers. The post office delivers stuff at a far lower rate
than a private carrier would charge, if anyone could even be found willing
to deliver tons of bulk mail, not to mention letters and greeting cards,
worldwide. You have no clue about what you discuss, sometimes, Louie.
Tom


First, in the US, comparing "the post office" to "private" carriers, ala
FedEx/UPS, whatever is comparing apples and oranges. The USPS has certain
protections (and mandates) that make comparison impossible. In fact, it is
illegal (and companies have been fined) to send "regular mail" via FedEx - a
company cannot send its "routine correspondence" via anything other than the
USPS and it is illegal for FedEx, whatever to place anything in a receptacle
marked for "mail." There are other aspects of the whole thing, but suffice to
say that there is no real basis for comparison. IAC, the USPS is not (directly)
taxpayer-funded, but it is "Federally-governed."

As to Medicaid, it is primarily 50 state-run programs, overseen by the Fed, and
some states (at least in the past - I don't keep up with every state's yearly
Medicaid program) have used private companies to administer it. IAC, your
statement that "Medicaid run(s) at a much lower administrative overhead than
private health insurers" isn't really accurate for a number of reasons, not the
least of which is that Medicaid has never, as an entire program in all 50
states, been run by a private health insurer. Or really, it has never been run
by _any_ single entity, private or governmental. While Medicare is a national
program, it likewise has never been run by a private company, so there is no way
to say with certainty what the results would be should a competent (or
incompetent) private entity run either or both of them.

As I see it, the problem is the amount of money involved - be it
publicly-administered or privately-administered, the amount of money is gonna be
a temptation for all sorts of, um, hijinks. I saw it firsthand with FEMA and
the Katrina recovery. It had nothing whatsoever to do with who was in the WH,
what party was "in control" (or out of control...), or anything else like that.
It had to do with the amount of cold, hard cash and bureaucrats/bureaucracy in
general. And the waste and over-spending was and is nothing short of
mind-boggling. That stupid **** in LA actually _DEMANDED_ a 100 bil blank check
for LA, whereas MS asked for around 7 bil, with controls and guidelines.

And the whole "health care debate" seems to ignore the personal choice aspects
of the situation - for example, if health care is such an important thing to
individuals, why shouldn't they have to pay a larger portion of their income to
get it than, say, a car payment. IOW, if someone chooses a new car (and its
expenses) over insurance when they can only afford one, then why should
"society" subsidize that choice. Granted, this does not address those that can
afford neither. OTOH, those that must (or chose to) depend on "society" for
health care should only be provided the basic level of such support. For
example, those on "food stamps" are allowed to shop wherever they wish, for a
fairly broad range of products (again, granted, there are various programs that
have "outlets" where those on such programs obtain product) - why aren't they
required to obtain basic products at "outlets?" Or at the very least, only
allowed to purchase (at retail) basic, healthy, non-brandname products?

Unfortunately, I foresee the possibility of really disastrous overspending when
"the Fed," even indirectly, oversees such a large segment of money in the US -
look what happened with Freddie and Fannie - and look to the budget itself.

TC,
R