[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Was this postman Canadian, by any chance? We are a very threatening population!

Canadian? Don't know. Not sure he was carrying any bacon. But he did smell like baconaise.

[besson3c]

Down with socialist public school!

[hyteckit]

Two things I order from Canada that gets delivered to my mailbox.

Cheap drugs and Canadian Bacon.

Not that they go together, but they could.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

Canadian? Don't know. Not sure he was carrying any bacon. But he did smell like baconaise.

Canadians don't actually *carry* bacon around with them, if we did we'd be mauled by polar bears. We just keep a secret stash under our igloos that the full grown bears can't get to, and we set traps for baby bears and leave our harpoons nearby.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

I'm glad you recognize you can't point to a specific grant of power from the Constitution that authorizes the federal government to do these things, and thus these proposals are unconstitutional as it stands without an amendment.

Does the Constitution prohibit the Congress from institutionalizing government health care? If it doesn't, then it's not unconstitutional.

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

If I go to ehealthinsurance.com I have one hundred different plans to choose from. Some are more popular than others. If the barriers preventing people from buying health insurance from insurers in other states were eliminated, I would have even more choice.

Hundreds of different plans from the same companies? Or from hundreds of different insurers? My zip code (95132) gives me 5 companies to choose from, 2 of which are for personal/family practitioners that don't do many any good if I end up in the hospital. It leaves me Kaiser, Blue Shield or Blue Cross, and Aetna. Aetna doesn't apply to me because I very rarely travel outside the country. So that leaves me with Kaiser and Blue Shield or Blue Cross.

The prices quoted are, of course, for people in perfect health. Despite being in reasonably good health, I am considered a high risk applicant because both my grandparents had cancer and my mom had cancer. I can not afford insurance unless it's through an employer. Individual plans for me start at $680/month.

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

You clearly don't know what you're talking about. By the way, I buy my own plan, my premium went down this year when I switched to a better plan, and I'm very happy with my plan, thank you very much.

Because your insurance situation works out great, other people who have issues don't know what they're talking about?

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

I've said that there needs to be reform in how insurers factor in risk, including preexisting conditions.

I would agree that the number one change needs to be risk factor assessment, but that requires regulation that the majority of Republicans wouldn't vote for. Conservatives don't want the government telling the insurance companies how to operate, but the insurance companies aren't going to operate in an ethical manner without involvement by the government.

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

But throwing out the whole system because some changes should be made is worse than moronic.

I don't think that offering an additional government choice is "throwing out the whole system." I've never had a job where I couldn't deny health coverage through my employer and chose an individual plan. But that's just me, I don't know how it works from company to company.

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Oh, and moderate Democrats are the ones chiefly talking about cooperatives.

Unless you can point out any liberal Republicans, Blue Dogs are essentially Republicans. They're conservative Democrats, aka Dixiecrats. Their position in the senate is to win votes as a Democrat, but push conservative ideals.

Regardless of party affiliation, coop doesn't work without regulation of the insurance industry.

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Republicans want more competition, tax breaks for people who purchase and control their own individual plans (just like people buy their own insurance in almost every other area, rather than letting their employers do it for them)

I am 100% in agreement with you, but my decision is based on the likelihood of any of that ever happening. Which is never.

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

pre-existing condition reform (which the insurers have already agreed to)

Why do insurers need reform if they're perfectly willing to do it? Short answer: they aren't. It's just a stunt for one side to make the other side look bad.

If insurers can make money hand over fist with zero obligation to the public (they are private corporations, they are not required to offer insurance to anyone), why would any of them want to impose new regulations that forces them to lose money?

The only reason is that losing a little money now is better than the alternative: competing with the government and being force to offer reasonable solutions. However, I can guarantee you that any such laws instituted will have loopholes allowing the insurers to get around any particular mandate, mitigating any real loss of revenue.

Then law after law will be passed back and forth offering no real solution, and we end up back where we started; which is exactly where the insurers want to be.

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

You're so doctrinaire in your support of Socialized medicine that you're blind to any possibility that flies in the face of your Socialized goal.

No.

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

More like a fleeting hope that I can get through to some utterly clueless leftist partisans.

That's what I said.

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

That's a falsehood that's been debunked recently.

By whom?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

Two things I order from Canada that gets delivered to my mailbox.

Cheap drugs and Canadian Bacon.

Not that they go together, but they could.

Ha! That reminds me of this loser that used to go to the same school as me. He didn't really have many friends, was a heavy drug user, and many of us thought that he actually had sex with his bacon. Actually, I have to say, although we generally don't like to talk about our younger exploits, if I had to choose between having sex with an apple pie or a package of Canadian bacon, I'd have to go with the bacon. Ever since the American Pie movie, I think pie is largely overrated.

You didn't hear it from me though.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Ha! That reminds me of this loser that used to go to the same school as me. He didn't really have many friends, was a heavy drug user, and many of us thought that he actually had sex with his bacon. Actually, I have to say, although we generally don't like to talk about our younger exploits, if I had to choose between having sex with an apple pie or a package of Canadian bacon, I'd have to go with the bacon. Ever since the American Pie movie, I think pie is largely overrated.

You didn't hear it from me though.

Well, pop some pills and enjoy your bacon.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Well guys, it's been fun, but I've since realized that I can't sustain the art of the bludgeon and having no intellectual interest in any opposing arguments, so I guess I'll watch the rest of this from the sidelines.

<insert something wrong with my posting or my being hypocritical here>

Have fun, and keep your pitchforks sharp!

Besson, you yourself have shown no intellectual interest in opposing arguments. Like when stupendousman points out that it will be a money sink operating at a huge loss, your only response is, "Oh, we don't want cheaper insurance!" Does that address what he was saying at all? No. If you want some honest intellectual debate, try engaging in a little yourself.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Can I send a regular letter through UPS overnight? - Yahoo! Answers

The answer to MY question is, "no." Your link did not provide what I requested

Unless I want to pay for overnight shipping and have them deliver it somewhere other than my mailbox, only the U.S. Postal Service can provide service to me.

You weren't really trying that hard, were you?

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

You can send a letter to someone's mail box via a UPS or FedEx mail box which are conveniently located right next to a USPS mailboxes. You can also have a P.O. Box installed by UPS or FedEx that will allow you to send letters from your home if you do heavy mailing.

I do not believe that UPS or FEDEX is allowed by law to deliver ANYTHING into your mailbox or an official USPS P.O. Box.

edit: Sorry for replying to stuff that has already been gone over. I was just replying as I read

...carry on.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

I do not believe that UPS or FEDEX is allowed by law to deliver ANYTHING into your mailbox or an official USPS P.O. Box.

edit: Sorry for replying to stuff that has already been gone over. I was just replying as I read

...carry on.

Can you post the law about FedEx and UPS not being allowed to deliver letters to your mailbox?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Besson, you yourself have shown no intellectual interest in opposing arguments. Like when stupendousman points out that it will be a money sink operating at a huge loss, your only response is, "Oh, we don't want cheaper insurance!" Does that address what he was saying at all? No. If you want some honest intellectual debate, try engaging in a little yourself.

Correction: I have shown no interest in opposing stupendousman arguments.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

You weren't really trying that hard, were you?

*ding* *ding*

How this alleged detail nullifies the point that was made is beyond me, but carry on.

[hyteckit]

National defense contracts should be opened up to foreign countries. Competition is good.

I bet the Chinese would be cheaper and do a better job than Blackwater.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

Can you post the law about FedEx and UPS not being allowed to deliver letters to your mailbox?

First off, FedEx and UPS do not pay USPS fees for delivering to homes.

===========================================
United States Code 1725 Postage unpaid on deposited mail matter

Whoever knowingly and willfully deposits any mailable matter such as statements of accounts, circulars, sale bills, or other like matter, on which no postage has been paid, in any letter box established, approved, or accepted by the Postal Service for the receipt or delivery of mail matter on any mail route with intent to avoid payment of lawful postage thereon, shall for each such offense be fined under this title.

AMENDMENTS
1994 - Pub. L. 103-322 substituted "fined under this title" for "fined not more than $300". 1970 - Pub. L. 91-375 substituted "Postal Service" for "Postmaster General".

EFFECTIVE DATE OF 1970 AMENDMENT
Amendment by Pub. L. 91-375 effective within 1 year after Aug. 12, 1970, on date established therefor by Board of Governors of United States Postal Service and published by it in Federal Register, see section 15(a) of Pub. L. 91-375, set out as an Effective Date note preceding section 101 of Title 39, Postal Service.


Also,

DMM 508
3.1.3 Use for Mail

Except under 3.2.11, Newspaper Receptacle, the receptacles described in 3.1.1 may be used only for matter bearing postage. Other than as permitted by 3.2.10, Delivery of Unstamped Newspapers, or 3.2.11, no part of a mail receptacle may be used to deliver any matter not bearing postage, including items or matter placed upon, supported by, attached to, hung from, or inserted into a mail receptacle. Any mailable matter not bearing postage and found as described above is subject to the same postage as would be paid if it were carried by mail.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

*ding* *ding*

How this alleged detail nullifies the point that was made is beyond me, but carry on.

Your point was nullified by my pointing out that the specific primary services the USPS offers can only be performed by the USPS by law. They have no competition for first class letters/packages delivered to your mailbox, and they are in the hole. They do not have to make a profit to stay in business, and the government gives them a monopoly. It's a very good example of why a single payer health care system is a bad idea. The government has a TERRIBLE track record in regards to efficiently running much of anything.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Your point was nullified by my pointing out that the specific primary services the USPS offers can only be performed by the USPS by law. They have no competition for first class letters/packages delivered to your mailbox, and they are in the hole. They do not have to make a profit to stay in business, and the government gives them a monopoly. It's a very good example of why a single payer health care system is a bad idea. The government has a TERRIBLE track record in regards to efficiently running much of anything.

Well, the good news is that if they are so bad at stuff, they'll be no threat to private insurance companies!

Since the missed the main point, while FedEx and UPS offer some services that the post office doesn't, they also compete against other with some services and have fared fine for years. Point being, government and private business can co-exist, and if you don't like this example there are many others you can choose from.

[olePigeon]

Mail that is in transit via the USPS is Federal property. No one may touch it except a Federal Post Office employee. The law is there to prevent tampering.

That is beside the point. FedEx and UPS hand deliver their packages and mail to your door. You can make special arrangements with UPS or FedEx for free to have them deliver your mail or packages to almost any reasonable location on your property. If it makes you feel better, you could put a box out there, paint it blue, and have UPS and FedEx drop their mail off in there.

Come to think of it, I don't understand your argument, stupendousman. If you pay UPS or FedEx to deliver a letter, they'll deliver it to the person's door. Am I missing something?

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

First off, FedEx and UPS do not pay USPS fees for delivering to homes.

===========================================
United States Code 1725 Postage unpaid on deposited mail matter

Whoever knowingly and willfully deposits any mailable matter such as statements of accounts, circulars, sale bills, or other like matter, on which no postage has been paid, in any letter box established, approved, or accepted by the Postal Service for the receipt or delivery of mail matter on any mail route with intent to avoid payment of lawful postage thereon, shall for each such offense be fined under this title.

AMENDMENTS
1994 - Pub. L. 103-322 substituted "fined under this title" for "fined not more than $300". 1970 - Pub. L. 91-375 substituted "Postal Service" for "Postmaster General".

EFFECTIVE DATE OF 1970 AMENDMENT
Amendment by Pub. L. 91-375 effective within 1 year after Aug. 12, 1970, on date established therefor by Board of Governors of United States Postal Service and published by it in Federal Register, see section 15(a) of Pub. L. 91-375, set out as an Effective Date note preceding section 101 of Title 39, Postal Service.


Also,

DMM 508
3.1.3 Use for Mail

Except under 3.2.11, Newspaper Receptacle, the receptacles described in 3.1.1 may be used only for matter bearing postage. Other than as permitted by 3.2.10, Delivery of Unstamped Newspapers, or 3.2.11, no part of a mail receptacle may be used to deliver any matter not bearing postage, including items or matter placed upon, supported by, attached to, hung from, or inserted into a mail receptacle. Any mailable matter not bearing postage and found as described above is subject to the same postage as would be paid if it were carried by mail.

Joe Wilson says "You Lie".

There's no safeguard or enforcement.

I've putting many things in the mail receptacle.


I don't think they are talking about your mailbox here. They are talking about the USPS mailbox where to mail your letters. Those need to have a stamp and only for USPS. Saves you the trip to the US. post office.

[smacintush]

So, exactly which restrictions, reforms and regulations have been passed to "fix" the package delivery industry?

This UPS/FED EX/USPS debate is a smokescreen and you guys are falling for it. The situation with these companies is not analogous to the health care debate simply because it is private vs. government.

It's also silly to use this analogy when we have government run health care NOW that we can look at.

How does the private insurance industry fare against medicare among those of qualifying age? How well does medicare perform compared to private insurance? How about the VA? These are the questions that we should be looking at, not the ****ing USPS.

[msuper69]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

Joe Wilson says "You Lie".

There's no safeguard or enforcement.

I've putting many things in the mail receptacle.


I don't think they are talking about your mailbox here. They are talking about the USPS mailbox where to mail your letters. Those need to have a stamp and only for USPS. Saves you the trip to the US. post office.

They are talking about your mailbox. Notice the exception for newspaper delivery.
Just because you haven't been caught using someone's mailbox for other than US Mail doesn't mean there is no enforcement. It's not a high priority but I bet if you put something in person's mailbox while the mail carrier was there (or the person who owns the mailbox), you'd be singing a different tune.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by msuper69 

They are talking about your mailbox. Notice the exception for newspaper delivery.
Just because you haven't been caught using someone's mailbox for other than US Mail doesn't mean there is no enforcement. It's not a high priority but I bet if you put something in person's mailbox while the mail carrier was there (or the person who owns the mailbox), you'd be singing a different tune.

That's silly. Some homes don't even have a mailbox. I ripped my mailbox off and just installed a mail slot on my door.

The law is talking about the mail receptacle that USPS have on many corners that has the USPS logo on it and it's only for USPS mail.

[msuper69]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

That's silly. Some homes don't even have a mailbox. I ripped my mailbox off and just installed a mail slot on my door.

The law is talking about the mail receptacle that USPS have on many corners that has the USPS logo on it and it's only for USPS mail.

No. It refers to residential mailboxes.

"The United States Postal Service has specific requirements for all residential curbside mail boxes. The USPS Domestic Mail Manual sets forth regulations and rules concerning residential curbside mailboxes. The manual describes the standards for letterboxes and other mail receptacles for the deposit or receipt of mail.

Residential Mailboxes
A residential mailbox is any curbside or wall-mounted receptacle which is used for the purpose of receiving material in which postage is paid.

Who Can Use A Mailbox
Only authorized letter carriers may place mail or packages into the mail receptacle. No part of the mail receptacle may be used to deliver anything that does not contain postage. This includes items attached to the box, hung from the box or inserted into the mail box. Any mailable material not displaying postage and found in the mailbox is subject to the same amount of postage as if it were carried by a mail carrier.

Exclusions from USPS Rules
Door slots and other non-lockable bins used with apartment mailboxes are subject to the same regulations as a curbside mailbox. Just keep in mind that a mail slot should be large enough to accommodate the type of mail the homeowner receives. If the mail slot is not large enough, then the mail carrier will cease delivering mail to the residence."

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

How does the private insurance industry fare against medicare among those of qualifying age? How well does medicare perform compared to private insurance? How about the VA? These are the questions that we should be looking at, not the ****ing USPS.

Excellent post.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by msuper69 

No. It refers to residential mailboxes.

"The United States Postal Service has specific requirements for all residential curbside mail boxes. The USPS Domestic Mail Manual sets forth regulations and rules concerning residential curbside mailboxes. The manual describes the standards for letterboxes and other mail receptacles for the deposit or receipt of mail.

Residential Mailboxes
A residential mailbox is any curbside or wall-mounted receptacle which is used for the purpose of receiving material in which postage is paid.

Who Can Use A Mailbox
Only authorized letter carriers may place mail or packages into the mail receptacle. No part of the mail receptacle may be used to deliver anything that does not contain postage. This includes items attached to the box, hung from the box or inserted into the mail box. Any mailable material not displaying postage and found in the mailbox is subject to the same amount of postage as if it were carried by a mail carrier.

Exclusions from USPS Rules
Door slots and other non-lockable bins used with apartment mailboxes are subject to the same regulations as a curbside mailbox. Just keep in mind that a mail slot should be large enough to accommodate the type of mail the homeowner receives. If the mail slot is not large enough, then the mail carrier will cease delivering mail to the residence."

Well, that's silly.

Glad I ripped off my mailbox and installed a mail slot then.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

Mail that is in transit via the USPS is Federal property. No one may touch it except a Federal Post Office employee. The law is there to prevent tampering.

That is beside the point. FedEx and UPS hand deliver their packages and mail to your door.

...which you'll pay a premium for. You can't pay FedEx or UPS fourty-some cents to send a letter first class into your mailbox. That's a service only the USPS has and can offer.

Come to think of it, I don't understand your argument, stupendousman. If you pay UPS or FedEx to deliver a letter, they'll deliver it to the person's door. Am I missing something?

Only the fact that the service the USPS offers is only available by the USPS by law, and not UPS or FedEx. This service that only the USPS offers is used by most businesses and individuals in the United States to send letters when they do not have to be there overnight or at a guaranteed time. They have no competition for this specific service.

If it's no big deal, then they should just remove the law I quoted above.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Well, the good news is that if they are so bad at stuff, they'll be no threat to private insurance companies!

Already rebutted above. You are arguing in circles.

Since the missed the main point, while FedEx and UPS offer some services that the post office doesn't, they also compete against other with some services and have fared fine for years.

They do not compete in regards to the primary service the USPS offers. That's something only the USPS can legally provide, and a service that UPS and FedEx would not want to compete with anyways since it's a losing proposition these days. The USPS doesn't have to make a profit, so they are able to compete unfairly for the business in question.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

How does the private insurance industry fare against medicare among those of qualifying age? How well does medicare perform compared to private insurance? How about the VA? These are the questions that we should be looking at, not the ****ing USPS.

Jackpot!

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

Well, that's silly.

Glad I ripped off my mailbox and installed a mail slot then.

That's allowed on some residential routes. Most REQUIRE a free-standing mail box.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Well, the good news is that if they are so bad at stuff, they'll be no threat to private insurance companies!

The good news is that Microsoft is so bad at making stuff, they'll be no threat to independent browser companies like Netscape.

[ebuddy]

Can we just not talk about health care in the health care thread? You see, there's simply too many well-informed people opposed to health care and it's hard to have a fair debate with them.

You see, those supporting HR3200 (+) are much more interested in; Fed Ex, USPS, UPS, religion, animals, gay animals, sex with gay animals, Joe Wilson, national defense contracts, socialist public schools, bacon, canadian bacon, sex with bacon, what Republicans will and will not do (as if Dems have done any different), Dixiecrats, The Expos, and The Blue Jays.

Did I leave anything out? Of course not, stick one of your sharpened pitch forks in this thread, it's as dead as HR3200 (+).

[vmarks]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

Does the Constitution prohibit the Congress from institutionalizing government health care? If it doesn't, then it's not unconstitutional.

Actually, it does.

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
-- tenth amendment, US Constitution.

That is, the power to govern health care is not assigned to the Federal government, so that power resides with the States. Period.

Want to change it? Get an amendment to delegate that specific power to the Federal Government. That's the only way it can become legal.

[vmarks]

Health care isn't even what the debate is really about. It's about health insurance.

Why is it that we use insurance to pay for every small treatment we ever get, the same way we would use auto insurance to repair or replace a vehicle after a major car wreck?

I don't use my car insurance when I fill up for gas or perform an oil change.

I don't use my home owner's insurance when I cut the grass or paint the outside.

Until the nature of the system that encourages use for everything changes, costs will remain inflated. And that's really what this issue is about in part - costs.

None of the proposed reforms address the observable problem I've highlighted here. They all seem to presume that it's a system that can be patched, rather than address core inadequacies.

[vmarks]

Also:

Currently, I'm not the customer for my health insurance. I have been in the past - I bought my own insurance from BlueCross for about six years. Premiums rose steadily from $250 to $1000 over that period. When I called to cancel, they asked if I'd like to get the premiums lowered.

The conversation was almost identical to ones I've had with the Cell Phone companies when I've switched from one to another.

For many of us, employers are the customer of health insurance. Employers are the ones bargaining for the plans available to us readily, and that it is the employer to whom the insurance company will bother to respond. Losing many bundled accounts is more meaningful than losing one tiny account.

Nothing about a government option makes me think this lack of responsibility to an individual will get any better - nothing gives me cause to believe that a government employee will care one whit about an individual's account. This appears to be borne out in the medicare denials cited in the beginning of the thread.

[CreepDogg]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

...which you'll pay a premium for. You can't pay FedEx or UPS fourty-some cents to send a letter first class into your mailbox. That's a service only the USPS has and can offer.

Only the fact that the service the USPS offers is only available by the USPS by law, and not UPS or FedEx. This service that only the USPS offers is used by most businesses and individuals in the United States to send letters when they do not have to be there overnight or at a guaranteed time. They have no competition for this specific service.

If it's no big deal, then they should just remove the law I quoted above.

If FedEx and UPS wanted to get into the business of delivering non-critical letters for 40-something cents, you bet your ass they would if they could profit from it. The fact is, it's not a profitable service, so the fact that the USPS loses money doing it shouldn't be a surprise.

I think FedEx and UPS could find a functionally equivalent way to deliver without using US Mail boxes (as they do with packages), so that argument is a non-starter.

It's a service that the public wants and the USPS delivers. If you don't like having some of your tax dollars directed to this service to cover its unprofitable nature, feel free to lobby to abolish it.

Providing health insurance to people who are high-risk and/or can't afford it is similar in that it's an unprofitable venture that the private market obviously doesn't want to touch. So the question really is whether you think it's something we want to make a public service or not. If you do, great! If you don't, great! That doesn't mean someone on the other side from you has a less valid position.

Asking the private market to handle things that are inherently unprofitable will always result in EPIC FAIL. Just as many people think asking the government to do anything will always result in EPIC FAIL. So there's no easy answer here - if there was, we'd have already figured it out.

[CreepDogg]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

How does the private insurance industry fare against medicare among those of qualifying age? How well does medicare perform compared to private insurance? How about the VA? These are the questions that we should be looking at, not the ****ing USPS.

Great questions with no answers. It would be great to get data with an apples-apples comparison of performance here. Unfortunately, they serve different markets. Medicare and VA serve high-risk populations (those over 65 and veterans), and cover ANYONE who participated in the system. The private market cherry-picks their risk pool (by screening out anyone deemed high-risk) and cover the broader (both low- and high-risk) population.

Each of them has a pool of money to spread around, so given the different inputs, it shouldn't be surprising to see different behaviors.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by vmarks 

Health care isn't even what the debate is really about. It's about health insurance.

Why is it that we use insurance to pay for every small treatment we ever get, the same way we would use auto insurance to repair or replace a vehicle after a major car wreck?

I don't use my car insurance when I fill up for gas or perform an oil change.

I don't use my home owner's insurance when I cut the grass or paint the outside.

Until the nature of the system that encourages use for everything changes, costs will remain inflated. And that's really what this issue is about in part - costs.

None of the proposed reforms address the observable problem I've highlighted here. They all seem to presume that it's a system that can be patched, rather than address core inadequacies.

Agree 100%. A lot of people have an odd way of viewing health care, like they should never have to pay for anything, which isn't how they look at any other service. I think the insurance industry must be encouraging this viewpoint. I like the idea of high-deductible, low-premium accounts. Then you can pay the difference into a health savings account and actually come out ahead financially.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

I'm already in a single payer system. My choice is Kaiser. That's it. I don't have any other options. If I move to a different city, my single option might change to Blue Cross, but then I lose the option of choosing Kaiser. I never get to choose between the two because Kaiser and Blue Cross made agreements to only cover specific areas, and neither company will provide coverage in each others "territory."

So if I'm guaranteed to always have the option of choosing a Federal health insurance in addition to being able to choose either Kaiser or Blue Cross (depending on where I live), that now increases my choice to two providers.

Last time I checked, two is more than one.

So you're forced to live wherever to have those options? You'd prefer to be billed for both and only use one?


In our current system, you choose where to live and thereby choose which provider you have. You do make a choice.

In the conservative proposed system, competition between states would be opened up, and you would have an option without paying for one broken and another mediocre system. The state by state monopoly system would be pushed aside for greater competition between the companies.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Can we just not talk about health care in the health care thread? You see, there's simply too many well-informed people opposed to health care and it's hard to have a fair debate with them.

You see, those supporting HR3200 (+) are much more interested in; Fed Ex, USPS, UPS, religion, animals, gay animals, sex with gay animals, Joe Wilson, national defense contracts, socialist public schools, bacon, canadian bacon, sex with bacon, what Republicans will and will not do (as if Dems have done any different), Dixiecrats, The Expos, and The Blue Jays.

Did I leave anything out? Of course not, stick one of your sharpened pitch forks in this thread, it's as dead as HR3200 (+).

Yes, you left one thing out. Racists.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

...which you'll pay a premium for. You can't pay FedEx or UPS fourty-some cents to send a letter first class into your mailbox. That's a service only the USPS has and can offer.

Western Union did, and they are one of the most successful companies. They competed directly against the USPS and they thrived.

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Only the fact that the service the USPS offers is only available by the USPS by law, and not UPS or FedEx.

The law you quoted does not prevent UPS or FedEx from delivering a letter for 40 cents.

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

This service that only the USPS offers is used by most businesses and individuals in the United States to send letters when they do not have to be there overnight or at a guaranteed time. They have no competition for this specific service.

Because they make more money delivering packages, not letters.

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

If it's no big deal, then they should just remove the law I quoted above.

The law doesn't prevent them from delivering a letter for 40 cents. It prevents them from tampering with Federal property. UPS and FedEx are perfectly capable (as are you) to put up a UPS or FedEx mail box. Both companies will also rent a P.O. Box to you, managed by them. In many cases, the FedEx and UPS P.O. Boxes are better because they have an actual address and not a P.O. Box number.

Go outside and put a mailbox up that says FedEx or UPS on it. Call FedEx and UPS and let them know there's a specially marked box just for them, they will use it.

News Papers are not allowed to be delivered to your mail box, but your news paper carrier may do it anyway, or, your paper was delivered via the Post Office. You can buy a news paper mail box from most news papers.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by vmarks 

Health care isn't even what the debate is really about. It's about health insurance.

Why is it that we use insurance to pay for every small treatment we ever get, the same way we would use auto insurance to repair or replace a vehicle after a major car wreck?

I don't use my car insurance when I fill up for gas or perform an oil change.

I don't use my home owner's insurance when I cut the grass or paint the outside.

Until the nature of the system that encourages use for everything changes, costs will remain inflated. And that's really what this issue is about in part - costs.

None of the proposed reforms address the observable problem I've highlighted here. They all seem to presume that it's a system that can be patched, rather than address core inadequacies.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

Western Union did, and they are one of the most successful companies. They competed directly against the USPS and they thrived.

They delivered letters into mailboxes without paying the USPS postage?

The law you quoted does not prevent UPS or FedEx from delivering a letter for 40 cents.

The way the USPS does it is prevented by law.

Because they make more money delivering packages, not letters.

Right. Take away the USPS, the laws prohibiting mailbox delivery and it's funding by taxes, and FedEx and UPS could compete for the letter business as well. Of course, it would cost more for postage, but right now it's artificially low due to government subsidy. UPS and FedEx CAN NOT compete with the USPS in regards to it's primary service because of this.

The law doesn't prevent them from delivering a letter for 40 cents. It prevents them from tampering with Federal property. UPS and FedEx are perfectly capable (as are you) to put up a UPS or FedEx mail box.

Not on personal property. There are laws in place that require homes to have a specific USPS designated mail boxes or slots. There is no law requiring that for UPS or FedEx and it would probably be impossible for them to get these into/onto homes simply due to consumer demand. The USPS is at a distinct advantage regarding letters both due to law, and government subsidy.

Go outside and put a mailbox up that says FedEx or UPS on it. Call FedEx and UPS and let them know there's a specially marked box just for them, they will use it.

True. The fact remains that the USPS already HAS THIS, required by law. They don't have to ask citizens to put up another ugly box (THAT THEY WOULD PROBABLY HAVE TO PAY FOR) and aren't going to try. They have to make door to door deliveries unless they are getting packages from one of their public-use boxes they they put up without having to get residential permission.

News Papers are not allowed to be delivered to your mail box, but your news paper carrier may do it anyway, or, your paper was delivered via the Post Office. You can buy a news paper mail box from most news papers.

I used to deliver newspapers as a boy. We were told NOT to put papers in mailboxes. If a customer wanted it delivered in a box, we'd go out and put a newspaper box up BY REQUEST. We had to make an extra effort that the USPS does not. The newspaper pays for those boxes. The USPS does not pay for a residential mailbox or for the installation of a mail slot. Those boxes are not free and do eat into profit. Anyway you look at it, UPS and FedEx cannot compete with the USPS in regards to it's primary service any more than an insurance company would be able to compete with the government if the goverment decided to provide general healthcare insurance.

[CreepDogg]

Originally Posted by vmarks 

Health care isn't even what the debate is really about. It's about health insurance.

Why is it that we use insurance to pay for every small treatment we ever get, the same way we would use auto insurance to repair or replace a vehicle after a major car wreck?

I don't use my car insurance when I fill up for gas or perform an oil change.

I don't use my home owner's insurance when I cut the grass or paint the outside.

Until the nature of the system that encourages use for everything changes, costs will remain inflated. And that's really what this issue is about in part - costs.

None of the proposed reforms address the observable problem I've highlighted here. They all seem to presume that it's a system that can be patched, rather than address core inadequacies.

While I don't disagree with this, what's ironic is that health insurance companies themselves choose to cover preventive care, often at even higher levels than their regular care - because they think providing the incentive to get preventive care reduces cumulative risk and helps their bottom line.

I've chosen a HDHP (which should be at least some evidence that I don't disagree with this), and even it fully covers things like physicals, mammograms, immunizations, etc. (pre-deductible). Health insurance companies recognize that if preventive care were left to the free market, it would invoke supply/demand, meaning some people would choose not to use those services, meaning problems would be caught later when treatment is more expensive. They're not stupid - they're managing risk, which is what any competitive insurance company should be good at.

Of course, that means that the cost of the preventive care coverage is reflected in premiums. Point is, insurance companies think costs would be even higher without it.

As to the car and home insurance examples - you don't insure your car against running out of gas or oil - you insure it for accidents. You don't insure your home against long grass or peeling paint - you insure against damage by fire or other disasters.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by vmarks 

Actually, it does.

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
-- tenth amendment, US Constitution.

That is, the power to govern health care is not assigned to the Federal government, so that power resides with the States. Period.

Hey, not gonna argue that one. So what is the Obama administration doing to get the bill passed? Does it include an amendment?

Or does "the people" also refer to senators elected to represent the people.

[Chuckit]

No, "the people" doesn't refer to the Senate. "The United States" refers to the Senate.

[hyteckit]

Had to ship a 3lb package to Hawaii.

USPS - $9.85 flat rate
UPS/FedEx - Around $24 (damn!)

[Chuckit]

Have you calculated the companies' actual respective costs?

[shifuimam]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

Public schools have put private schools out of business.

Oh wait. Nevermind.

But public schools are unfairly subsidized compared to private schools. Which means that when I was in seventh grade at my private school, our geography book still had east and west Germany, Czechoslovakia, and Yugoslavia. We had to freaking DRAW the new lines for the new countries in the book, because the school couldn't afford updated textbooks. We also always got the cast-off used buses from the public school systems in the city, which meant that we frequently had mechanical issues with our buses (which resulted in unsafe situations like having to pull into a parking lot or onto a shoulder so that kids could get onto a different bus while the original one was towed away). We had far less healthy food in the cafeteria, because the school couldn't afford to outfit a real kitchen where the lunch ladies could prepare real food. Until 2000, the school band had to practice in a shitty trailer behind the library. The elementary school didn't get air conditioning until after I graduated, which meant that they had to cancel K-5 classes on days when it was dangerously hot outside.

Do you get the picture?

Originally Posted by msuper69 

Try getting non-group health insurance if you have a pre-existing condition (like Diabetes Mellitus).

Ain't gonna happen.

Really? I suffer from asthma, severe allergies (mold, pollen, animals, etc.), and severe depression that has me reliant on a medication that costs $160 a month.

Yet I was able to get private insurance through a private insurer as soon as I quit my job and moved to Virginia. My coverage is better than when I worked at a Fortune 500 corporation (with this private company I have a $1500 deductible and a $5000 out-of-pocket maximum, with only a 25% copay after I reach my deductible). It's costing me about $72 a month. I have an extra $1500 deductible for allergy and asthma-related claims, which is understandable since they're considered pre-existing conditions - and it's not a terrible amount of money, especially since I've never been hospitalized or anything for either of those conditions.

My own experience makes it a little difficult for me to believe that getting basic health insurance is as difficult as the left makes it out to be...

[msuper69]

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

...
Really? I suffer from asthma, severe allergies (mold, pollen, animals, etc.), and severe depression that has me reliant on a medication that costs $160 a month.

Yet I was able to get private insurance through a private insurer as soon as I quit my job and moved to Virginia. My coverage is better than when I worked at a Fortune 500 corporation (with this private company I have a $1500 deductible and a $5000 out-of-pocket maximum, with only a 25% copay after I reach my deductible). It's costing me about $72 a month. I have an extra $1500 deductible for allergy and asthma-related claims, which is understandable since they're considered pre-existing conditions - and it's not a terrible amount of money, especially since I've never been hospitalized or anything for either of those conditions.

My own experience makes it a little difficult for me to believe that getting basic health insurance is as difficult as the left makes it out to be...

Let me know the insurance company that will provide non-group health insurance for an insulin-dependent diabetic. Believe me I've tried and can't find one that will issue a policy at ANY price.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

No, "the people" doesn't refer to the Senate. "The United States" refers to the Senate.

Amazing to see this has to be pointed out. It does make one wish they taught even the most basic civics anymore.

"Can't I pleaaase just twist it so my precious government has all the power they want?"

I just don't understand when this level of government sycophancy became so commonplace.