Obama undermining his own health care reform...

[UNI88]

no - that's nonsense. the government doesn't exist to make a damned profit. that's not the point. it steps in when there is a public need to be served, and the private sector can't or won't. and in the case of health care, and the mail... that's the case.

the misnomer is that the USPS job is to compete with ups and fedex... and it isn't. same with a public option health plan... the job won't be to compete with private insurance, it will be to do the job private industry won't do and cover the Americans they won't cover. this is not designed to be profitable, but rather to achieve a public good.

THAT'S nonsense. Why can't the government turn a profit? Why can UPS do (WITH A PROFIT) what the USPS couldn't? It's because of the BLOAT, TT. Plain and simple. The bureacuracy. The red tape. The government overregulation. With government healthcare, we'll end up with another bloated government department doing for $100 billion what could have been done for $50 billion. THAT is not my idea of "public good".

While bureaucracy might be a factor I believe the USPS is one of the least bloated public agencies (which might not be saying much). If the USPS were required to break even or make a profit they would need to stop delivering mail to rural areas. You might disagree but what TTBF is saying is that it is in the public's interest for the mail to be delivered to those areas and the government is the only body willing to take on that responsibility.

[TwinTownBisonFan]

no, you ignoramus.. because it's doing a job that private companies won't do because they are amoral, and driven only by their own profit motive. the government steps in and provides the public with a service that the private sector WON'T DO. it does this because there is a tangible benefit to doing something the right way, serving the whole public, not just the segments that are profitable. this is why things like usps don't turn a profit, because they can't by design. and if they could, private industry would be doing it... but it turns out the providing the daily mail to every address in America isn't something UPS or FedEx is interested in doing.

There's no need for name-calling. You're missing my point. Answer me this one simple question: Why can't the USPS perform the segments that are profitable? Why is it apparently IMPOSSIBLE for the U.S. Government to do something using a similar business model to private enterprise and actually COMPETE for the profitable segments of the business? Why must they be left with the scraps and lose $2-$3 BILLION a year? Why can't they do some of the profitable pieces and offset some/all of that loss?

it's not that it can't, it's that it's not it's job to do so. i think the biggest mistake we've made with USPS is trying to make it compete with UPS and FedEx for those segments of the market under the misguided notion that "governments like a business"

it's not impossible, it's just superfluous. you're approaching this from the standpoint that government and the private sector are in the same business, they aren't. their goal is not to compete with the private sector, their job is to fill the void in the market that private enterprise won't serve.

[TwinTownBisonFan]

THAT'S nonsense. Why can't the government turn a profit? Why can UPS do (WITH A PROFIT) what the USPS couldn't? It's because of the BLOAT, TT. Plain and simple. The bureacuracy. The red tape. The government overregulation. With government healthcare, we'll end up with another bloated government department doing for $100 billion what could have been done for $50 billion. THAT is not my idea of "public good".

While bureaucracy might be a factor I believe the USPS is one of the least bloated public agencies (which might not be saying much). If the USPS were required to break even or make a profit they would need to stop delivering mail to rural areas. You might disagree but what TTBF is saying is that it is in the public's interest for the mail to be delivered to those areas and the government is the only body willing to take on that responsibility.

Yes. Exactly.

[ASUMountaineer]

the logical fallacy that you are falling in to is the notion that USPS is supposed to make money - it isn't. the mistake, is the expectation that somehow usps will draw a profit.

usps is a surprisingly successful venture - contrary to conk protestations. usps and fedex/ups serve two VERY different sets of needs. the private sector, doing what is profitable, has essentially taken the profitable portions of usps business, and left the rest to the postal service.

the postal service has a set of defined goals that include providing mail service to every address in the entire country - something that, quite frankly cannot be profitable, but has a public benefit (i think you could argue that that benefit has been on the decline as electronic communications have emerged and prospered, but thats another issue). however, for 234 years, it has provided immense benefits to both commercial and private needs. providing service to places no private courier would because it wasn't profitable - however, like health care, there is a DISCERNIBLE PUBLIC GOOD that can be derived from the government stepping in and providing a level of service that the private sector refuses to provide. No, it won't be profitable, but that's why the private sector, motivated by profit, and nothing else, hasn't done it.

The fallacy is, that this was about the USPS as a whole and not the public option. It was about Obama stating that private industry will not suffer against a public option, but that it's the public option that will suffer (his words). I understand that's not what he was trying to say, but it is what he said.

No, you totally dismissed Obama's point. I never mentioned profit or defined the success or role of the USPS. Obama is the one that said the USPS is the one that always has problems. You did not mention, in this whole rebuttal, anything pertaining to health care reform or the public option--which is what the president was discussing. You've defended the USPS not making a profit, which was an example for Obama. This is ultimately about his public option proposal.

[AZGrizFan]

There's no need for name-calling. You're missing my point. Answer me this one simple question: Why can't the USPS perform the segments that are profitable? Why is it apparently IMPOSSIBLE for the U.S. Government to do something using a similar business model to private enterprise and actually COMPETE for the profitable segments of the business? Why must they be left with the scraps and lose $2-$3 BILLION a year? Why can't they do some of the profitable pieces and offset some/all of that loss?

it's not that it can't, it's that it's not it's job to do so. i think the biggest mistake we've made with USPS is trying to make it compete with UPS and FedEx for those segments of the market under the misguided notion that "governments like a business"

it's not impossible, it's just superfluous. you're approaching this from the standpoint that government and the private sector are in the same business, they aren't. their goal is not to compete with the private sector, their job is to fill the void in the market that private enterprise won't serve.

Can you honestly say that THAT is what Obama is trying to accomplish with the health care plan?

And wny CAN'T they be in the same business...particularly the parts that actually MAKE money? You still haven't answered that question....why would they willingly give up the only segments that MAKE money? That's a hell of a business model, if you ask me.

[AZGrizFan]

THAT'S nonsense. Why can't the government turn a profit? Why can UPS do (WITH A PROFIT) what the USPS couldn't? It's because of the BLOAT, TT. Plain and simple. The bureacuracy. The red tape. The government overregulation. With government healthcare, we'll end up with another bloated government department doing for $100 billion what could have been done for $50 billion. THAT is not my idea of "public good".

While bureaucracy might be a factor I believe the USPS is one of the least bloated public agencies (which might not be saying much). If the USPS were required to break even or make a profit they would need to stop delivering mail to rural areas. You might disagree but what TTBF is saying is that it is in the public's interest for the mail to be delivered to those areas and the government is the only body willing to take on that responsibility.

88, I'm not asking them to break even, or make a profit. I just haven't gotten a logical answer as to WHY they can't seem to compete in the areas that are profitable. The only logical, reasonable explanation is because of the way they are STRUCTURED. If we are all going to roll over and say we don't CARE how much money government agencies lose, we may as well just sign over our entire paychecks and let the omnipotent government decide how much to give BACK.

And saying the USPS is one of the least bloated public agencies is like saying you're a "little bit pregnant".

[Appaholic]

it's not that it can't, it's that it's not it's job to do so. i think the biggest mistake we've made with USPS is trying to make it compete with UPS and FedEx for those segments of the market under the misguided notion that "governments like a business"

it's not impossible, it's just superfluous. you're approaching this from the standpoint that government and the private sector are in the same business, they aren't. their goal is not to compete with the private sector, their job is to fill the void in the market that private enterprise won't serve.

Can you honestly say that THAT is what Obama is trying to accomplish with the health care plan?

And wny CAN'T they be in the same business...particularly the parts that actually MAKE money? You still haven't answered that question....why would they willingly give up the only segments that MAKE money? That's a hell of a business model, if you ask me.

Why should they be in a business to make money? If a profit can be made, government should step aside and allow private industry take that over...which they've done in other industries through de-regulation. Hate to say it (as it goes against my liberterian leanings), but TTBF is correct on this issue. If a profit could be made while providing a needed servoice, the government shouldn't be involved...problem with HC is that a large population segment isn't being serviced (much like a rural address isn't serviced by UPS or FedEx) in a cost-effective or affordable manner, but that service is still needed....I don't know, I'm having some inner turmoil.....

[Appaholic]

While bureaucracy might be a factor I believe the USPS is one of the least bloated public agencies (which might not be saying much). If the USPS were required to break even or make a profit they would need to stop delivering mail to rural areas. You might disagree but what TTBF is saying is that it is in the public's interest for the mail to be delivered to those areas and the government is the only body willing to take on that responsibility.

88, I'm not asking them to break even, or make a profit. I just haven't gotten a logical answer as to WHY they can't seem to compete in the areas that are profitable. The only logical, reasonable explanation is because of the way they are STRUCTURED. If we are all going to roll over and say we don't CARE how much money government agencies lose, we may as well just sign over our entire paychecks and let the omnipotent government decide how much to give BACK.

And saying the USPS is one of the least bloated public agencies is like saying you're a "little bit pregnant".

This I agree with....problem is, the USPS structure wasn't designed to make a profit, but to provide a service not being offered by the private sector. If it was a desirable business, the private sector would have and should have stepped in and provided service. If the private sector is willing and able toprovide same level of service in a cost effectrive manner, then it should....I don't see FedEx and UPS stepping up to service Podunk, ID on a regular basis....

[TwinTownBisonFan]

it's not that it can't, it's that it's not it's job to do so. i think the biggest mistake we've made with USPS is trying to make it compete with UPS and FedEx for those segments of the market under the misguided notion that "governments like a business"

it's not impossible, it's just superfluous. you're approaching this from the standpoint that government and the private sector are in the same business, they aren't. their goal is not to compete with the private sector, their job is to fill the void in the market that private enterprise won't serve.

Can you honestly say that THAT is what Obama is trying to accomplish with the health care plan?

And wny CAN'T they be in the same business...particularly the parts that actually MAKE money? You still haven't answered that question....why would they willingly give up the only segments that MAKE money? That's a hell of a business model, if you ask me.

z - you've made the same mistake again... it's not a business model, because it's not a business... you leave the shit that is profitable to the private sector to handle for the most part. however, there are times where the business community can't make a profit - but the outcome of doing that thing is desirable, so... you do it.

[Wedgebuster]

88, I'm not asking them to break even, or make a profit. I just haven't gotten a logical answer as to WHY they can't seem to compete in the areas that are profitable. The only logical, reasonable explanation is because of the way they are STRUCTURED. If we are all going to roll over and say we don't CARE how much money government agencies lose, we may as well just sign over our entire paychecks and let the omnipotent government decide how much to give BACK.

And saying the USPS is one of the least bloated public agencies is like saying you're a "little bit pregnant".

This I agree with....problem is, the USPS isn't designed to make a profit, but to provide a service not being offered by the private sector. If the private sector is willing and able toprovide same level of service in a cost effectrive manner, then it should....I don't see FedEx and UPS stepping up to service Podunk, ID on a regular basis....

Boy does the PO suck, and big time. But just like you say, where I live there would be no letter service. Besides, has anybody outside of the Nazi SS ever done such a successful job of recruiting the whackiest nut balls available to be come a part of their team than has the USPS?

[AZGrizFan]

Can you honestly say that THAT is what Obama is trying to accomplish with the health care plan?

And wny CAN'T they be in the same business...particularly the parts that actually MAKE money? You still haven't answered that question....why would they willingly give up the only segments that MAKE money? That's a hell of a business model, if you ask me.

z - you've made the same mistake again... it's not a business model, because it's not a business... you leave the shit that is profitable to the private sector to handle for the most part. however, there are times where the business community can't make a profit - but the outcome of doing that thing is desirable, so... you do it.

And YOU'VE made the same mistake again. Simply because the private sector CAN do it, doesn't mean the USPS should give it up, if it can offset some of the losses from delivering mail daily to Podunk, USA.

WHY MUST THE SHIT THAT'S PROFITABLE BE LEFT TO THE PRIVATE SECTOR??? No one has answered that question....

[Appaholic]

Besides, has anybody outside of the Nazi SS ever done such a successful job of recruiting the whackiest nut balls available to be come a part of their team than has the USPS?

Well...lately....the Republican party.....just sayin'....

[TwinTownBisonFan]

z - you've made the same mistake again... it's not a business model, because it's not a business... you leave the shit that is profitable to the private sector to handle for the most part. however, there are times where the business community can't make a profit - but the outcome of doing that thing is desirable, so... you do it.

And YOU'VE made the same mistake again. Simply because the private sector CAN do it, doesn't mean the USPS should give it up, if it can offset some of the losses from delivering mail daily to Podunk, USA.

WHY MUST THE SHIT THAT'S PROFITABLE BE LEFT TO THE PRIVATE SECTOR??? No one has answered that question....

... we've entered the Twilight Zone... Z advocating socialism, I'm advocating for the free market when it works... next thing you know Travis is going to post pictures of his girlfriend...

[Appaholic]

And YOU'VE made the same mistake again. Simply because the private sector CAN do it, doesn't mean the USPS should give it up, if it can offset some of the losses from delivering mail daily to Podunk, USA.

WHY MUST THE **** THAT'S PROFITABLE BE LEFT TO THE PRIVATE SECTOR??? No one has answered that question....

... we've entered the Twilight Zone... Z advocating socialism, I'm advocating for the free market when it works... next thing you know Travis is going to post pictures of his girlfriend...

Seriously Z....that's what you're advocating? The government actively challenging private sector for profitable business?

[ASUMountaineer]

How did this thread get so off track? This was about Obama saying that private industry will not suffer against a public option, but that it's the public option that will suffer. Which is counter to his proposed legislation. In discussing the health care proposal, what does the structure of the USPS have to do with it? Other than, not turning a profit is going to be the structure of the public option.

[bobbythekidd]

How did this thread get so off track?

A refusal to answer the question that has is jazzed up about.

UPS and FedEx stole/won the parcel arms race against the USPS because they worked to do it cheaper. THe USPS is not motivated to cut costs in the same way the other carriers are. Therefore they lost the edge in that area. Before UPS asked what brown can do for you, their motto was "We run the tightest ship in the shipping business" They bragged about the innovative ways they saved money to become a player.

The USPS just went along business as usual content with what was a monopoly position in parcel and mail service. Then one day a very large segment had left town and they were stuck with the least profitable part of what they were intended to do for the greater good.

...And no they were not desighned to be profitable, it was intended that stamps would be for the national mail service. And they held their own for a long time. Was that so hard?

[AZGrizFan]

... we've entered the Twilight Zone... Z advocating socialism, I'm advocating for the free market when it works... next thing you know Travis is going to post pictures of his girlfriend...

Seriously Z....that's what you're advocating? The government actively challenging private sector for profitable business?

No, that's not at all what I'm advocating. I'm just not understanding why the post office would knowingly concede the only segments of their business operations that might actually offset the massive losses they produce annually by delivering mail to Podunk, USA. If there's money to be made in the other segments that could offset their loss (and thus reduce the deficit and my tax bill), I'm all for it. If the USPS isn't supposed to break even, why do we charge ANYTHING for postage?

[ASUMountaineer]

Seriously Z....that's what you're advocating? The government actively challenging private sector for profitable business?

No, that's not at all what I'm advocating. I'm just not understanding why the post office would knowingly concede the only segments of their business operations that might actually offset the massive losses they produce annually by delivering mail to Podunk, USA. If there's money to be made in the other segments that could offset their loss (and thus reduce the deficit and my tax bill), I'm all for it. If the USPS isn't supposed to break even, why do we charge ANYTHING for postage?

All right, I'll give in to the fray and be completely off topic. Z, by that logic, why do you oppose the government getting involved in all segments of industry? It's not consistent man. You really want the USPS to compete against private enterprise? What other industry should the government compete in?

[Appaholic]

Seriously Z....that's what you're advocating? The government actively challenging private sector for profitable business?

No, that's not at all what I'm advocating. I'm just not understanding why the post office would knowingly concede the only segments of their business operations that might actually offset the massive losses they produce annually by delivering mail to Podunk, USA. If there's money to be made in the other segments that could offset their loss (and thus reduce the deficit and my tax bill), I'm all for it. If the USPS isn't supposed to break even, why do we charge ANYTHING for postage?

So the people who actually use the service incur a higher burden than those who don't...a concept long overdue in application to all government-provided services.....and the USPS doesn't concede that business segment (priority mail, etc.)....

[Col Hogan]

the postal service has a set of defined goals that include providing mail service to every address in the entire country - something that, quite frankly cannot be profitable, but has a public benefit (i think you could argue that that benefit has been on the decline as electronic communications have emerged and prospered, but thats another issue). however, for 234 years, it has provided immense benefits to both commercial and private needs. providing service to places no private courier would because it wasn't profitable - however, like health care, there is a DISCERNIBLE PUBLIC GOOD that can be derived from the government stepping in and providing a level of service that the private sector refuses to provide. No, it won't be profitable, but that's why the private sector, motivated by profit, and nothing else, hasn't done it.

WHile I agree with you that the mail service has provided a public benefit all these years, your anaology with health care is total BULLSHIT!!!

The Postal Service is a Constitutionally mandated service...health care is not...

We can discuss the profitibility of the USPS all day long....it will continue as long as it is written into the Constitution...

Under Article 10, health care is NOT A FEDERAL RESPONSIBILITY...thus, the Federal Government has no Constitutional authority to step into that issue

[Appaholic]

the postal service has a set of defined goals that include providing mail service to every address in the entire country - something that, quite frankly cannot be profitable, but has a public benefit (i think you could argue that that benefit has been on the decline as electronic communications have emerged and prospered, but thats another issue). however, for 234 years, it has provided immense benefits to both commercial and private needs. providing service to places no private courier would because it wasn't profitable - however, like health care, there is a DISCERNIBLE PUBLIC GOOD that can be derived from the government stepping in and providing a level of service that the private sector refuses to provide. No, it won't be profitable, but that's why the private sector, motivated by profit, and nothing else, hasn't done it.

WHile I agree with you that the mail service has provided a public benefit all these years, your anaology with health care is total BULLSHIT!!!

The Postal Service is a Constitutionally mandated service...health care is not...

We can discuss the profitibility of the USPS all day long....it will continue as long as it is written into the Constitution...

Under Article 10, health care is NOT A FEDERAL RESPONSIBILITY...thus, the Federal Government has no Constitutional authority to step into that issue

Nice counter point Col....now I remember why I don't ultimately support this idea....thank you...

[Col Hogan]

WHile I agree with you that the mail service has provided a public benefit all these years, your anaology with health care is total BULLSHIT!!!

The Postal Service is a Constitutionally mandated service...health care is not...

We can discuss the profitibility of the USPS all day long....it will continue as long as it is written into the Constitution...

Under Article 10, health care is NOT A FEDERAL RESPONSIBILITY...thus, the Federal Government has no Constitutional authority to step into that issue

Nice counter point Col....now I remember why I don't ultimately support this idea....thank you...

[Appaholic]

Nice counter point Col....now I remember why I don't ultimately support this idea....thank you...

Col....am I the red x? Or are you? Need to check your uploadiong...your avatar and pictures are not coming through...

[AZGrizFan]

No, that's not at all what I'm advocating. I'm just not understanding why the post office would knowingly concede the only segments of their business operations that might actually offset the massive losses they produce annually by delivering mail to Podunk, USA. If there's money to be made in the other segments that could offset their loss (and thus reduce the deficit and my tax bill), I'm all for it. If the USPS isn't supposed to break even, why do we charge ANYTHING for postage?

All right, I'll give in to the fray and be completely off topic. Z, by that logic, why do you oppose the government getting involved in all segments of industry? It's not consistent man. You really want the USPS to compete against private enterprise? What other industry should the government compete in?

Our government already attempts to compete in many areas. And they lose every time. And healthcare will be no different.

[ASUMountaineer]

All right, I'll give in to the fray and be completely off topic. Z, by that logic, why do you oppose the government getting involved in all segments of industry? It's not consistent man. You really want the USPS to compete against private enterprise? What other industry should the government compete in?

Our government already attempts to compete in many areas. And they lose every time. And healthcare will be no different.

I tend to agree, except that doesn't support your argument for the USPS competing with private industry. Now you sound like Obama.