But that doesn't make healthcare "right", either.ASUMountaineer wrote:I tend to agree, except that doesn't support your argument for the USPS competing with private industry. Now you sound like Obama.AZGrizFan wrote:
Our government already attempts to compete in many areas. And they lose every time.
No it doesn't, but you're the one that said government should be competing against private industry--not me. Sounds like you're closer to supporting the public option than I am, Tom.AZGrizFan wrote:But that doesn't make healthcare "right", either.ASUMountaineer wrote:
I tend to agree, except that doesn't support your argument for the USPS competing with private industry. Now you sound like Obama.
I'm not the one who used the USPS as an example of "fail". Obama was. I merely asked why would they knowingly give up the profitable parts of their business which could help offset the large deficit they run each year. And I'm just being a devil's advocate, Mounty. I in no way, shape or form support any form of government intervention into healthcare (any more than they already are).ASUMountaineer wrote:No it doesn't, but you're the one that said government should be competing against private industry--not me. Sounds like you're closer to supporting the public option than I am, Tom.AZGrizFan wrote:
But that doesn't make healthcare "right", either.
I know, just making up for lost time with giving you hell chief.AZGrizFan wrote:I'm not the one who used the USPS as an example of "fail". Obama was. I merely asked why would they knowingly give up the profitable parts of their business which could help offset the large deficit they run each year. And I'm just being a devil's advocate, Mounty. I in no way, shape or form support any form of government intervention into healthcare (any more than they already are).ASUMountaineer wrote:
No it doesn't, but you're the one that said government should be competing against private industry--not me. Sounds like you're closer to supporting the public option than I am, Tom.
I tend to get lost in the shuffle here with the bigger online personas.
Because they continually have to do sh!t like this....FedEx would have said fok off....AZGrizFan wrote:I'm not the one who used the USPS as an example of "fail". Obama was. I merely asked why would they knowingly give up the profitable parts of their business which could help offset the large deficit they run each year. And I'm just being a devil's advocate, Mounty. I in no way, shape or form support any form of government intervention into healthcare (any more than they already are).ASUMountaineer wrote:
No it doesn't, but you're the one that said government should be competing against private industry--not me. Sounds like you're closer to supporting the public option than I am, Tom.
Appaholic wrote:Because they continually have to do sh!t like this....FedEx would have said fok off....AZGrizFan wrote:
I'm not the one who used the USPS as an example of "fail". Obama was. I merely asked why would they knowingly give up the profitable parts of their business which could help offset the large deficit they run each year. And I'm just being a devil's advocate, Mounty. I in no way, shape or form support any form of government intervention into healthcare (any more than they already are).
Otisfield's Sole Mailbox Saved
Despite Low Usage, U.S. Postal Service Reverses Decision
OTISFIELD, Maine -- Notch a victory for Otisfield in its ongoing battle to save the town's sole mailbox.
District officials announced Wednesday the town will keep its only mail collection box after the U.S. Postal Service said last month it was going to remove the blue metal box.
The decision sparked outrage among some residents, one of whom threatened to chain herself to the box.
With no post office in town, some residents said they see the box as their only option. The U.S. Postal Service said the box only averages six pieces of mail a day and wanted to save money.
http://www.wmtw.com/cnn-news/20378739/detail.html
But they earned that through union contracts....just like the auto workers....wideright82 wrote:Appaholic wrote:
Because they continually have to do sh!t like this....FedEx would have said fok off....
Otisfield's Sole Mailbox Saved
Despite Low Usage, U.S. Postal Service Reverses Decision
OTISFIELD, Maine -- Notch a victory for Otisfield in its ongoing battle to save the town's sole mailbox.
District officials announced Wednesday the town will keep its only mail collection box after the U.S. Postal Service said last month it was going to remove the blue metal box.
The decision sparked outrage among some residents, one of whom threatened to chain herself to the box.
With no post office in town, some residents said they see the box as their only option. The U.S. Postal Service said the box only averages six pieces of mail a day and wanted to save money.
http://www.wmtw.com/cnn-news/20378739/detail.html
They could also save money by not paynig their retired employees 69% of their "high-3" average for the rest of their lives.
And while I defend the USPS as a Constitutionally mandated service...there is no defending the stupidity of past management decisions like those contracts...Appaholic wrote:But they earned that through union contracts....just like the auto workers....wideright82 wrote:
They could also save money by not paynig their retired employees 69% of their "high-3" average for the rest of their lives.
You fellas are like talkin' to a brick wall. I underSTAND that they have to do things like this, and that things like "this" aren't profitable. This does NOTHING to explain why they felt obliged to give up those segments that OFFSET some of these ridiculously cost prohibitive activities.Appaholic wrote:Because they continually have to do sh!t like this....FedEx would have said fok off....AZGrizFan wrote:
I'm not the one who used the USPS as an example of "fail". Obama was. I merely asked why would they knowingly give up the profitable parts of their business which could help offset the large deficit they run each year. And I'm just being a devil's advocate, Mounty. I in no way, shape or form support any form of government intervention into healthcare (any more than they already are).
Otisfield's Sole Mailbox Saved
Despite Low Usage, U.S. Postal Service Reverses Decision
OTISFIELD, Maine -- Notch a victory for Otisfield in its ongoing battle to save the town's sole mailbox.
District officials announced Wednesday the town will keep its only mail collection box after the U.S. Postal Service said last month it was going to remove the blue metal box.
The decision sparked outrage among some residents, one of whom threatened to chain herself to the box.
With no post office in town, some residents said they see the box as their only option. The U.S. Postal Service said the box only averages six pieces of mail a day and wanted to save money.
http://www.wmtw.com/cnn-news/20378739/detail.html
To avoid being "socialists?"AZGrizFan wrote:You fellas are like talkin' to a brick wall. I underSTAND that they have to do things like this, and that things like "this" aren't profitable. This does NOTHING to explain why they felt obliged to give up those segments that OFFSET some of these ridiculously cost prohibitive activities.Appaholic wrote:
Because they continually have to do sh!t like this....FedEx would have said fok off....
Otisfield's Sole Mailbox Saved
Despite Low Usage, U.S. Postal Service Reverses Decision
OTISFIELD, Maine -- Notch a victory for Otisfield in its ongoing battle to save the town's sole mailbox.
District officials announced Wednesday the town will keep its only mail collection box after the U.S. Postal Service said last month it was going to remove the blue metal box.
The decision sparked outrage among some residents, one of whom threatened to chain herself to the box.
With no post office in town, some residents said they see the box as their only option. The U.S. Postal Service said the box only averages six pieces of mail a day and wanted to save money.
http://www.wmtw.com/cnn-news/20378739/detail.html
So now a self-sustaining government service is considered socialist?ASUMountaineer wrote:To avoid being "socialists?"AZGrizFan wrote:
You fellas are like talkin' to a brick wall. I underSTAND that they have to do things like this, and that things like "this" aren't profitable. This does NOTHING to explain why they felt obliged to give up those segments that OFFSET some of these ridiculously cost prohibitive activities.
No, competing with private industry is. As you pointed out about health care interference. Can't have it both ways...AZGrizFan wrote:So now a self-sustaining government service is considered socialist?ASUMountaineer wrote:
To avoid being "socialists?"
See, that's where you've got me ALL wrong, Mounty. If I thought for one MINUTE that the government could do healthcare better, cheaper, and more efficiently than private industry, I'd be all OVER that. But they CAN'T, as they've proven time and time again throughout history. We'll end up with some half-assed bloated government program full of partisan compromises, that doesn't do anything NEAR what it was originally envisioned to do, at 2-3X the estimated original cost.ASUMountaineer wrote:No, competing with private industry is. As you pointed out about health care interference.AZGrizFan wrote:
So now a self-sustaining government service is considered socialist?
I hate to say it folks, but he's right.AZGrizFan wrote:See, that's where you've got me ALL wrong, Mounty. If I thought for one MINUTE that the government could do healthcare better, cheaper, and more efficiently than private industry, I'd be all OVER that. But they CAN'T, as they've proven time and time again throughout history. We'll end up with some half-assed bloated government program full of partisan compromises, that doesn't do anything NEAR what it was originally envisioned to do, at 2-3X the estimated original cost.ASUMountaineer wrote:
No, competing with private industry is. As you pointed out about health care interference.
THAT'S WHAT GOVERNMENT DOES.
Why do you hate to say it?death dealer wrote:I hate to say it folks, but he's right.AZGrizFan wrote:
See, that's where you've got me ALL wrong, Mounty. If I thought for one MINUTE that the government could do healthcare better, cheaper, and more efficiently than private industry, I'd be all OVER that. But they CAN'T, as they've proven time and time again throughout history. We'll end up with some half-assed bloated government program full of partisan compromises, that doesn't do anything NEAR what it was originally envisioned to do, at 2-3X the estimated original cost.
THAT'S WHAT GOVERNMENT DOES.
Because no one wants to agree with a dick.AZGrizFan wrote:Why do you hate to say it?
That's what I was wondering. Was it because I was right, or was it because I was right?bobbythekidd wrote:Because no one wants to agree with a dick.AZGrizFan wrote:Why do you hate to say it?
So, you're ok with socialism so long as it's efficient?AZGrizFan wrote:See, that's where you've got me ALL wrong, Mounty. If I thought for one MINUTE that the government could do healthcare better, cheaper, and more efficiently than private industry, I'd be all OVER that. But they CAN'T, as they've proven time and time again throughout history. We'll end up with some half-assed bloated government program full of partisan compromises, that doesn't do anything NEAR what it was originally envisioned to do, at 2-3X the estimated original cost.ASUMountaineer wrote:
No, competing with private industry is. As you pointed out about health care interference.
THAT'S WHAT GOVERNMENT DOES.
So you're ok with the government providing services as long as they lose boatloads of money doing it?ASUMountaineer wrote:So, you're ok with socialism so long as it's efficient?AZGrizFan wrote:
See, that's where you've got me ALL wrong, Mounty. If I thought for one MINUTE that the government could do healthcare better, cheaper, and more efficiently than private industry, I'd be all OVER that. But they CAN'T, as they've proven time and time again throughout history. We'll end up with some half-assed bloated government program full of partisan compromises, that doesn't do anything NEAR what it was originally envisioned to do, at 2-3X the estimated original cost.
THAT'S WHAT GOVERNMENT DOES.
Of course that's what government does. Look at the military, it's bloated, full of partisan compromises, that doesn't do NEAR what it was originally envisioned to do, and at 2-3[00]x the estimated cost. (At least it's Constitutionally mandated--as Col. has pointed out)
You're right that government can't provide health insurance (or care as it's being used interchangably) very efficiently, but if they could you'd support paying more in taxes for it? I'm just asking because I thought you were against it because it was socialistic.
Just a little conflicting there Z, that's why I've apparently got you ALL wrong.
If making money at it makes us socialist, I guess I don't understand what socialism is. I've never ONCE said anything about socialism....it's you that keeps bringing that up. You're apparently taking my opinion and defining it as "socialism"....not sure how asking the government to compete makes it socialist. I'd like to understand what you define as bloated when it comes to the military....ASUMountaineer wrote:So, you're ok with socialism so long as it's efficient?AZGrizFan wrote:
See, that's where you've got me ALL wrong, Mounty. If I thought for one MINUTE that the government could do healthcare better, cheaper, and more efficiently than private industry, I'd be all OVER that. But they CAN'T, as they've proven time and time again throughout history. We'll end up with some half-assed bloated government program full of partisan compromises, that doesn't do anything NEAR what it was originally envisioned to do, at 2-3X the estimated original cost.
THAT'S WHAT GOVERNMENT DOES.
Of course that's what government does. Look at the military, it's bloated, full of partisan compromises, that doesn't do NEAR what it was originally envisioned to do, and at 2-3[00]x the estimated cost. (At least it's Constitutionally mandated--as Col. has pointed out)
You're right that government can't provide health insurance (or care as it's being used interchangably) very efficiently, but if they could you'd support paying more in taxes for it? I'm just asking because I thought you were against it because it was socialistic.
Just a little conflicting there Z, that's why I've apparently got you ALL wrong.
AZGrizFan wrote:So you're ok with the government providing services as long as they lose boatloads of money doing it?ASUMountaineer wrote:
So, you're ok with socialism so long as it's efficient?
Of course that's what government does. Look at the military, it's bloated, full of partisan compromises, that doesn't do NEAR what it was originally envisioned to do, and at 2-3[00]x the estimated cost. (At least it's Constitutionally mandated--as Col. has pointed out)
You're right that government can't provide health insurance (or care as it's being used interchangably) very efficiently, but if they could you'd support paying more in taxes for it? I'm just asking because I thought you were against it because it was socialistic.
Just a little conflicting there Z, that's why I've apparently got you ALL wrong.
but check this out. That's why I said I "thought" you were against it because it was socialistic. Then I followed it up by saying that's why I apparently have you all wrong...I agree with you and you argue about that. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SocialismSocialism refers to various theories of economic organization advocating state, public or common worker ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods, and a society characterized by equal access to resources for all individuals with an egalitarian method of compensation.
To your last question: Of course it would be the same.Col Hogan wrote:I'd like to understand what you define as bloated when it comes to the military....ASUMountaineer wrote:
So, you're ok with socialism so long as it's efficient?
Of course that's what government does. Look at the military, it's bloated, full of partisan compromises, that doesn't do NEAR what it was originally envisioned to do, and at 2-3[00]x the estimated cost. (At least it's Constitutionally mandated--as Col. has pointed out)
You're right that government can't provide health insurance (or care as it's being used interchangably) very efficiently, but if they could you'd support paying more in taxes for it? I'm just asking because I thought you were against it because it was socialistic.
Just a little conflicting there Z, that's why I've apparently got you ALL wrong.
First, most "bloat" in the military is forced on the military by politicians...
But the military buys 10 of each item if they need 5 due to training losses, combat losses, etc...some "business" folks look at that as bloat, but it isn't...
Military hardware costs more than civilian stuff because it needs to be built to different standards, with double or triple backup systems since you can't afford to just take a time out during combat...
That's why its expensive to operate a military...made even more expensive because of greedy politicians who add to the costs...
Which is why I have to ask....who thinks politicans won't do the same with health care???
They haven't given up that market segment, they just can't compete with same service levels.....I can mail a letter from Asheville to Raleigh and get it there next day for $.47....but if I want to guarantee, I use FedEx...they're a government agency...they didn't give up profitable segments as they weren't set up to be profitable anyway, just to provide service...I'm confused....AZGrizFan wrote:You fellas are like talkin' to a brick wall. I underSTAND that they have to do things like this, and that things like "this" aren't profitable. This does NOTHING to explain why they felt obliged to give up those segments that OFFSET some of these ridiculously cost prohibitive activities.Appaholic wrote:
Because they continually have to do sh!t like this....FedEx would have said fok off....
Otisfield's Sole Mailbox Saved
Despite Low Usage, U.S. Postal Service Reverses Decision
OTISFIELD, Maine -- Notch a victory for Otisfield in its ongoing battle to save the town's sole mailbox.
District officials announced Wednesday the town will keep its only mail collection box after the U.S. Postal Service said last month it was going to remove the blue metal box.
The decision sparked outrage among some residents, one of whom threatened to chain herself to the box.
With no post office in town, some residents said they see the box as their only option. The U.S. Postal Service said the box only averages six pieces of mail a day and wanted to save money.
http://www.wmtw.com/cnn-news/20378739/detail.html
ASU, they're not "operating to try and eliminate it's competition"....they were there FIRST.ASUMountaineer wrote:AZGrizFan wrote:
So you're ok with the government providing services as long as they lose boatloads of money doing it?
How is the government actively operating to try and eliminate it's competition not socialistic?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SocialismSocialism refers to various theories of economic organization advocating state, public or common worker ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods, and a society characterized by equal access to resources for all individuals with an egalitarian method of compensation.