Obama Compares the Potential Public Option to the Post Office?

[guido911]

Sure sounded like it to me, if you can stomach the "ums", "uhs" and his over measuring of his response. That's change that only a moron can believe in (sorry FOTD).

[Conan71]

Sounds like they packed the audience with shills again:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090811/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_obama_health_care_overhaul

[Cats Cats Cats]

Sounds like they packed the audience with shills again:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090811/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_obama_health_care_overhaul

Unfortunately if they didn't do that, they couldn't have a town hall meeting.  Just a bunch of screaming and shoving people around.

[Cats Cats Cats]

Sure sounded like it to me, if you can stomach the "ums", "uhs" and his over measuring of his response. That's change that only a moron can believe in (sorry FOTD).

I saw the quote about the post office... I am not quite sure where on earth the post office was anything you should equate with anything if you expect a positive response.

[USRufnex]

Sure sounded like it to me, if you can stomach the "ums", "uhs" and his over measuring of his response. That's change that only a moron can believe in (sorry FOTD).

Yes, it's change I can believe in.
This is politics, not hopscotch.
Obama is a political leader, not a Messiah.

Obama did not campaign for single payer, so single payer in NOT on the table; he didn't campaign for Romney or Hillary style compulsary requirements for everyone to purchase health insurance.  And he didn't campaign on letting govt bureaucrats dominate healthcare in "managed care" regional HMOs.

Yes, that's change I can believe in.

You call a public health option socialism.  I call it pragmatic moderation.

You think I'm a moron; and I think you're a partisan hack.

[FOTD]

Well, why didn't the Republicans end the US Postal System while they had the power?

And when have any of you spoken up to end the Postal System?

This subject was brought up months ago. Strange how quiet you have been and still you have failed to offer up any pertinent discussion of solving this mess.

(YOU GO RUFF!)

[guido911]

Yes, it's change I can believe in.
This is politics, not hopscotch.
Obama is a political leader, not a Messiah.

Obama did not campaign for single payer, so single payer in NOT on the table; he didn't campaign for Romney or Hillary style compulsary requirements for everyone to purchase health insurance.  And he didn't campaign on letting govt bureaucrats dominate healthcare in "managed care" regional HMOs.

Yes, that's change I can believe in.

The point I was making was you are a moron if thinking the post office is a shining example of government run success.  As for Obama campaigning for single payer, I cannot believe even you are looking back glowingly at those promises which in large part were lies (transparency, no lobbyists in his administration, accept public finance to campaign, no tax increase on middle class, no signing statements, recognize Armenian genocide, allow five days of public comment before signing bills, military tribunals, rendition...). We will not even get into his damnable lie that passing $1T stimulus will keep unemployment from reaching 8%.

You really are a true, American sucker.

Not to disappoint you, Obama is ON RECORD supporting single payer:

[Chicken Little]

Sure sounded like it to me, if you can stomach the "ums", "uhs" and his over measuring of his response. That's change that only a moron can believe in (sorry FOTD).

Context is important.  He did not say that a public option would be run like Post Office.  He simply responded to the question from the audience.  The person worried that the public option would drive her insurance company out of business.

Obama's response was therefore quite a helpful analogy on a number of levels.  Smart answer.  

1.  This health care plan is no more "socialized medicine" than having public and private shipping companies is "socialized package delivery".  The postal service flag is red, white, and blue and has been since 1775.  Nothing un-American about it.

2.  The Post Office competes with FedEx and UPS, they have for years and it seems to work out just fine.  (UPS and FedEx aren't hurting the PO, it's email that's hurting them. Duh.)  The result of this competition?  Shipping packages is easy to understand, convenient, and cheap.  We're lucky to have this kind of system where we have these kinds of options:  super-fast, super-cheap, super-oversized, etc.

3.  Do you really think you'd get a better deal on shipping if there was no Post Office?  Be honest.  By the same token, wouldn't you expect health insurance companies to compete pretty hard if there was a low cost (but not subsidized, as Obama said) public insurance company out there?

[guido911]

Context is important.  He did not say that a public option would be run like Post Office.  He simply responded to the question from the audience.  The person worried that the public option would drive her insurance company out of business.

Obama's response was therefore quite a helpful analogy on a number of levels.  Smart answer.  

1.  This health care plan is no more "socialized medicine" than having public and private shipping companies is "socialized package delivery".  The postal service flag is red, white, and blue and has been since 1775.  Nothing un-American about it.

2.  The Post Office competes with FedEx and UPS, they have for years and it seems to work out just fine.  (UPS and FedEx aren't hurting the PO, it's email that's hurting them. Duh.)  The result of this competition?  Shipping packages is easy to understand, convenient, and cheap.  We're lucky to have this kind of system where we have these kinds of options:  super-fast, super-cheap, super-oversized, etc.

3.  Do you really think you'd get a better deal on shipping if there was no Post Office?  Be honest.  By the same token, wouldn't you expect health insurance companies to compete pretty hard if there was a low cost (but not subsidized, as Obama said) public insurance company out there?

It's not the analogy, it's the fact that Obama conceded that a government run business like the post office is not as efficient as privately run businesses. So why have another inefficient (or broken) government enterprise, especially one in the business of a person's health care?

I have read several posts pointing out the "socialism" argument advanced by some. That's not my beef with Obama and health care.

[USRufnex]

Obama stated that single payer would be fine if we started from scratch.
I agree with that assessment. 

But he understands that there are many people who do not want their private employer based healthcare benefits to change. 

Back in the 90s, a fellow singer at a summer festival outside of Denver got sick, was examined by local doctors, and had to fly back to Canada for surgery.  If the exact same thing had happened to me?  I would have had to declare bankruptcy. 

In states where Obama actually had a chance of winning (not Oklahoma), he advertised this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jnk8minM3Qg&feature=fvw

Simple, eh?  I'd like the freedom to not have to stay with my current employer for the rest of my life just because of my newfound "pre-existing condition" -- the Republicans had eight years to address this problem and all they came up with was a bloated prescription drug benefit to keep our seniors from ordering all their medicines from Canada...

I had great health benefits at a union job, skimpy health benefits working retail, non existent benefits living "the artist's life," and good healthcare benefits working for an outfit that laid me off a year into the job..... the COBRA letter offering to extend my  benefits was an outright joke....

Obama's post office reference shows pragmatism and even a certain amount of humility... the USPS may not offer all the bells and whistles, but it is reasonably priced and delivers universal service.  If I lose my job, I still get mail.... if I have to declare bankrupcy, I still can keep my mailbox... if I want a post office box, I can buy one.  Far too many people just don't understand because they're too cynical, jaded, and wedded to keeping and paying out the nose for the status quo....

Your clips take these issues and Obama's proposals out of context in a way that would make Joe-the-Plumber fans proud....   

[FOTD]

It's not the analogy, it's the fact that Obama conceded that a government run business like the post office is not as efficient as privately run businesses. So why have another inefficient (or broken) government enterprise, especially one in the business of a person's health care?

I have read several posts pointing out the "socialism" argument advanced by some. That's not my beef with Obama and health care.

What is your beef with POTUS OBAMA, Gwee? Do you want to castrate the man?

You and the Republicans do seem to enjoy opening the gates of Hell upon America.

[Chicken Little]

It's not the analogy, it's the fact that Obama conceded that a government run business like the post office is not as efficient as privately run businesses. So why have another inefficient (or broken) government enterprise, especially one in the business of a person's health care?

Well first, I think you are misinterpreting his response.  The person simply wanted to know if a government insurance program would drive private insurance out of business.  He pointed out that Medicare and the VA haven't driven them out of business.  And then he noted that USPS hadn't driven private shippers out of business, either.

To be fair, and as I mentioned before, the PO's problems are NOT the result of competition with UPS and FedEx.  (For fun, I just priced a letter delivery from my house to my brother's out east, 3-day delivery.  FedEx's charge is $18.90.  That USPS can achieve this for 44 cents shows that they have some serious fight in 'em.)  Their problem is that this thing I'm typing on is even more efficient.  The internet has literally cleaned out my mailbox in the last five years.  And yet, the USPS still swiftly completes their appointed rounds, unsubsidized. 

And I hope it's not lost on you that the internet was developed by a government agency. 

So, you see, you're pretty much wrong on two counts:  Obama did not say that the PO was in trouble because of FedEx and UPS, and a government enterprise can work (and compete with private companies).  Further, they won't necessarily drive the private companies out of business.

Why is it important to have a government run insurance option?  For one thing, insurance companies have some serious ethical problems:  they collude, they deny claims, they dump their rate payers when they get sick, and they refuse service to millions of Americans.  We need some competition that won't use those tactics.  What's your alternative?  Do you think that the gov't can regulate them into playing fair?

[Friendly Bear]

Well first, I think you are misinterpreting his response.  The person simply wanted to know if a government insurance program would drive private insurance out of business.  He pointed out that Medicare and the VA haven't driven them out of business.  And then he noted that USPS hadn't driven private shippers out of business, either.

To be fair, and as I mentioned before, the PO's problems are NOT the result of competition with UPS and FedEx.  (For fun, I just priced a letter delivery from my house to my brother's out east, 3-day delivery.  FedEx's charge is $18.90.  That USPS can achieve this for 44 cents shows that they have some serious fight in 'em.)  Their problem is that this thing I'm typing on is even more efficient.  The internet has literally cleaned out my mailbox in the last five years.  And yet, the USPS still swiftly completes their appointed rounds, unsubsidized. 

And I hope it's not lost on you that the internet was developed by a government agency. 

So, you see, you're pretty much wrong on two counts:  Obama did not say that the PO was in trouble because of FedEx and UPS, and a government enterprise can work (and compete with private companies).  Further, they won't necessarily drive the private companies out of business.

Why is it important to have a government run insurance option?  For one thing, insurance companies have some serious ethical problems:  they collude, they deny claims, they dump their rate payers when they get sick, and they refuse service to millions of Americans.  We need some competition that won't use those tactics.  What's your alternative?  Do you think that the gov't can regulate them into playing fair?

The Post Office is losing 1-2% of its First Class mail traffic annually for the past number of years, due to growth in email, faxes, e-Statements, e-Commerce, etc.

However, the Post Office has one, unique government-provided MONOPOLY advantage:

It has the "Gateway" to the consumer:  The MAIL BOX.

Only the U.S.P.S. is allowed to put anything in the Mailbox.  Fed-Ex, UPS, Airborne, and the public etc. must hand deliver their mail to the recipient, or simply leave it by the front door.

ONLY the U.S.P.S. can use your mailbox.

Although the consumer or landlord is responsible for buying their own mailbox, technically the U.S.P.S. controls the rules governing use of your mailbox.

That's why it is a Federal Offense to intentionally damage a mailbox.

When there is a National Health Care System, it likewise will become the Gatekeeper and set the rules for delivery of health care services:  Allowable testing and procedures, allowable charges, appeal processes, co-payment amounts, penalties for non-compliance, et.

Within a few years thereafter, the private health plans will disappear because the National Health Care System will make the rules such that they push private industry out of the health insurance business.

Isn't this exactly what happened in Canada and the U.K.?

[Chicken Little]

Mailboxes?  Really?  Despite this unfair advantage (whatever), the USPS hasn't driven anyone out of business.

Right now, insurance companies are the "gatekeepers", they're driven by profits not the well-being of their customers.  And so, the insurance companies are the one's making decisions about your health based upon what they're willing to pay out.  They are the ones making decisions about testing, medicines, and more importantly, whether or not you are worthy of coverage.   When one company decides you are too expensive to live, the others follow suit.  Laissez Faire capitalism is not evil.  But when Adam Smith's "unseen hand" isn't guiding them to do the right thing, i.e., improve our Country's health, then what do you do? 

I really see no problem with a system that contains both public and private insurers.  If good health becomes the  fortuity of the wealthy, it'll be our society's undoing.  Have the gov't expand coverage.  Keep the private companies to drive innovation.  Where's the problem?   

[Conan71]

What is your beef with POTUS OBAMA, Gwee? Do you want to castrate the man?

You and the Republicans do seem to enjoy opening the gates of Hell upon America.

You don't see any of that at all in your seven or eight years of castigating Bush, do you?