They are NOT forbidden from having money in the bank to cover losses. In fact, for years the money that they had in the bank DID cover their losses (when coupled with the $3+ Billion free money from the taxpayers... as in... not a loan).
-
After 15+ years, we've made a big change: Android Forums is now Early Bird Club. Learn more here.
Postal Service Discussion
- Thread starter nlsme
- Start date
They are NOT forbidden from having money in the bank to cover losses. In fact, for years the money that they had in the bank DID cover their losses (when coupled with the $3+ Billion free money from the taxpayers... as in... not a loan).
They claim it is a loan. You have failed to show it isnt. Even by claiming its a capital contribution. You have failed to provide a standard definition showing a loan cannot be a capital contribution. My link to the definition expressly states it can be classified as a capital contribution. But, you just say Im ignorant Either way, it is a reletively TINY number. Btw, they are income neutrel, they are forbidden from making a profit. Even to put in the bank. Again, either way, it is a TINY number. Im tired of the circle here. You make claims that you bave yet to back up, you call me a lyer. You call me ignorant. I dont care. The definition doesnt back you up. Either one. So much for it being a standard legal definition. Its just a circle, and I am pulling myself out. Ill leave with this. The statement you made in the other thread about the government cant even run the usps without it being a failure. For 200+ years they did just fine. They only ran into trouble financially recently. Because, as you state, their revenue stream is drying up. The whole basis in your arguement of the post office being a failure is based off of their current deficits. Their current deficits are attributed to the diminishing revenue stream. I say to you, the revenue stream of a potential healthcare system moddelled after the usps would not face this situation. Thats right, they could model a healrhcare system, that wouldn't face diminishing revenue. Never be a "failure". Healthcare, to me, should be considered infrastructure. It shouldn't be a place where the free market can rape you. Like I said, I pay 1800 a month for ins., as a small bussiness owner, it is my second largest expense. It is crushing america. And, what do we have to show for it? How many people cant get preventative care? How many of those people end up devrloping a problem that ends up costing us all ten times more then it would have if that preventative care was available. Id say the post office may be facing hardships, our healthcare system is a failure.
The USPS claims thats not the case, according to the USPS their currently looses are do to retirement and health plan pre-funding requirements. If they didn't have such a high level of pre-funding required by law, they would be making a profit even with the downturn in demand.
And I agree, a loan can be considered a capital contribution... but capital contributions don't have to be loans... I've yet to see anything official that claims the 15B is or isn't an official loan.
I assume its not a loan, because everything I've read talks about it like its not an obligation (loan).
This is a whole other issue, but quickly, why do you think shifting the burden of that "crushing" expense to the government will make the "crushing" go away? If the government turns around and picks up your 1800/mo expense, it has to tax someone to come up with that money. Plus, you now have less control over what you get for that 1800/mo.
The high cost of American health care isn't a result of hc being a private industry... its a result of many things, but a major one is that the US underwrites R&D for the rest of the world. We pay high prices to corporations than then develop the latest and greatest cures, drugs, devices etc. These things are then exported around the world at a cheaper rate (because the rest of the world can't pay as much as rich Americans.)
When the HC debate was going down, I was one that would have liked to see simply an expansion of medicad/medicare to cover more poor people, while leaving the rest of the system in the private sector. I think the overall goal with the direction Obama went was setting up a stepping stone to universal government coverage, which I'm 100% against.
Well, they didn't model it after the USPS, so it will use LOTS of tax dollars. And now your talking about government run hospitals and doctors, which I feel is even worse.
I dissagree, it should be the patient with as much control over decisions as possible. Dr. gives their pro opinion, and the patient decides. As soon as you move payment for the service from the patient to some third party, insurance company or government, some of the decision making goes with it... at least decision on what or will not be paid for.
Having government cover the cost doesn't give the patient more power of decisions. It actually limits their decision making power, because under a private insurer system, the consumer can fire his current company and go find another with better rates and better coverage if they are unhappy with the current provider.
Once the government is covering the cost, you can't fire them and seek out a better company.
Having government cover the cost doesn't give the patient more power of decisions. It actually limits their decision making power, because under a private insurer system, the consumer can fire his current company and go find another with better rates and better coverage if they are unhappy with the current provider.
Once the government is covering the cost, you can't fire them and seek out a better company.
Right (for the most part
), and the USPS is the one doing the physical work, they own the trucks, employ the drivers etc. A HC system set up like the USPS would mean a government agency (similar to the USPS) owned the hospitals and employed the doctors. I don't like that idea.No, an insurance company decides what they will and will not pay for, thats it. If you want something done your insurance company doesn't cover, you are free to pay for it yourself. Or move coverage to a company that will cover it.
No its more than theory. I turned down a job before, because I had another offer that offered better benefits. And if you pay for your insurance "out of pocket" you can jump carriers all day long, no different than changing your car or home insurance... I've done that before too, because I didn't like the coverage one company was giving me.
Again, for most Americans, changing their employer isnt an option, especially as often as employers change their insurance policies. Neither is paying out of pocket for a family plan that isnt a group policy.
For most americans, when an insurance company makes the financial decision to not pay for what is needed, they don't get it.
The government does not own anything involving the usps, they dont own the post offices, trucks, semis, sorting equipment. None of it is owned by the government. The post offiice is a private entity, afforded certain privelages. Model the hc system after that, and the government wouldnt own, or fund it.
For most americans, when an insurance company makes the financial decision to not pay for what is needed, they don't get it.
The government does not own anything involving the usps, they dont own the post offices, trucks, semis, sorting equipment. None of it is owned by the government. The post offiice is a private entity, afforded certain privelages. Model the hc system after that, and the government wouldnt own, or fund it.
Fascinating as this debate is, can you guys pull it back on-topic, please? The healthcare analogy has kinda taken over. 
Yes it is. It may not be a fun option, you may even have to move, but its an option that people take every day.
You do it don't you?
sheeze...
A HC system like USPS would mean you have an "independent government agency" that owns the hospitals and employs the doctors. Meaning there would only be one game in town, don't like the way they treat your kid or grandmother, tough crap, there's no other agency or company to choose from. I don't like that idea.
Or would you have a USPS type HC system, AND private insurance and hospitals side by side? And if thats what your thinking, I've have to ask what would be the point of the government agency?
edit:
Just saw that... I'll stop now.
The healthcare analogy has kinda taken over.
No need, if it's used as a comparison which was the original intent. So long as
the discussion continues to address the main topic all is good. Keep the debate going, please.
depends on the company, plans and contracts you sign. Yes, most have you sign a 1 year contract, and give you open periods where you can change, but not all.... very similar to you cell phone company.
So, in your model are private insurers and hospitals and doctors allowed to operate, kinda like FedEX and UPS? What kind of restrictions, how much of a monopoly would your health care agency have? How would it get the start up capital to start building hospitals and hiring doctors?
Cash advances to a corporation: loan or capital contribution? - Free Online Library
How the courts determine if something is a loan or a capital contribution...
Their current losses are about $8 billion PER YEAR ($11 if you took out the $3 Billion in free money from the government)... their pre funding is only about $5 Billion. It contributes, but it is not WHY they are running deficits.
And the majority of the US wouldn't be able to afford it. Could you imagine overpaying doctors and nurses like the USPS does it's current work force?
Fascinating as this debate is, can you guys pull it back on-topic, please? The healthcare analogy has kinda taken over.
The original conversation actually started with the discussion of the health care system, and the statement that if it was run like the post office, then it would be worth a government run health care system (way over simplification NLSME, so don't pick apart the details... they aren't worth arguing about... the generalization is correct... I know I'm wrong on some parts, but I'm not going back to check the specifics at this point).
This thread was created from posts within that debate, so I would think the two are kind of mutually related with regards to this thread.
If that's not acceptable, let me know, but considering how this thread was created, I would tend to think that would be...
now you're just being silly.
Everything is just fine as it is. I simply didn't want to see the discussion become fixated on the health care issue at the expense of the postal service. I had my facilitator's hat on rather than my moderator's one.
Bob Maxey
Android Expert
So lets try it this way:
We absolutely need the postal service. Not everyone lives a complete e-life. I get printed magazines, samples, threatening letters, Christmas cards, letters to and from editors, and other mail as do tens of millions of Americans.
I could use UPS for some things, but their costs are far too high. Postal rates are low when you consider if you sent a card using UPS, the cost would be far higher than using the USPS.
So we simply cannot dump the USPS and we definitely can't privatize it quickly and when we try, the battle will be epic.
So what is the solution? Since we require the post office and since their costs are always going to increase, we have a system that will cost us ever increasing amounts of money. We could close post offices perhaps or we could demand union concessions be changed, I suppose.
I love the USPS because they are a true bargain.
Bob Maxey
We absolutely need the postal service. Not everyone lives a complete e-life. I get printed magazines, samples, threatening letters, Christmas cards, letters to and from editors, and other mail as do tens of millions of Americans.
I could use UPS for some things, but their costs are far too high. Postal rates are low when you consider if you sent a card using UPS, the cost would be far higher than using the USPS.
So we simply cannot dump the USPS and we definitely can't privatize it quickly and when we try, the battle will be epic.
So what is the solution? Since we require the post office and since their costs are always going to increase, we have a system that will cost us ever increasing amounts of money. We could close post offices perhaps or we could demand union concessions be changed, I suppose.
I love the USPS because they are a true bargain.
Bob Maxey