72% of Americans support government run healthcare

[Chris]

Yes, our healthcare is too expensive because our system is a bloated, inefficient, for profit system.

That's why we pay TWICE as much per capita for healthcare as the rest of the Western democracies and our outcomes aren't any better.

 

[Nik]

Yes, I'm sure the government will be able to run health insurance much better....just look at SS, the federal government in general, the Postal Service, Medicare, Medicaid, the Stimulus payments.....etc....

The government IS ALREADY RUNNING HEALTH INSURANCE WELL. Nobody with a brain in their head thinks that Medicare failed.

Medicaid isn't run by the feds, genius.

As for the US Postal Service....

U.S. Postal Service 1st-quarter profit $672 mln

U.S. Postal Service 1st-quarter profit $672 mln | Reuters

You on crack, son? You really want to cite one of the more profitable and best run federal agencies as evidence that its a failure?

States run Medicaid but they must meet federal guidelines to receive matching federal funds. Therefore Medicaid is run by the feds...
Medicaid - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Unlike Medicare, which is solely a federal program, Medicaid is a joint federal-state program. Each state operates its own Medicaid system, but this system must conform to federal guidelines in order for the state to receive matching funds and grants. The federal matching formula is different from state to state, depending on each state's poverty level. The wealthiest states only receive a federal match of 50% while poorer states receive a larger match.

Medicaid funding has become a major budgetary issue for many states over the last few years, with states, on average, spending 16.8% of state general funds on the program. If the federal match expenditure is also counted, the program, on average, takes up 22% of each state's budget.[15]

What? You might want to re-think that statement again. Actually, don't bother, I'll just destroy it.

The feds have broad guideliens the states must meet. Not specific ones. The states decide the specifics of the program. Some states have managed care, others don't. Some states have good coverage, other states don't. Medicaid programs vary widely from state to state. Since they vary so widely it becomes immediately obvious that its a state program, not a federal program.

Its run by the states, dude. The feds just have broad guidelines for it. But its run by the states. From your link:

each state operates its own Medicaid system

 

[jreeves]

Hmm. The government program that often has heavy involvement by private insurance companies is doing much poorer than the government program that has little involvement by private insurance companies.

Gee. I wonder why?

Yes, I'm sure the government will be able to run health insurance much better....just look at SS, the federal government in general, the Postal Service, Medicare, Medicaid, the Stimulus payments.....etc....

The government IS ALREADY RUNNING HEALTH INSURANCE WELL. Nobody with a brain in their head thinks that Medicare failed.

Medicaid isn't run by the feds, genius.

As for the US Postal Service....

U.S. Postal Service 1st-quarter profit $672 mln

U.S. Postal Service 1st-quarter profit $672 mln | Reuters

You on crack, son? You really want to cite one of the more profitable and best run federal agencies as evidence that its a failure?

Postal Service....LOL
La Figa » Mail Drop: Postal Service Loses $2.8 Billion in 2008, Blames the Interwebs
Last year the United States Postal Service lost $2.8 billion in what they considered a "decent year" and anticipate a 17% drop in volume (and thus revenue) this year, due in part to online bill paying. By 2010, the USPS anticipates losses as high as $12 billion if changes aren't made. Since they are running out of money, the Postmaster General suggests Congress to pass legislation that will allow the elimination of either Saturday or Tuesday delivery. And they're cutting positions by 15% and instituting a hiring freeze, Postmaster General John Potter told a Congressional subcommittee.

Wait! Wut?! A loss of 2.8 billion is considered a "decent year"? WTF?

Postal Service spokesman James Wigdel explained the drop in revenue:

The old model was people religiously at the first of the month putting their stamp on the envelope and sent their credit card mail and all that remittance mail off. More and more people are doing that online.

That's not the only reason: I've noticed that while lots of people shop online, many sellers--private and commercial--use UPS or FedEx ground service to deliver packages, maybe because they are more economical?

Additionally, the USPS will pay almost $70 billion from now through 2016 for retiree health benefits. But Postmaster General Potter pointed out that if USPS paid for retiree health benefits out of its Retiree Health Benefit Fund instead of its operating budget, that change would have allowed the service to reach a $1.6 billion profit in 2007, instead of a $5.1 billion loss. Um, isn't that what a "retiree health benefit fund" is for--to pay retiree health benefits?

Wait! Wut?! The postal service had a $5.1 billion loss in 2007? No wonder 2008 seemed like a decent year!

The postal service has come up with some other nifty ideas to save money. Maybe they should have implemented some of these sooner:

 

[jreeves]

The government IS ALREADY RUNNING HEALTH INSURANCE WELL. Nobody with a brain in their head thinks that Medicare failed.

Medicaid isn't run by the feds, genius.

As for the US Postal Service....



U.S. Postal Service 1st-quarter profit $672 mln | Reuters

You on crack, son? You really want to cite one of the more profitable and best run federal agencies as evidence that its a failure?

States run Medicaid but they must meet federal guidelines to receive matching federal funds. Therefore Medicaid is run by the feds...
Medicaid - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Unlike Medicare, which is solely a federal program, Medicaid is a joint federal-state program. Each state operates its own Medicaid system, but this system must conform to federal guidelines in order for the state to receive matching funds and grants. The federal matching formula is different from state to state, depending on each state's poverty level. The wealthiest states only receive a federal match of 50% while poorer states receive a larger match.

Medicaid funding has become a major budgetary issue for many states over the last few years, with states, on average, spending 16.8% of state general funds on the program. If the federal match expenditure is also counted, the program, on average, takes up 22% of each state's budget.[15]

What? You might want to re-think that statement again. Actually, don't bother, I'll just destroy it.

The feds have broad guideliens the states must meet. Not specific ones. The states decide the specifics of the program. Some states have managed care, others don't. Some states have good coverage, other states don't. Medicaid programs vary widely from state to state. Since they vary so widely it becomes immediately obvious that its a state program, not a federal program.

Its run by the states, dude. The feds just have broad guidelines for it. But its run by the states. From your link:

each state operates its own Medicaid system

Each state operates its own Medicaid system that must meet federal guidelines to receive federal matching funds....If the state doesn't meet the federal guidelines the states wouldn't receive the funding. Now who controls what?

 

[Nik]

Yes, I'm sure the government will be able to run health insurance much better....just look at SS, the federal government in general, the Postal Service, Medicare, Medicaid, the Stimulus payments.....etc....

The government IS ALREADY RUNNING HEALTH INSURANCE WELL. Nobody with a brain in their head thinks that Medicare failed.

Medicaid isn't run by the feds, genius.

As for the US Postal Service....

U.S. Postal Service 1st-quarter profit $672 mln

U.S. Postal Service 1st-quarter profit $672 mln | Reuters

You on crack, son? You really want to cite one of the more profitable and best run federal agencies as evidence that its a failure?

Postal Service....LOL
La Figa » Mail Drop: Postal Service Loses $2.8 Billion in 2008, Blames the Interwebs
Last year the United States Postal Service lost $2.8 billion in what they considered a "decent year" and anticipate a 17% drop in volume (and thus revenue) this year, due in part to online bill paying. By 2010, the USPS anticipates losses as high as $12 billion if changes aren't made. Since they are running out of money, the Postmaster General suggests Congress to pass legislation that will allow the elimination of either Saturday or Tuesday delivery. And they're cutting positions by 15% and instituting a hiring freeze, Postmaster General John Potter told a Congressional subcommittee.

Wait! Wut?! A loss of 2.8 billion is considered a "decent year"? WTF?

Postal Service spokesman James Wigdel explained the drop in revenue:

The old model was people religiously at the first of the month putting their stamp on the envelope and sent their credit card mail and all that remittance mail off. More and more people are doing that online.

That's not the only reason: I've noticed that while lots of people shop online, many sellers--private and commercial--use UPS or FedEx ground service to deliver packages, maybe because they are more economical?

Additionally, the USPS will pay almost $70 billion from now through 2016 for retiree health benefits. But Postmaster General Potter pointed out that if USPS paid for retiree health benefits out of its Retiree Health Benefit Fund instead of its operating budget, that change would have allowed the service to reach a $1.6 billion profit in 2007, instead of a $5.1 billion loss. Um, isn't that what a "retiree health benefit fund" is for--to pay retiree health benefits?

Wait! Wut?! The postal service had a $5.1 billion loss in 2007? No wonder 2008 seemed like a decent year!

The postal service has come up with some other nifty ideas to save money. Maybe they should have implemented some of these sooner:

And? Newspapers are all operating with losses as well. Omg its cause they are run by the gubmint!!!!!!!!!!!

Or maybe its because old systems have a hard time adjusting to fundamental, structural change no matter who runs them?

 

[Nik]

States run Medicaid but they must meet federal guidelines to receive matching federal funds. Therefore Medicaid is run by the feds...
Medicaid - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Unlike Medicare, which is solely a federal program, Medicaid is a joint federal-state program. Each state operates its own Medicaid system, but this system must conform to federal guidelines in order for the state to receive matching funds and grants. The federal matching formula is different from state to state, depending on each state's poverty level. The wealthiest states only receive a federal match of 50% while poorer states receive a larger match.

Medicaid funding has become a major budgetary issue for many states over the last few years, with states, on average, spending 16.8% of state general funds on the program. If the federal match expenditure is also counted, the program, on average, takes up 22% of each state's budget.[15]

What? You might want to re-think that statement again. Actually, don't bother, I'll just destroy it.

The feds have broad guideliens the states must meet. Not specific ones. The states decide the specifics of the program. Some states have managed care, others don't. Some states have good coverage, other states don't. Medicaid programs vary widely from state to state. Since they vary so widely it becomes immediately obvious that its a state program, not a federal program.

Its run by the states, dude. The feds just have broad guidelines for it. But its run by the states. From your link:

each state operates its own Medicaid system

Each state operates its own Medicaid system that must meet federal guidelines to receive federal matching funds....If the state doesn't meet the federal guidelines the states wouldn't receive the funding. Now who controls what?

The state controls the system. Yet again. They can choose whether they want to meet broad federal guidelines, and even if they do they still have a lot of discretion. But, as has been said numerous times, the state runs the system.

 

[jreeves]

The government IS ALREADY RUNNING HEALTH INSURANCE WELL. Nobody with a brain in their head thinks that Medicare failed.

Medicaid isn't run by the feds, genius.

As for the US Postal Service....



U.S. Postal Service 1st-quarter profit $672 mln | Reuters

You on crack, son? You really want to cite one of the more profitable and best run federal agencies as evidence that its a failure?

Postal Service....LOL
La Figa » Mail Drop: Postal Service Loses $2.8 Billion in 2008, Blames the Interwebs
Last year the United States Postal Service lost $2.8 billion in what they considered a "decent year" and anticipate a 17% drop in volume (and thus revenue) this year, due in part to online bill paying. By 2010, the USPS anticipates losses as high as $12 billion if changes aren't made. Since they are running out of money, the Postmaster General suggests Congress to pass legislation that will allow the elimination of either Saturday or Tuesday delivery. And they're cutting positions by 15% and instituting a hiring freeze, Postmaster General John Potter told a Congressional subcommittee.

Wait! Wut?! A loss of 2.8 billion is considered a "decent year"? WTF?

Postal Service spokesman James Wigdel explained the drop in revenue:

The old model was people religiously at the first of the month putting their stamp on the envelope and sent their credit card mail and all that remittance mail off. More and more people are doing that online.

That's not the only reason: I've noticed that while lots of people shop online, many sellers--private and commercial--use UPS or FedEx ground service to deliver packages, maybe because they are more economical?

Additionally, the USPS will pay almost $70 billion from now through 2016 for retiree health benefits. But Postmaster General Potter pointed out that if USPS paid for retiree health benefits out of its Retiree Health Benefit Fund instead of its operating budget, that change would have allowed the service to reach a $1.6 billion profit in 2007, instead of a $5.1 billion loss. Um, isn't that what a "retiree health benefit fund" is for--to pay retiree health benefits?

Wait! Wut?! The postal service had a $5.1 billion loss in 2007? No wonder 2008 seemed like a decent year!

The postal service has come up with some other nifty ideas to save money. Maybe they should have implemented some of these sooner:

And? Newspapers are all operating with losses as well. Omg its cause they are run by the gubmint!!!!!!!!!!!

Or maybe its because old systems have a hard time adjusting to fundamental, structural change no matter who runs them?

I thought you just painted a rosy picture of the USPS? WTF...make up your mind?

 

[Nik]

Postal Service....LOL
La Figa » Mail Drop: Postal Service Loses $2.8 Billion in 2008, Blames the Interwebs
Last year the United States Postal Service lost $2.8 billion in what they considered a "decent year" and anticipate a 17% drop in volume (and thus revenue) this year, due in part to online bill paying. By 2010, the USPS anticipates losses as high as $12 billion if changes aren't made. Since they are running out of money, the Postmaster General suggests Congress to pass legislation that will allow the elimination of either Saturday or Tuesday delivery. And they're cutting positions by 15% and instituting a hiring freeze, Postmaster General John Potter told a Congressional subcommittee.

Wait! Wut?! A loss of 2.8 billion is considered a "decent year"? WTF?

Postal Service spokesman James Wigdel explained the drop in revenue:

The old model was people religiously at the first of the month putting their stamp on the envelope and sent their credit card mail and all that remittance mail off. More and more people are doing that online.

That's not the only reason: I've noticed that while lots of people shop online, many sellers--private and commercial--use UPS or FedEx ground service to deliver packages, maybe because they are more economical?

Additionally, the USPS will pay almost $70 billion from now through 2016 for retiree health benefits. But Postmaster General Potter pointed out that if USPS paid for retiree health benefits out of its Retiree Health Benefit Fund instead of its operating budget, that change would have allowed the service to reach a $1.6 billion profit in 2007, instead of a $5.1 billion loss. Um, isn't that what a "retiree health benefit fund" is for--to pay retiree health benefits?

Wait! Wut?! The postal service had a $5.1 billion loss in 2007? No wonder 2008 seemed like a decent year!

The postal service has come up with some other nifty ideas to save money. Maybe they should have implemented some of these sooner:

And? Newspapers are all operating with losses as well. Omg its cause they are run by the gubmint!!!!!!!!!!!

Or maybe its because old systems have a hard time adjusting to fundamental, structural change no matter who runs them?

I thought you just painted a rosy picture of the USPS? WTF...make up your mind?

No business is rosy right now. But the USPS has been profitable for many, many years.

So how if the government is so incompetent, was it able to run such a profitable and well run service for so many years?

 

[jreeves]

What? You might want to re-think that statement again. Actually, don't bother, I'll just destroy it.

The feds have broad guideliens the states must meet. Not specific ones. The states decide the specifics of the program. Some states have managed care, others don't. Some states have good coverage, other states don't. Medicaid programs vary widely from state to state. Since they vary so widely it becomes immediately obvious that its a state program, not a federal program.

Its run by the states, dude. The feds just have broad guidelines for it. But its run by the states. From your link:

Each state operates its own Medicaid system that must meet federal guidelines to receive federal matching funds....If the state doesn't meet the federal guidelines the states wouldn't receive the funding. Now who controls what?

The state controls the system. Yet again. They can choose whether they want to meet broad federal guidelines, and even if they do they still have a lot of discretion. But, as has been said numerous times, the state runs the system.

yep...broad guidelines indeed...
Medicaid | <cite>Kaiser Daily Health Policy Report Highlights</cite> State Medicaid Developments - Kaisernetwork.org
# Florida: The state could lose $300 million in federal Medicaid funding if lawmakers do not expand a pilot program statewide by fiscal year 2011, Health News Florida reports. Under the pilot program, which former Gov. Jeb Bush (R) initiated in 2005, the state receives $1 billion annually for providing no-cost care to uninsured residents. However, the program also includes the penalty clause for reduced federal funds if it is not expanded by 2011. According to Health News Florida, previous attempts to expand the program have been defeated by the state Legislature over the past two years, and some lawmakers this session have indicated that they do not plan on approving an expansion (Jordan Sexton, Health News Florida, 5/1). Legislative leaders only recently learned of the penalty and "now are scrambling in the waning days of the lawmaking session" to approve special budget language requesting additional time from the federal government, the St. Petersburg Times reports. They also must decide what to do with about $246 million in surplus funds, which some public hospital executives say should be used to close the $300 million shortfall if the penalty takes effect or any other funding deficits in the future (Caputo, St. Petersburg Times, 5/2). Others say that the excess funds -- part of the state's share from the federal economic stimulus package -- should be distributed and spent now (Health News Florida, 5/1). Some lawmakers want Medicaid reform scrapped altogether. State Senate Committee on Health and Human Services Appropriations Chair Durell Peaden (R), said, "We've done the experiment. It has failed," adding, "The reports are unsettling. People couldn't get to specialists, couldn't get adequate care. And they couldn't do it cheaply" (St. Petersburg Times, 5/2).

 

[Nik]

Each state operates its own Medicaid system that must meet federal guidelines to receive federal matching funds....If the state doesn't meet the federal guidelines the states wouldn't receive the funding. Now who controls what?

The state controls the system. Yet again. They can choose whether they want to meet broad federal guidelines, and even if they do they still have a lot of discretion. But, as has been said numerous times, the state runs the system.

yep...broad guidelines indeed...
Medicaid | <cite>Kaiser Daily Health Policy Report Highlights</cite> State Medicaid Developments - Kaisernetwork.org
# Florida: The state could lose $300 million in federal Medicaid funding if lawmakers do not expand a pilot program statewide by fiscal year 2011, Health News Florida reports. Under the pilot program, which former Gov. Jeb Bush (R) initiated in 2005, the state receives $1 billion annually for providing no-cost care to uninsured residents. However, the program also includes the penalty clause for reduced federal funds if it is not expanded by 2011. According to Health News Florida, previous attempts to expand the program have been defeated by the state Legislature over the past two years, and some lawmakers this session have indicated that they do not plan on approving an expansion (Jordan Sexton, Health News Florida, 5/1). Legislative leaders only recently learned of the penalty and "now are scrambling in the waning days of the lawmaking session" to approve special budget language requesting additional time from the federal government, the St. Petersburg Times reports. They also must decide what to do with about $246 million in surplus funds, which some public hospital executives say should be used to close the $300 million shortfall if the penalty takes effect or any other funding deficits in the future (Caputo, St. Petersburg Times, 5/2). Others say that the excess funds -- part of the state's share from the federal economic stimulus package -- should be distributed and spent now (Health News Florida, 5/1). Some lawmakers want Medicaid reform scrapped altogether. State Senate Committee on Health and Human Services Appropriations Chair Durell Peaden (R), said, "We've done the experiment. It has failed," adding, "The reports are unsettling. People couldn't get to specialists, couldn't get adequate care. And they couldn't do it cheaply" (St. Petersburg Times, 5/2).

That was a supplemental pilot program.

Next?

 

[Chris]

USPS is a good example of the efficiency of a single payer system.

No private company will come to my house and deliver a letter to California for 44 cents.

 

[jreeves]

And? Newspapers are all operating with losses as well. Omg its cause they are run by the gubmint!!!!!!!!!!!

Or maybe its because old systems have a hard time adjusting to fundamental, structural change no matter who runs them?

I thought you just painted a rosy picture of the USPS? WTF...make up your mind?

No business is rosy right now. But the USPS has been profitable for many, many years.

So how if the government is so incompetent, was it able to run such a profitable and well run service for so many years?

Do you really want to compare their profits with private competitors?

United States Postal Service
The Postal Service's most visible and energetic competitors were shipping-service providers FedEx and UPS. For the Postal Service, competition was a tricky matter; the Postal Service was a government-subsidized entity with many advantages. Its rivals frequently maintained that the USPS used revenues generated from its monopoly on mail delivery to fund services designed to compete against private companies. The USPS, exempt from most taxes, including federal and state, free from parking fines, and able to clear foreign customs more easily than its competitors, seemed to hold the upper hand in the marketplace. In addition, postal laws required that private companies charge twice as much for services also offered by the USPS, allowing the agency to significantly undercut competing prices. UPS chairman and CEO Jim Kelly spoke out against such policies in a speech given to the National Press Club in 1998 and declared, "I'm hard pressed to think of a better example of anti-competitive practices than setting your competitors' rates." The Postal Service defended the postal rules and pointed out that UPS and FedEx charged more than double the USPS's $3.20 Priority Mail charge for two-day delivery services. USPS spokesperson Norm Scherstrom said in the Journal of Commerce, "If I recall, when we started our Priority Mail ads, UPS was charging about $8 and FedEx was charging about $12&#8230;. If the requirement was a double postage rule why were they way above that?"

As powerful as the Postal Service was, it faced substantial competition from many challengers and did not command all delivery categories. In the express-delivery service segment, FedEx was the largest express shipping company in the world and the market leader with a 43 percent share in 1997. UPS took the second place spot with 27 percent, followed by Airborne Express at 15 percent, other services with 8 percent, and the Postal Service with 5 percent, according to the Colography Group


That's how they did it..

Even with the advantages....


While USPS posted loses for 2008 here is what FEDEX posted...

http://finance.econsultant.com/fedex-2008-revenue-profit-2009-fortune-500-rank/

2008 Profit: $ 1,125 million

 

[jreeves]

The state controls the system. Yet again. They can choose whether they want to meet broad federal guidelines, and even if they do they still have a lot of discretion. But, as has been said numerous times, the state runs the system.

yep...broad guidelines indeed...
Medicaid | <cite>Kaiser Daily Health Policy Report Highlights</cite> State Medicaid Developments - Kaisernetwork.org
# Florida: The state could lose $300 million in federal Medicaid funding if lawmakers do not expand a pilot program statewide by fiscal year 2011, Health News Florida reports. Under the pilot program, which former Gov. Jeb Bush (R) initiated in 2005, the state receives $1 billion annually for providing no-cost care to uninsured residents. However, the program also includes the penalty clause for reduced federal funds if it is not expanded by 2011. According to Health News Florida, previous attempts to expand the program have been defeated by the state Legislature over the past two years, and some lawmakers this session have indicated that they do not plan on approving an expansion (Jordan Sexton, Health News Florida, 5/1). Legislative leaders only recently learned of the penalty and "now are scrambling in the waning days of the lawmaking session" to approve special budget language requesting additional time from the federal government, the St. Petersburg Times reports. They also must decide what to do with about $246 million in surplus funds, which some public hospital executives say should be used to close the $300 million shortfall if the penalty takes effect or any other funding deficits in the future (Caputo, St. Petersburg Times, 5/2). Others say that the excess funds -- part of the state's share from the federal economic stimulus package -- should be distributed and spent now (Health News Florida, 5/1). Some lawmakers want Medicaid reform scrapped altogether. State Senate Committee on Health and Human Services Appropriations Chair Durell Peaden (R), said, "We've done the experiment. It has failed," adding, "The reports are unsettling. People couldn't get to specialists, couldn't get adequate care. And they couldn't do it cheaply" (St. Petersburg Times, 5/2).

That was a supplemental pilot program.

Next?

That's an example of federal guidelines dictating to a state how to run Medicaid in their state.

 

[jreeves]

USPS is a good example of the efficiency of a single payer system.

No private company will come to my house and deliver a letter to California for 44 cents.

Dipshit, they have a monopoly on residential delivery. If it was opened up to the marketplace, you very well could have mail delivered to a house in Ca for under 44 cents.

 

[Nik]

I thought you just painted a rosy picture of the USPS? WTF...make up your mind?

No business is rosy right now. But the USPS has been profitable for many, many years.

So how if the government is so incompetent, was it able to run such a profitable and well run service for so many years?

Do you really want to compare their profits with private competitors?

United States Postal Service
The Postal Service's most visible and energetic competitors were shipping-service providers FedEx and UPS. For the Postal Service, competition was a tricky matter; the Postal Service was a government-subsidized entity with many advantages. Its rivals frequently maintained that the USPS used revenues generated from its monopoly on mail delivery to fund services designed to compete against private companies. The USPS, exempt from most taxes, including federal and state, free from parking fines, and able to clear foreign customs more easily than its competitors, seemed to hold the upper hand in the marketplace. In addition, postal laws required that private companies charge twice as much for services also offered by the USPS, allowing the agency to significantly undercut competing prices. UPS chairman and CEO Jim Kelly spoke out against such policies in a speech given to the National Press Club in 1998 and declared, "I'm hard pressed to think of a better example of anti-competitive practices than setting your competitors' rates." The Postal Service defended the postal rules and pointed out that UPS and FedEx charged more than double the USPS's $3.20 Priority Mail charge for two-day delivery services. USPS spokesperson Norm Scherstrom said in the Journal of Commerce, "If I recall, when we started our Priority Mail ads, UPS was charging about $8 and FedEx was charging about $12…. If the requirement was a double postage rule why were they way above that?"

As powerful as the Postal Service was, it faced substantial competition from many challengers and did not command all delivery categories. In the express-delivery service segment, FedEx was the largest express shipping company in the world and the market leader with a 43 percent share in 1997. UPS took the second place spot with 27 percent, followed by Airborne Express at 15 percent, other services with 8 percent, and the Postal Service with 5 percent, according to the Colography Group


That's how they did it..

Even with the advantages....

Umm, the United States Postal Service is operated in.....the United States. FedEx and UPS are worldwide operations.

Comparison fail.

 

[Nik]

yep...broad guidelines indeed...
Medicaid | <cite>Kaiser Daily Health Policy Report Highlights</cite> State Medicaid Developments - Kaisernetwork.org
# Florida: The state could lose $300 million in federal Medicaid funding if lawmakers do not expand a pilot program statewide by fiscal year 2011, Health News Florida reports. Under the pilot program, which former Gov. Jeb Bush (R) initiated in 2005, the state receives $1 billion annually for providing no-cost care to uninsured residents. However, the program also includes the penalty clause for reduced federal funds if it is not expanded by 2011. According to Health News Florida, previous attempts to expand the program have been defeated by the state Legislature over the past two years, and some lawmakers this session have indicated that they do not plan on approving an expansion (Jordan Sexton, Health News Florida, 5/1). Legislative leaders only recently learned of the penalty and "now are scrambling in the waning days of the lawmaking session" to approve special budget language requesting additional time from the federal government, the St. Petersburg Times reports. They also must decide what to do with about $246 million in surplus funds, which some public hospital executives say should be used to close the $300 million shortfall if the penalty takes effect or any other funding deficits in the future (Caputo, St. Petersburg Times, 5/2). Others say that the excess funds -- part of the state's share from the federal economic stimulus package -- should be distributed and spent now (Health News Florida, 5/1). Some lawmakers want Medicaid reform scrapped altogether. State Senate Committee on Health and Human Services Appropriations Chair Durell Peaden (R), said, "We've done the experiment. It has failed," adding, "The reports are unsettling. People couldn't get to specialists, couldn't get adequate care. And they couldn't do it cheaply" (St. Petersburg Times, 5/2).

That was a supplemental pilot program.

Next?

That's an example of federal guidelines dictating to a state how to run Medicaid in their state.

Thats an example of the federal government offering a state addition monies in return for additional services. The state didn't need to ask for additional money.

 

[jreeves]

That was a supplemental pilot program.

Next?

That's an example of federal guidelines dictating to a state how to run Medicaid in their state.

Thats an example of the federal government offering a state addition monies in return for additional services. The state didn't need to ask for additional money.

Who establishes poverty guidelines, the states or the Feds?

 

[jreeves]

No business is rosy right now. But the USPS has been profitable for many, many years.

So how if the government is so incompetent, was it able to run such a profitable and well run service for so many years?

Do you really want to compare their profits with private competitors?

United States Postal Service
The Postal Service's most visible and energetic competitors were shipping-service providers FedEx and UPS. For the Postal Service, competition was a tricky matter; the Postal Service was a government-subsidized entity with many advantages. Its rivals frequently maintained that the USPS used revenues generated from its monopoly on mail delivery to fund services designed to compete against private companies. The USPS, exempt from most taxes, including federal and state, free from parking fines, and able to clear foreign customs more easily than its competitors, seemed to hold the upper hand in the marketplace. In addition, postal laws required that private companies charge twice as much for services also offered by the USPS, allowing the agency to significantly undercut competing prices. UPS chairman and CEO Jim Kelly spoke out against such policies in a speech given to the National Press Club in 1998 and declared, "I'm hard pressed to think of a better example of anti-competitive practices than setting your competitors' rates." The Postal Service defended the postal rules and pointed out that UPS and FedEx charged more than double the USPS's $3.20 Priority Mail charge for two-day delivery services. USPS spokesperson Norm Scherstrom said in the Journal of Commerce, "If I recall, when we started our Priority Mail ads, UPS was charging about $8 and FedEx was charging about $12&#8230;. If the requirement was a double postage rule why were they way above that?"

As powerful as the Postal Service was, it faced substantial competition from many challengers and did not command all delivery categories. In the express-delivery service segment, FedEx was the largest express shipping company in the world and the market leader with a 43 percent share in 1997. UPS took the second place spot with 27 percent, followed by Airborne Express at 15 percent, other services with 8 percent, and the Postal Service with 5 percent, according to the Colography Group


That's how they did it..

Even with the advantages....

Umm, the United States Postal Service is operated in.....the United States. FedEx and UPS are worldwide operations.

Comparison fail.

LOL...nice try but you fail.
How many times have we heard Obama state this is a global recession we are in?
Also, if the USPS wasn't publicly ran, they would be in overseas markets.

I guess if I showed a quote from the US postmaster general calling for the privatization of the USPS so that they could compete, that wouldn't mean anything to you either, huh?

 

[Nik]

That's an example of federal guidelines dictating to a state how to run Medicaid in their state.

Thats an example of the federal government offering a state addition monies in return for additional services. The state didn't need to ask for additional money.

Who establishes poverty guidelines, the states or the Feds?

And?

Certain relatively recent provisions of Medicaid use the poverty guidelines; however, the rest of that program (accounting
for roughly three-quarters of Medicaid eligibility determinations) does not use the guidelines.

http://www.canhelp.org/CAN2008/2008poverty.pdf

 

[Nik]

Do you really want to compare their profits with private competitors?

United States Postal Service
The Postal Service's most visible and energetic competitors were shipping-service providers FedEx and UPS. For the Postal Service, competition was a tricky matter; the Postal Service was a government-subsidized entity with many advantages. Its rivals frequently maintained that the USPS used revenues generated from its monopoly on mail delivery to fund services designed to compete against private companies. The USPS, exempt from most taxes, including federal and state, free from parking fines, and able to clear foreign customs more easily than its competitors, seemed to hold the upper hand in the marketplace. In addition, postal laws required that private companies charge twice as much for services also offered by the USPS, allowing the agency to significantly undercut competing prices. UPS chairman and CEO Jim Kelly spoke out against such policies in a speech given to the National Press Club in 1998 and declared, "I'm hard pressed to think of a better example of anti-competitive practices than setting your competitors' rates." The Postal Service defended the postal rules and pointed out that UPS and FedEx charged more than double the USPS's $3.20 Priority Mail charge for two-day delivery services. USPS spokesperson Norm Scherstrom said in the Journal of Commerce, "If I recall, when we started our Priority Mail ads, UPS was charging about $8 and FedEx was charging about $12…. If the requirement was a double postage rule why were they way above that?"

As powerful as the Postal Service was, it faced substantial competition from many challengers and did not command all delivery categories. In the express-delivery service segment, FedEx was the largest express shipping company in the world and the market leader with a 43 percent share in 1997. UPS took the second place spot with 27 percent, followed by Airborne Express at 15 percent, other services with 8 percent, and the Postal Service with 5 percent, according to the Colography Group


That's how they did it..

Even with the advantages....

Umm, the United States Postal Service is operated in.....the United States. FedEx and UPS are worldwide operations.

Comparison fail.

LOL...nice try but you fail.
How many times have we heard Obama state this is a global recession we are in?
Also, if the USPS wasn't publicly ran, they would be in overseas markets.

I guess if I showed a quote from the US postmaster general calling for the privatization of the USPS so that they could compete, that wouldn't mean anything to you either, huh?

Are you really this ******* stupid?

Yes. Its a global recession. That has nothing to do with my point.

USPS is going to be small, globally. Why? Because FedEx has operations in 211 countries. USPS has operations in 1 country. Therefore its worldwide operations is going to be smaller.

Do I really need to explain shit like this?