72% of Americans support government run healthcare

[Harry Dresden]

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?

I wonder why the Postmaster General called for the privatization of the USPS so they could compete better?

If USPS was being ran effectively, they would expand their operations to other countries. But they can't because they are a publicly ran postal service. That's my point try and pay attention.

not unless each countries PO allowed that to happen.....and i doubt very much if any would....each country has their own Post Office and THEY deliver their countries mail....

 

[jreeves]

Postal Service....LOL

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


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?


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

first off since the PO usually loses around 1-2 billion a year ...2.8 Billion is a decent year....

if UPS and FedX charge more how are they more economical....FedX and UPS send little post cards to the PO asking us for the correct address for their parcels with bad numbers so they can deliver them....and this happens more than what you would think....i have seen UPS parcels left at vacant houses....parcels delivered to a person that moved years ago....etc.etc.

and the retiree thing was mandated by Congress a few years back against the PO's wishes....they had them put a couple bill a year in an escrow account,which at the time everyone was going... WHY? it turns out its a cash cow for congress,now they want it stopped and that money back....and those nifty ideas,USUALLY, always get shot down by Congress

Like I said the USPS shows how efficient the federal government is at running things.

 

[Annie]

Think 'if you like your insurance you can keep it' is true? Not so much:

Power Line - Does the Democratic Health Care Plan Ban Private Insurance?

DOES THE DEMOCRATIC HEALTH CARE PLAN BAN PRIVATE INSURANCE?
Share Post PrintJuly 17, 2009 Posted by John at 7:41 PM
That's a claim that is making the rounds these days, based on this editorial by Investors Business Daily:

It didn't take long to run into an "uh-oh" moment when reading the House's "health care for all Americans" bill. Right there on Page 16 is a provision making individual private medical insurance illegal.
When we first saw the paragraph Tuesday, just after the 1,018-page document was released, we thought we surely must be misreading it. So we sought help from the House Ways and Means Committee.

It turns out we were right: The provision would indeed outlaw individual private coverage. Under the Orwellian header of "Protecting The Choice To Keep Current Coverage," the "Limitation On New Enrollment" section of the bill clearly states:

"Except as provided in this paragraph, the individual health insurance issuer offering such coverage does not enroll any individual in such coverage if the first effective date of coverage is on or after the first day" of the year the legislation becomes law.​

Is this a fair reading of the current House health care plan? Not quite. The bill doesn't exactly "ban" private insurance. Rather, the quoted provision is a "grandfather" clause that allows insurance plans that are not "qualified health benefits plans" to remain in existence for a limited time after the "reform" bill is enacted. Those plans--the ones that don't provide all the coverages demanded in order to "qualify" under the proposed statute--are indeed prohibited from enrolling new members.

So Barack Obama's constant assurance that, if you like your current coverage you can keep it, is misleading at best. You can keep it for a while, but your company can't enroll any new members in the plan, and if you change jobs, you're probably out of luck. "Non-qualifying" plans are obviously slated for extinction; if they can't enroll new members, they can't survive for long. When the "non-qualifying" plan that you like ceases doing business, you, too, are out of luck.

The Democrats would say, of course, that this doesn't mean they are "banning private insurance." Rather, once their plan goes into effect, all private insurance will have to "qualify" by meeting the criteria that are partly set out in the statute, but are to be developed more fully by a panel that will be appointed by the government. What that means in practice is that a private insurance plan will be allowed to exist only if it is the same as the government plan. Since the government plan will be taxpayer-subsidized, no private plan will be able to compete effectively with it if the private plan is required to provide the same coverages. So the consumer--you--will have no choice. You will have to buy the plan the government designs....

 

[Harry Dresden]

Postal Service....LOL

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


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?


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

first off since the PO usually loses around 1-2 billion a year ...2.8 Billion is a decent year....

if UPS and FedX charge more how are they more economical....FedX and UPS send little post cards to the PO asking us for the correct address for their parcels with bad numbers so they can deliver them....and this happens more than what you would think....i have seen UPS parcels left at vacant houses....parcels delivered to a person that moved years ago....etc.etc.

and the retiree thing was mandated by Congress a few years back against the PO's wishes....they had them put a couple bill a year in an escrow account,which at the time everyone was going... WHY? it turns out its a cash cow for congress,now they want it stopped and that money back....and those nifty ideas,USUALLY, always get shot down by Congress

Like I said the USPS shows how efficient the federal government is at running things.

i cant argue there....ideas from the bottom,from those who actually work,are usually squelched from those in middle mang....because they think their ideas are better,even though they cost time and money .....this is something that gives us headaches because we have to put up with these useless piles of crap...

 

[Harry Dresden]

LOL You are so living in the past ... yeah ... also no private company lays off it's employees just because they are well managed ... yeah ... then raise the cost of services and still **** up half their responsibilities ... yeah, that's good management.

So you think a company can't be well managed, but get fucked over by externalities?

Like what ... healthy competition? That's still a management issue.

Inability to keep up with tech? Management's fault again.

Inability to turn a profit? Management ...

Inability to maintain services at decent prices? Management ...

Mismanagement is the cause for any company to fail ... well that and over regulation, which the USPS doesn't have to worry about.

if you dont think the P.O. has regulations Kitty think again....EVERYTHING they wanna do to be more like a business they have to go through the so called Board of Governors...the Congressional Postal Panel...(i could be calling this the wrong name)....and then Congress themselves....and on the workroom floor there is PLENTY of regs on handling the mail....there is so much red tape involved in delivering and handling the mail the CORRECT way....its insane...even handling junk mail....believe me the PO has plenty of regulations....

 

[Harry Dresden]

I wonder why the Postmaster General called for the privatization of the USPS so they could compete better?

And please provide the link to the postmaster generals comments that you are referring too.

and yea you would have to show me a link too Jr...the Postmaster and MANY and i mean MANY of the upper managers would be the first guys to lose their jobs if that happened.....i would really be kinda shocked if he indeed said that

 

[Yukon]

Universal health Care is coming to you my GOP friends. Americans want it and they will get it. Thank God and Allah for Barack Obama (that rhymes).

 

[Citizen]

Universal health Care is coming to you my GOP friends. Americans want it and they will get it. Thank God and Allah for Barack Obama (that rhymes).

As I posted on another thread, if the way the government takes care of our veterans through the Veterans Administration hospitals is any indication of government run health care, count me out.

 

[Care4all]

Universal health Care is coming to you my GOP friends. Americans want it and they will get it. Thank God and Allah for Barack Obama (that rhymes).

is health care insurance administered by the private sector, universal health care?

 

[jreeves]

I wonder why the Postmaster General called for the privatization of the USPS so they could compete better?

And please provide the link to the postmaster generals comments that you are referring too.

and yea you would have to show me a link too Jr...the Postmaster and MANY and i mean MANY of the upper managers would be the first guys to lose their jobs if that happened.....i would really be kinda shocked if he indeed said that

Is It Time to Privatize the Postal Service?
Dr. Gene Del Polito has served as the president of the Association for Postal Commerce for the past 20 years. Dr. Del Polito is highly regarded as an effective advocate on behalf of those who use mail for business communication and commerce. He has received several awards and is often sought as a speaker at postal conferences.
Marvin Runyon: You talk about privatization. Well, we're being "privatized" every day by our competition--letter by letter, package by package. Competition is giving us plenty of incentive to improve. It's making us realize that if we're to be an innovative leader in the communications industry, we've got to get out there and compete for every postal dollar we get.

The only way to do that is to become more like a private company--in effect, to "corporatize" ourselves. And that is exactly what we're doing. When it comes to running a business, I learned a lot in my years at Ford and Nissan. I came to government, first to the Tennessee Valley Authority and then to the Postal Service, because I wanted to prove that the same practices could work in the public sector.

They do. TVA is a customer-driven, top-performing organization. It hasn't had a price increase since 1987 and has pledged to keep prices steady for a full decade, until at least 1997. It's proving that an organization that's part government and part business can be successful and competitive.

The Postal Service is also more businesslike than ever. We got a good start 25 years ago, when the Postal Reorganization Act combined our mission to serve everyone, everywhere, every day, with a mandate to operate like a business. And we've delivered.

We've become more businesslike as the act envisioned. Political affiliations no longer determine who gets what jobs. Postal management, with help from a board of directors similar to ones in the private sector, determines our strategic directions and capital investments. And we're self- supporting. Today, when it comes to postage rates, what you see is what you get. There's no longer a 25 percent hidden subsidy in the price of a stamp. No tax dollars fill our coffers. And the real price of a stamp when adjusted for inflation is about the same today as it was back in 1971.

Clearly, it's time to take the next step in postal reform. In recent weeks, as this subject has been discussed around the nation, a broad range of actions has been recommended. You will hear some more today. They've run the gamut from minor legislative changes to selling off the Postal Service lock, stock, and barrel to a private company.

But there is growing consensus that the answer lies between those two extremes. There is agreement that it's not time to get the government out of the business of delivering the mail. It's time to get the Postal Service into business for the American people by freeing it to compete.

Recent surveys affirm that point. A recent Lou Harris poll says that competition is good for the Postal Service. However, the survey results indicate that more than three-quarters of both business executives and consumers feel that, despite some flaws, the Postal Service is "the best way to provide mail delivery for everyone at a reasonable price."

A recent national survey by Opinion Research Corporation also found that the majority of Americans favor government delivery of the mail. Seventy-six percent favored keeping the current organization but making it more flexible. I've heard the same thing from business customers in a variety of sectors and in meetings with members of Congress and representatives of the administration. America doesn't want a different Postal Service--it wants the one it has to be more businesslike and responsive to its needs.
Former PMG Marvin Runyon Dies at 79

Marvin Runyon, U.S. postmaster general from 1992 to 1998, died May 3. He was 79.

 

[HUGGY]

And please provide the link to the postmaster generals comments that you are referring too.

and yea you would have to show me a link too Jr...the Postmaster and MANY and i mean MANY of the upper managers would be the first guys to lose their jobs if that happened.....i would really be kinda shocked if he indeed said that

Is It Time to Privatize the Postal Service?
Dr. Gene Del Polito has served as the president of the Association for Postal Commerce for the past 20 years. Dr. Del Polito is highly regarded as an effective advocate on behalf of those who use mail for business communication and commerce. He has received several awards and is often sought as a speaker at postal conferences.
Marvin Runyon: You talk about privatization. Well, we're being "privatized" every day by our competition--letter by letter, package by package. Competition is giving us plenty of incentive to improve. It's making us realize that if we're to be an innovative leader in the communications industry, we've got to get out there and compete for every postal dollar we get.

The only way to do that is to become more like a private company--in effect, to "corporatize" ourselves. And that is exactly what we're doing. When it comes to running a business, I learned a lot in my years at Ford and Nissan. I came to government, first to the Tennessee Valley Authority and then to the Postal Service, because I wanted to prove that the same practices could work in the public sector.

They do. TVA is a customer-driven, top-performing organization. It hasn't had a price increase since 1987 and has pledged to keep prices steady for a full decade, until at least 1997. It's proving that an organization that's part government and part business can be successful and competitive.

The Postal Service is also more businesslike than ever. We got a good start 25 years ago, when the Postal Reorganization Act combined our mission to serve everyone, everywhere, every day, with a mandate to operate like a business. And we've delivered.

We've become more businesslike as the act envisioned. Political affiliations no longer determine who gets what jobs. Postal management, with help from a board of directors similar to ones in the private sector, determines our strategic directions and capital investments. And we're self- supporting. Today, when it comes to postage rates, what you see is what you get. There's no longer a 25 percent hidden subsidy in the price of a stamp. No tax dollars fill our coffers. And the real price of a stamp when adjusted for inflation is about the same today as it was back in 1971.

Clearly, it's time to take the next step in postal reform. In recent weeks, as this subject has been discussed around the nation, a broad range of actions has been recommended. You will hear some more today. They've run the gamut from minor legislative changes to selling off the Postal Service lock, stock, and barrel to a private company.

But there is growing consensus that the answer lies between those two extremes. There is agreement that it's not time to get the government out of the business of delivering the mail. It's time to get the Postal Service into business for the American people by freeing it to compete.

Recent surveys affirm that point. A recent Lou Harris poll says that competition is good for the Postal Service. However, the survey results indicate that more than three-quarters of both business executives and consumers feel that, despite some flaws, the Postal Service is "the best way to provide mail delivery for everyone at a reasonable price."

A recent national survey by Opinion Research Corporation also found that the majority of Americans favor government delivery of the mail. Seventy-six percent favored keeping the current organization but making it more flexible. I've heard the same thing from business customers in a variety of sectors and in meetings with members of Congress and representatives of the administration. America doesn't want a different Postal Service--it wants the one it has to be more businesslike and responsive to its needs.
Former PMG Marvin Runyon Dies at 79

Marvin Runyon, U.S. postmaster general from 1992 to 1998, died May 3. He was 79.

You are ignorant of history if anything. The REASON of a public owned mail service is that it cannot go out of business like ALL of the others can and do.

What benefit could you possibly be lobbying for that could out weight a GAURANTEED delivery system?

Jeezuss are you people really THAT stupid?

 

[jreeves]

and yea you would have to show me a link too Jr...the Postmaster and MANY and i mean MANY of the upper managers would be the first guys to lose their jobs if that happened.....i would really be kinda shocked if he indeed said that

Is It Time to Privatize the Postal Service?
Dr. Gene Del Polito has served as the president of the Association for Postal Commerce for the past 20 years. Dr. Del Polito is highly regarded as an effective advocate on behalf of those who use mail for business communication and commerce. He has received several awards and is often sought as a speaker at postal conferences.
Marvin Runyon: You talk about privatization. Well, we're being "privatized" every day by our competition--letter by letter, package by package. Competition is giving us plenty of incentive to improve. It's making us realize that if we're to be an innovative leader in the communications industry, we've got to get out there and compete for every postal dollar we get.

The only way to do that is to become more like a private company--in effect, to "corporatize" ourselves. And that is exactly what we're doing. When it comes to running a business, I learned a lot in my years at Ford and Nissan. I came to government, first to the Tennessee Valley Authority and then to the Postal Service, because I wanted to prove that the same practices could work in the public sector.

They do. TVA is a customer-driven, top-performing organization. It hasn't had a price increase since 1987 and has pledged to keep prices steady for a full decade, until at least 1997. It's proving that an organization that's part government and part business can be successful and competitive.

The Postal Service is also more businesslike than ever. We got a good start 25 years ago, when the Postal Reorganization Act combined our mission to serve everyone, everywhere, every day, with a mandate to operate like a business. And we've delivered.

We've become more businesslike as the act envisioned. Political affiliations no longer determine who gets what jobs. Postal management, with help from a board of directors similar to ones in the private sector, determines our strategic directions and capital investments. And we're self- supporting. Today, when it comes to postage rates, what you see is what you get. There's no longer a 25 percent hidden subsidy in the price of a stamp. No tax dollars fill our coffers. And the real price of a stamp when adjusted for inflation is about the same today as it was back in 1971.

Clearly, it's time to take the next step in postal reform. In recent weeks, as this subject has been discussed around the nation, a broad range of actions has been recommended. You will hear some more today. They've run the gamut from minor legislative changes to selling off the Postal Service lock, stock, and barrel to a private company.

But there is growing consensus that the answer lies between those two extremes. There is agreement that it's not time to get the government out of the business of delivering the mail. It's time to get the Postal Service into business for the American people by freeing it to compete.

Recent surveys affirm that point. A recent Lou Harris poll says that competition is good for the Postal Service. However, the survey results indicate that more than three-quarters of both business executives and consumers feel that, despite some flaws, the Postal Service is "the best way to provide mail delivery for everyone at a reasonable price."

A recent national survey by Opinion Research Corporation also found that the majority of Americans favor government delivery of the mail. Seventy-six percent favored keeping the current organization but making it more flexible. I've heard the same thing from business customers in a variety of sectors and in meetings with members of Congress and representatives of the administration. America doesn't want a different Postal Service--it wants the one it has to be more businesslike and responsive to its needs.
Former PMG Marvin Runyon Dies at 79

Marvin Runyon, U.S. postmaster general from 1992 to 1998, died May 3. He was 79.

You are ignorant of history if anything. The REASON of a public owned mail service is that it cannot go out of business like ALL of the others can and do.

What benefit could you possibly be lobbying for that could out weight a GAURANTEED delivery system?

Jeezuss are you people really THAT stupid?

Jeezuss....I am drawing a parallel between the USPs and the proposed UHC. The USPS loses money and is inefficient much like UHC would be. Although, UHC would lead to rationing care and long waits for basic health care.

I am not calling for the privatization of the USPS, the Postmaster General stated that.

 

[Care4all]

more doctors and hospitals and that won't happen...there should be some focus to increase supply to meet demand, you would think?

 

[jreeves]

more doctors and hospitals and that won't happen...there should be some focus to increase supply to meet demand, you would think?

Do you think more doctors and hospitals will be free? This cost would be in addition to the 1 trillion dollar price tag being floated around....

 

[Care4all]

more doctors and hospitals and that won't happen...there should be some focus to increase supply to meet demand, you would think?

Do you think more doctors and hospitals will be free? This cost would be in addition to the 1 trillion dollar price tag being floated around....

increasing the number of medical and nursing schools, both private and public, would be a good start in lowering the cost of medical school and that outrageous cost of such being passed on to us via higher prices.... due to the competition, and create more medical doctors as well...which are greatly needed.

what are your ideas on how to reduce costs long term jr?

care

 

[jreeves]

more doctors and hospitals and that won't happen...there should be some focus to increase supply to meet demand, you would think?

Do you think more doctors and hospitals will be free? This cost would be in addition to the 1 trillion dollar price tag being floated around....

increasing the number of medical and nursing schools, both private and public, would be a good start in lowering the cost of medical school and that outrageous cost of such being passed on to us via higher prices.... due to the competition, and create more medical doctors as well...which are greatly needed.

what are your ideas on how to reduce costs long term jr?

care

Increasing the number and medical and nursing schools wouldn't be free either.

The best way to reduce medical costs long term would be to change the obesity rates in America.

Nearly four out of 10 adults in the USA will be obese within five years if people keep packing on pounds at the current rate - putting their health at risk, says one of the top obesity researchers.
Obesity Rate in USA
Currently, about 31%, or about 59 million people, are obese, which is defined as roughly 30 or more pounds over a healthy weight. Almost 65% are either obese or overweight, 10 to 30 pounds over a healthy weight, which increases their chances of developing diabetes, heart disease, some types of cancer and a host of other health problems.

The medical costs associated with treating these diseases will strain the health care system and economy in the years to come, experts say.

Americans are gaining one to two pounds a year, says James Hill, director of the Center for Human Nutrition at the University of Colorado Health Sciences Center in Denver. Hill predicts that, at the current rate, 39% of Americans will be obese by 2008.

He's one of several national weight-loss experts who offer possible solutions to the obesity epidemic in Friday's journal Science. This report comes on the heels of a landmark report in January that showed being obese shaves seven years off a person's life, and just being overweight shortens a person's life span by about three years.

To stop gaining weight, people need to either burn 100 calories more a day with physical activity or eat 100 calories less every day, Hill says. They could cut back a little on portions, skip one soda or walk one extra mile a day, which would take about 15 to 20 minutes, he says.


Maybe we should be advocating for universal exercise coverage in this country rather than UHC. Because the root cause of medical costs isn't lack of health care coverage its unhealthy lifestyles that is driving up medical costs.

 

[Care4all]

Do you think more doctors and hospitals will be free? This cost would be in addition to the 1 trillion dollar price tag being floated around....

increasing the number of medical and nursing schools, both private and public, would be a good start in lowering the cost of medical school and that outrageous cost of such being passed on to us via higher prices.... due to the competition, and create more medical doctors as well...which are greatly needed.

what are your ideas on how to reduce costs long term jr?

care

Increasing the number and medical and nursing schools wouldn't be free either.

The best way to reduce medical costs long term would be to change the obesity rates in America.

Nearly four out of 10 adults in the USA will be obese within five years if people keep packing on pounds at the current rate - putting their health at risk, says one of the top obesity researchers.
Obesity Rate in USA
Currently, about 31%, or about 59 million people, are obese, which is defined as roughly 30 or more pounds over a healthy weight. Almost 65% are either obese or overweight, 10 to 30 pounds over a healthy weight, which increases their chances of developing diabetes, heart disease, some types of cancer and a host of other health problems.

The medical costs associated with treating these diseases will strain the health care system and economy in the years to come, experts say.

Americans are gaining one to two pounds a year, says James Hill, director of the Center for Human Nutrition at the University of Colorado Health Sciences Center in Denver. Hill predicts that, at the current rate, 39% of Americans will be obese by 2008.

He's one of several national weight-loss experts who offer possible solutions to the obesity epidemic in Friday's journal Science. This report comes on the heels of a landmark report in January that showed being obese shaves seven years off a person's life, and just being overweight shortens a person's life span by about three years.

To stop gaining weight, people need to either burn 100 calories more a day with physical activity or eat 100 calories less every day, Hill says. They could cut back a little on portions, skip one soda or walk one extra mile a day, which would take about 15 to 20 minutes, he says.


Maybe we should be advocating for universal exercise coverage in this country rather than UHC. Because the root cause of medical costs isn't lack of health care coverage its unhealthy lifestyles that is driving up medical costs.

That makes sense...

When I was a child, we had gym class every day through elementary, middle and high school...

It was enjoyable and I learned an awful lot about many different sports along with enjoying the exercise and I think everyone else did as well.

we even had "presidential Fitness Awards" that we could win if we did certain physical tasks that were required and got a certificate from the PRESIDENT! hahahaha, as a kid, that was pretty exciting and it encouraged us staying fit.....and playing sports.

Of course, I grew up in the age when we got our first black and white tv and only Dad controlled it, and of course no computers and stuff that keeps the kids sitting. We played outside, and we played hard.

Now, many schools on tight budgets have cut gym to once a week I hear....?

enjoying being physical as a kid, I think helps the continuation of such as an adult...

 

[jreeves]

increasing the number of medical and nursing schools, both private and public, would be a good start in lowering the cost of medical school and that outrageous cost of such being passed on to us via higher prices.... due to the competition, and create more medical doctors as well...which are greatly needed.

what are your ideas on how to reduce costs long term jr?

care

Increasing the number and medical and nursing schools wouldn't be free either.

The best way to reduce medical costs long term would be to change the obesity rates in America.

Nearly four out of 10 adults in the USA will be obese within five years if people keep packing on pounds at the current rate - putting their health at risk, says one of the top obesity researchers.
Obesity Rate in USA
Currently, about 31%, or about 59 million people, are obese, which is defined as roughly 30 or more pounds over a healthy weight. Almost 65% are either obese or overweight, 10 to 30 pounds over a healthy weight, which increases their chances of developing diabetes, heart disease, some types of cancer and a host of other health problems.

The medical costs associated with treating these diseases will strain the health care system and economy in the years to come, experts say.

Americans are gaining one to two pounds a year, says James Hill, director of the Center for Human Nutrition at the University of Colorado Health Sciences Center in Denver. Hill predicts that, at the current rate, 39% of Americans will be obese by 2008.

He's one of several national weight-loss experts who offer possible solutions to the obesity epidemic in Friday's journal Science. This report comes on the heels of a landmark report in January that showed being obese shaves seven years off a person's life, and just being overweight shortens a person's life span by about three years.

To stop gaining weight, people need to either burn 100 calories more a day with physical activity or eat 100 calories less every day, Hill says. They could cut back a little on portions, skip one soda or walk one extra mile a day, which would take about 15 to 20 minutes, he says.


Maybe we should be advocating for universal exercise coverage in this country rather than UHC. Because the root cause of medical costs isn't lack of health care coverage its unhealthy lifestyles that is driving up medical costs.

That makes sense...

When I was a child, we had gym class every day through elementary, middle and high school...

It was enjoyable and I learned an awful lot about many different sports along with enjoying the exercise and I think everyone else did as well.

we even had "presidential Fitness Awards" that we could win if we did certain physical tasks that were required and got a certificate from the PRESIDENT! hahahaha, as a kid, that was pretty exciting and it encouraged us staying fit.....and playing sports.

Of course, I grew up in the age when we got our first black and white tv and only Dad controlled it, and of course no computers and stuff that keeps the kids sitting. We played outside, and we played hard.

Now, many schools on tight budgets have cut gym to once a week I hear....?

enjoying being physical as a kid, I think helps the continuation of such as an adult...

Agreed....making sure kids exercise and providing incentatives for healthy lifestyles would be a lot cheaper. Actually instituted correctly this program could save billions.

 

[Harry Dresden]

And please provide the link to the postmaster generals comments that you are referring too.

and yea you would have to show me a link too Jr...the Postmaster and MANY and i mean MANY of the upper managers would be the first guys to lose their jobs if that happened.....i would really be kinda shocked if he indeed said that

Is It Time to Privatize the Postal Service?
Dr. Gene Del Polito has served as the president of the Association for Postal Commerce for the past 20 years. Dr. Del Polito is highly regarded as an effective advocate on behalf of those who use mail for business communication and commerce. He has received several awards and is often sought as a speaker at postal conferences.
Marvin Runyon: You talk about privatization. Well, we're being "privatized" every day by our competition--letter by letter, package by package. Competition is giving us plenty of incentive to improve. It's making us realize that if we're to be an innovative leader in the communications industry, we've got to get out there and compete for every postal dollar we get.

The only way to do that is to become more like a private company--in effect, to "corporatize" ourselves. And that is exactly what we're doing. When it comes to running a business, I learned a lot in my years at Ford and Nissan. I came to government, first to the Tennessee Valley Authority and then to the Postal Service, because I wanted to prove that the same practices could work in the public sector.

They do. TVA is a customer-driven, top-performing organization. It hasn't had a price increase since 1987 and has pledged to keep prices steady for a full decade, until at least 1997. It's proving that an organization that's part government and part business can be successful and competitive.

The Postal Service is also more businesslike than ever. We got a good start 25 years ago, when the Postal Reorganization Act combined our mission to serve everyone, everywhere, every day, with a mandate to operate like a business. And we've delivered.

We've become more businesslike as the act envisioned. Political affiliations no longer determine who gets what jobs. Postal management, with help from a board of directors similar to ones in the private sector, determines our strategic directions and capital investments. And we're self- supporting. Today, when it comes to postage rates, what you see is what you get. There's no longer a 25 percent hidden subsidy in the price of a stamp. No tax dollars fill our coffers. And the real price of a stamp when adjusted for inflation is about the same today as it was back in 1971.

Clearly, it's time to take the next step in postal reform. In recent weeks, as this subject has been discussed around the nation, a broad range of actions has been recommended. You will hear some more today. They've run the gamut from minor legislative changes to selling off the Postal Service lock, stock, and barrel to a private company.

But there is growing consensus that the answer lies between those two extremes. There is agreement that it's not time to get the government out of the business of delivering the mail. It's time to get the Postal Service into business for the American people by freeing it to compete.

Recent surveys affirm that point. A recent Lou Harris poll says that competition is good for the Postal Service. However, the survey results indicate that more than three-quarters of both business executives and consumers feel that, despite some flaws, the Postal Service is "the best way to provide mail delivery for everyone at a reasonable price."

A recent national survey by Opinion Research Corporation also found that the majority of Americans favor government delivery of the mail. Seventy-six percent favored keeping the current organization but making it more flexible. I've heard the same thing from business customers in a variety of sectors and in meetings with members of Congress and representatives of the administration. America doesn't want a different Postal Service--it wants the one it has to be more businesslike and responsive to its needs.
Former PMG Marvin Runyon Dies at 79

Marvin Runyon, U.S. postmaster general from 1992 to 1998, died May 3. He was 79.

um Jb.....you said the PMG of right now,John Potter said this, to Congress recently....where is that quote?....Marvin Runyon was for letting the post office run like a Private Business and be able to make as much money as they can and use it to keep the place up to date with the new technology instead of having to go through the hoops it has too get what it needs.....this article says nothing about he wanting to privitize the PO....

 

[Bern80]

more doctors and hospitals and that won't happen...there should be some focus to increase supply to meet demand, you would think?

Do you think more doctors and hospitals will be free? This cost would be in addition to the 1 trillion dollar price tag being floated around....

increasing the number of medical and nursing schools, both private and public, would be a good start in lowering the cost of medical school and that outrageous cost of such being passed on to us via higher prices.... due to the competition, and create more medical doctors as well...which are greatly needed.

what are your ideas on how to reduce costs long term jr?

care

This is my biggest practical complaint in proposed government run health care. Some here don't seem to understand basic economics. When the price of something decreases, supply demanded increases. And just to cut anybody off at the pass that may try the ridiculous argument that health care is not like other goods and services, then why are we doing this? The goal is to reduce cost so that the people not using it because of the high cost now will. Increased demand on the system is a given folks. Is there someone here naive enough to tell me they think the supply of doctors and facilities we currently have can meet that demand?

So getting back to what you're saying care, I agree in principle that supply will need to increase to meet demand. But I'm sure the answer is more medical schools. After all that solution is predicated on the assumption that there is a shortage of schools for students qualified to become doctors. Ultimately is more practitioners that we need but they still must meet the current criteria to become so. I don't think lowering standards as a means of increasing supply is the way to go. More demand meat with lower quality supply is a recipe for disaster.