The Case for Postal-Style Healthcare

[redqueen]

(snip)

Postal put-downs imply that private-sector businesses are more prompt, courteous, and efficient than anything run by the government. But that's not always true. Some companies prioritize quality and service, but others have a habit of cutting corners to reduce costs and increase profits. That's why shoppers struggle at the self-checkout line in grocery and home-improvement stores, and it takes forever to get a live human on the customer-support hotline. Microsoft is one of the most profitable companies in the world, but when was the last time a friendly employee came on the line to help you solve a problem with Windows or Excel? Instead, Microsoft shunts you off to its help and support Web site to hunt around for solutions. (Maybe that's one reason it's so profitable.)

(sip)

Firms like FedEx and UPS compete with some of the services the Postal Service offers. That's because they've targeted parts of the delivery business that can be profitable if run efficiently. But they want nothing to do with universal mail delivery, which would be a guaranteed money-loser. Gee, that sounds a lot like insurance companies that want to cherry-pick the profitable parts of the healthcare business, offering care to healthy people with employers who can help pay the premiums while steering clear of people with costly problems or less money to spend.

In the mail business, the Postal Service is the deliverer of last resort, required by law to provide a "fundamental service" to the American people "at fair and reasonable rates." But our healthcare system doesn't have a last-resort provider offering basic service at reasonable rates. As a nation, we support universal mail delivery but not universal healthcare.

Amtrak, another favored target of government-bashers, is also a dark-horse model for a federal healthcare plan. Sure, critics deride the government-run railroad for indifferent staff, creaky equipment, and weak financial performance. Yet the only thing worse than Amtrak is--every other mode of mass transportation. On many of its routes, Amtrak competes directly with the airlines, which prove their private-sector superiority every day through negligible meal service, surprise fees, packed planes, and seats designed for supermodels. Even with spartan service, the airlines struggle to earn a profit. A ride on Amtrak, with its cushy seats and unhurried ambience, makes you wonder if maybe the government should start an airline.

(more at link)

http://news.yahoo.com/s/usnews/20090827/ts_usnews/thecaseforpostalstylehealthcare

[Javaman]

1. What??? health care goes postal???? DUCK!!! nt

[boobooday]

2. I'm a big fan of the post office

They've really never let me down.

[ParkieDem]

3. The post office is good, but Amtrak sucks

I've never taken an Amtrak train that was on time. I know that's due to freight/ownership priority, but to say that the government should run an airline because Amtrak has "cushy seats," well, I have an issue with that.

[redqueen]

4. It's not the most well-written piece ever... but the point is valid.

We have public options for necessities such as transportation and mail delivery, but not health care?

Isanity.