The Case for Postal-Style Healthcare

Reader Comments
Back to blog

"It provides a basic service that's not available from the private sector." You are aware, I trust, that the reason this basic service is unavailable from the private sector is that the private sector is enjoined by law from doing so? UPS and FedEx will both tell you not to place into a shipment anything that can be construed to be first-class mail (a letter, in other words), because that will change the shipment from a parcel, which they can carry, to an article of mail, which they cannot. Despite recent partnerships of varying forms between USPS and commercial carriers (typically FedEx), I'm not aware of this restriction being lifted. So right out of the box, the argument is based upon specious reasoning.

K of MD 1:50PM February 04, 2010

Chris Williams, you are a great example of the average "conservative". A person who has been born and raised on fallacies, superstition and paranoia.
"this is why the ignorant should not speak."
Really, Chris? Is this what you think? What happened to that copy of the American Constitution you were probably waving around at a town hall meeting somewhere? Apparently you only care about its provisions that are convenient for you. You forgot to use capitalization, by the way. Great way to lead off an argument attacking a writers intelligence.
That's only the title, lets look at the first sentence.
"not only does the author of this article display an ignorance of behind the scenes facts, but a very poor understanding of economics."
How ambiguous. Care to enlighten us about these 'behind the scenes' facts? Be sure to cite the right wing site that fabricated them for you. While we're at it, why don't you demonstrate this great understanding of Economics you must possess. You didn't even cite one Economic term for us. Here, I'll help you.
Natural Monopoly - In economics, a natural monopoly occurs when, due to the economies of scale of a particular industry, the maximum efficiency of production and distribution is realized through a single supplier.
Examples: Electric, Gas and Water Companies, the USPS, AMtrak, ect.
For instance, the USPS has a Natural Monopoly on delivering parcel across America because it is a service whose cost needs to be normalized, even if that results in a operating loss. For instance, look at Jill who lives in a city, just a few miles from a post office. It costs very little to service her. However, Bob who lives out in Stankwell Falls, Kansas lives 40 miles from the closest office. It costs significantly more to deliver him his mail. Yet he receives the same exact service that Jill does.
Healthcare, or at least a certain degree of it, is also a basic service. A postal-service style healthcare would normalize the cost of providing a degree of healthcare to all Americans. The degree of which that is provided most likely depends on how much of a operating loss us taxpayers are willing to tolerate. As it stands, many people are paying a lot more in insurance for a level of healthcare they don't need while everyone else is out in the cold. The only ones who profit are the insurance companies. For people who need more, there will always be private business available to meet that demand.
Hey, who cares though? You would pay 400$ a month in insurance just in case something happens to you, only to be dropped from the policy when it does. Rather then pay $50-100 a month in extra taxes to subsidize a baseline healthcare system that you would still have access too. Why? Well, your whole life you've been told the government is bad and taxes are bad and our leaders are out to get you. Yet you never stopped to wonder who puppets these ideas the most. Keep drinking your Kool-Aid, Chris.

Michael of FL 11:52PM January 22, 2010

Well, "reality of OR", I'm an Oregonian who has real experience living in a real country with real socialized medicine. "R of OR" complains that Bethany of MI wants other people to pick up the premium cost that she cannot afford. The thing is, with an equitable nationwide pool organized by a not-for-profit insurer, premiums are affordable. In the eight years I was living in Japan, the most I paid per month to be insured under their National Health Insurance was about $50. (That was 10 years ago, but even in the unlikely event that it's doubled since then, that's only $100/month.) That's not what was left over after my employer paid; that was the total monthly premium. Some of my employers picked it up for me; some didn't. It didn't matter much to me.
And since Rush Limbaugh et al have never lived in Japan or Sweden, as I have, I'm more inclined to believe my experience that there was no rationing of health care. Indeed, I've only experience rationed health care since my return home, when insurance company policies have come between me and my doctor's advice. In Japan, when my doctor recommended (and I approved) a longer hospital stay with a milder medicine, instead of the quicky antibiotic, that is what happened. Imagine your insurance company approving that here.
As for the "death panels" myth, where do you get that? Oh, yes, I read Mrs. Palin's essay on the subject. And, apparently unlike most readers, I looked up the citations that she footnoted -- and found several of them were entirely taken out of context. I don't know if she did that deliberately or if she just didn't understand what she was reading, but the source she cites as supporting the death panels myth don't support it at all.

Valerie of OR 3:30AM December 26, 2009

While Bethany doesn't want to spend 30% of his income for his own health insurance he thinks its quite fair that I and other tax payers pay for it. Z thinks the present system where an uninsured person who gets emergency care is perpetrating legal theft but doesn't seem to think that having the government take money from my pocket to pay for his insurance is legal theft. I can assure you I do not pay for your insurance willingly.
The problem with every socialized health care system in the world is that they are unable to pay for all the care the citizens want so they ration health care. In most countries with socialized health care most of this rationing falls on the shoulders of the older citizens. Since Obama care will provide taxpayer paid health care to illegal aliens it is likely that you will be denied life saving care when you get old but the same "death panel" denying you care will spend billions on illegal alien's health care. Good luck!

reality of OR 12:55AM December 25, 2009

not only does the author of this article display an ignorance of behind the scenes facts, but a very poor understanding of economics. first and foremost, microsoft is a monopoly, a monopoly that rests on a perverted system of intellectual property. they might as well be amtrack or the usps. second, perhaps fedex or ups would like to set up a sufficient infrastructure for sending letters all across the country, were it not for the fact that it is illegal, they're lucky they're even permitted to deliver packages. and as far as the "low costs" the author himself pointed out that the usps is the recipient of consistent bailouts (obviously funded by taxpayers). and flying is very expensive. don't expect a high level of service for a low price in such a high cost industry. of course the federal government could start an airline that had amtrak-like luxury for low prices, but expect a massive drain on the economy.

Chris Williams of MD 8:14PM December 24, 2009

I am one of the many that does not have health insurance right now. I have a job, but my employer doesn't offer coverage. I cannot afford private insurance for myself as it would consume around 30% of my income. I am so happy health insurance is being reformed and subsidies will be provided for me. I don't mind paying a percentage of my income in order to cover myself in the event of illness or injury- I do feel I have a personal responsibility to contribute to my health. However, with the current policy I am forced to cross my fingers and hope I don't get sick or injured. The health reform bill on the cusp approval will provide much needed support for me and millions of other citizens in my situation.

Bethany of MI 5:25PM December 24, 2009

So you don't buy insurance, and when a major event happens to you, such as a car accident, you end up in the hospital, with no ability to pay for the care that you receive. When you declare bankruptcy because you can't possibly afford the $100K bill, the hospital simply absorbs the cost, and increases its prices toward the insurance companies to offset this cost. The insurance companies transfer the additional cost to the people that purchase insurance.
The system is simple. If you don't have insurance, I, who have one, pay for your care. Hardly fair. One could actually say that you're perpetrating legal theft.
This really is about personal responsibility. Just not the way you think about it.
Think on it

Z of CA 3:17PM December 24, 2009

I thought you were on your way out of here..this socialist country. You have no idea what a glimpse of our future healthcare system will be like, because the bill still requires more work. Your mind is already against anything Obama or democratic so you choose to see only dark clouds and no silver linings. I guess you thought when Bush was in office everything was peaches and cream right?

stop complaining of LA 2:43PM December 24, 2009