Affordable Care Act (AKA Obamacare)

[33anda3rd]

I have no doubt that shipping something to Australia for $12 is a good deal for you. But else ends up footing that bill? You think $12 covers that cost?

It's like asking "do you think McD's turns a profit on $0.99 cheeseburgers"? Not really, but because people buy other stuff at a higher markup, it works. That might sound like music to your ears--aha! The guy buying the $4 Big Mac is footing the bill for the low margin on the $0.99 burger. But maybe McD's is able to reach a larger base because they can sell $0.99 burgers and burgers that cost 4-5 times that amount. So the $0.99 burger with low markup draws customers who then also buy fries and soda/pop at a higher markup as well, driving both revenue and profit for McD's.

Ditto the postal service. I think $12 probably covers that letter, considering volume. If the USPS has a bag of 800 pieces of mail flying from LA to Sydney at $12 each that's close to $10K. There are other postal customers who are paying premiums for certified letters and overnight delivery and stuff, but we can't look at them as enabling people sending cheaper mail. They're different customers and the USPS serves them both.

[Diddy]

The thing I keep coming back to is the Postal Service. It is a great example of a business-like government entity that has very little corruption and is highly efficient. It just shows that it's not impossible for government to do something pretty efficiently. I have a small side business where I have to ship small things often. I can ship pretty much anywhere in the continental US for between $2.50 and $3.00. To ship the same thing via UPS would cost like ~$12. Granted, UPS guarantees delivery within 2 days. It's a nice option to have UPS if I need something urgent, but it's not a "need" since the $3 USPS option still gets it there within 3 to 5 days usually.

Health insurance truly is a "need". If rich people want some other more premium option for health care, I'm sure that would still be available one way or another.

Isn't the USPS hemorrhaging money?

Congress won't let them raise their prices.

Also, Congress passed a law forcing them to pre-pay all of their pension and health care (there's that thing again) liabilities. They are the only entity, public or private, that has this requirement. Yep, not even other government entities have to do this.

They raise their prices all the time.

[Tim]

I have no doubt that shipping something to Australia for $12 is a good deal for you. But else ends up footing that bill? You think $12 covers that cost?

It's like asking "do you think McD's turns a profit on $0.99 cheeseburgers"? Not really, but because people buy other stuff at a higher markup, it works. That might sound like music to your ears--aha! The guy buying the $4 Big Mac is footing the bill for the low margin on the $0.99 burger. But maybe McD's is able to reach a larger base because they can sell $0.99 burgers and burgers that cost 4-5 times that amount. So the $0.99 burger with low markup draws customers who then also buy fries and soda/pop at a higher markup as well, driving both revenue and profit for McD's.

Ditto the postal service. I think $12 probably covers that letter, considering volume. If the USPS has a bag of 800 pieces of mail flying from LA to Sydney at $12 each that's close to $10K. There are other postal customers who are paying premiums for certified letters and overnight delivery and stuff, but we can't look at them as enabling people sending cheaper mail. They're different customers and the USPS serves them both.

McDonalds isn't losing $1.9 billion a quarter. The USPS is.

[Tim]

I think we, or at least I, have hit a stalemate here. I appreciate all the thoughts and comments.

[redbirdjazzz]

The thing I keep coming back to is the Postal Service. It is a great example of a business-like government entity that has very little corruption and is highly efficient. It just shows that it's not impossible for government to do something pretty efficiently. I have a small side business where I have to ship small things often. I can ship pretty much anywhere in the continental US for between $2.50 and $3.00. To ship the same thing via UPS would cost like ~$12. Granted, UPS guarantees delivery within 2 days. It's a nice option to have UPS if I need something urgent, but it's not a "need" since the $3 USPS option still gets it there within 3 to 5 days usually.

Health insurance truly is a "need". If rich people want some other more premium option for health care, I'm sure that would still be available one way or another.

Isn't the USPS hemorrhaging money?

Congress won't let them raise their prices.

Also, Congress passed a law forcing them to pre-pay all of their pension and health care (there's that thing again) liabilities. They are the only entity, public or private, that has this requirement. Yep, not even other government entities have to do this.

They raise their prices all the time.

Well, Congress just made them lower the prices this year, but in general, you're right. It is safe to say, though, that Congress won't let them raise their prices to a sustainable level. The only countries that have cheaper postage than we do are developing countries with super cheap labor. Every country that actually has to pay people to do work charges more.

[pioneer98]

The thing I keep coming back to is the Postal Service. It is a great example of a business-like government entity that has very little corruption and is highly efficient. It just shows that it's not impossible for government to do something pretty efficiently. I have a small side business where I have to ship small things often. I can ship pretty much anywhere in the continental US for between $2.50 and $3.00. To ship the same thing via UPS would cost like ~$12. Granted, UPS guarantees delivery within 2 days. It's a nice option to have UPS if I need something urgent, but it's not a "need" since the $3 USPS option still gets it there within 3 to 5 days usually.

Health insurance truly is a "need". If rich people want some other more premium option for health care, I'm sure that would still be available one way or another.

You are probably more knowledgeable than I am, but I don't think the postal service is very efficient.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fed ... y-efforts/

Savings from efficiency efforts and increased revenues from some categories of business were not enough to prevent the U.S. Postal Service from posting a loss of $1.9 billion in its second fiscal quarter, postal officials announced Friday.

The report, which follows a previous loss of $1.3 billion in the first quarter, spurred officials to once again call on Congress to enact changes the Postal Service has proposed, including switching to five-day delivery of mail while continuing six-day delivery of packages, and savings on employee health insurance, retirement and other costs.

The fact they are losing money is a reflection on Congress and not on the USPS.

I could list a million examples but I'll just give you one. I have a small side business and I ship hundreds of packages per year. They are small so they cost like $2.50 to $3.00 to ship with USPS. The same package would cost $12 to $13 to ship with UPS. Granted, UPS would guarantee delivery in 2 days. But for $9 or $10, I can wait an extra day or two. The things I sell only cost $20 to $50. If I had to charge my customers $12 to ship things, that's a big hit. I would not sell as many things, for sure. And that's just domestic. International, I once shipped something to Australia via USPS for $12. UPS would have cost like $40.

USPS is an example where the government option is much cheaper for customers like me than the private sector options are. This is because UPS must make a profit, and USPS is not supposed to make a profit. I honestly think something like this could be done with respect to health care. Actually, it is being done like this in other countries, which is why they spend so much less on health care than we do.

I have no doubt that shipping something to Australia for $12 is a good deal for you. But who else ends up footing that bill? You think $12 covers that cost?

We are getting way off topic now, so I spoilered my answer.

[SHOW]

That's a good question. I read that mail delivery is still a more profitable business than package delivery for USPS. So it's possible that the price of stamps is "subsidizing" my package delivery to some extent. I don't know what extent. The only people who send letters any more are junk mailers and political mailers. So it's those poor, disadvantaged folks that are stuck subsidizing my tiny business.

If you want to find someone being subsidized by the USPS, look at Amazon. The USPS expanded to Sunday delivery just for them. My tiny business is literally nothing next to the benefit they are getting every week.

I've told this story before on here, but - my dad was postmaster of Davenport from 1980 to 2005. In those 25 years, the amount of mail they delivered more than doubled, and the number of employees he had was cut in half. The gains were largely due to automation, just like in the private sector.

[pioneer98]

I have no doubt that shipping something to Australia for $12 is a good deal for you. But else ends up footing that bill? You think $12 covers that cost?

It's like asking "do you think McD's turns a profit on $0.99 cheeseburgers"? Not really, but because people buy other stuff at a higher markup, it works. That might sound like music to your ears--aha! The guy buying the $4 Big Mac is footing the bill for the low margin on the $0.99 burger. But maybe McD's is able to reach a larger base because they can sell $0.99 burgers and burgers that cost 4-5 times that amount. So the $0.99 burger with low markup draws customers who then also buy fries and soda/pop at a higher markup as well, driving both revenue and profit for McD's.

Ditto the postal service. I think $12 probably covers that letter, considering volume. If the USPS has a bag of 800 pieces of mail flying from LA to Sydney at $12 each that's close to $10K. There are other postal customers who are paying premiums for certified letters and overnight delivery and stuff, but we can't look at them as enabling people sending cheaper mail. They're different customers and the USPS serves them both.

McDonalds isn't losing $1.9 billion a quarter. The USPS is.

But the USPS is merely supposed to break even. So there are going to be years where they lose money. Their revenue in 2015 was $68.8 billion. So to lose $1.9 billion on revenue of $68.8 billion is like a 2.8% operating loss. Take away the $5.5 billion in liabilities Congress forced them to spend, and they'd have been profitable.

If we ever make health care public, it will be the same situation. There will be years where it would lose money. That doesn't mean it's inefficient and must be scrapped. It would mean it might have to be tweaked.

[33anda3rd]

I think the general rule of thumb if you're a person of good or better means is that the answer to "who has to foot the bill?" is: you do.

That's a thing that although individually and along some very firmly drawn party lines some don't agree on, but that we collectively as a country based on the values we established and most of us carry do share. Give us your tired, your poor and all that jazz. That's the deal in a country like this. We pay taxes so those who are in great need can be assisted in their mission to join us in the middle- or higher class.

[Diddy]

I think the general rule of thumb if you're a person of good or better means is that the answer to "who has to foot the bill?" is: you do.

That's a thing that although individually and along some very firmly drawn party lines some don't agree on, but that we collectively as a country based on the values we established and most of us carry do share. Give us your tired, your poor and all that jazz. That's the deal in a country like this. We pay taxes so those who are in great need can be assisted in their mission to join us in the middle- or higher class.

So are people moving up or are we creating a class that relies on assistance because they don't know anything different.

The best thing for all Americans is for everyone to be employeed and contributing.

[33anda3rd]

It's like the ol' baseball argument of hitting the pitcher 8th. Yeah, you can do it, but you have to hit everyone else in their optimized spot in the order to get the full result, and it doesn't work if you put the pitcher 8th and don't optimize the rest.

Here's annualized GDP growth since 1923 and up to 2009.


That big block of blue growth after the recession was the result of massive public works and a war. Every year in that span our economy grew more than it has in any single year the last 40 years or so. Our tax dollars were spent on putting people to work, either on roads or killin' Nazis. People were lifted out of poverty and into the middle class. Everyone was working and contributing.

In 1941 the tax rate on those making over $5 million was 81%. It was 70% for over $150,000.
Mark that up for inflation and $5 million today = almost $84,000,000 and $150,000 in 1941 is $2.5 million today.
Today if you make $84 million or if you make $2.5 million your tax rate is 39.6%. Anyone over a half million is the same.
The tax rate is half. We have less money for public works. Our economy grows slower. We have more people in poverty. We have a bigger divide between the ultra-rich and everyone else.

We need that combo of taxing the wealthy and corporations (and mega-churches while we're at it) plus a government that will use that money to put people to work. We can build solar power, wind-power farms, new roads, new sewers. Anecdotally, they are changing all the water pipes on Logan Boulevard, my street. The guys out there last week were telling me those pipes were from the late 1800s. Given urban density growth in neighborhoods like mine there's probably plenty of room to improve infrastructure so the amount of people on the grid doesn't crash stuff like our sewers and electric lines.