Ahh....I said;What we need is affordable healthcare and a Government run program will not provide it.
The U.S. Postal Service was established in 1775. You have had 234 years to get it right and it is broke.
You said; USPS was forced in 2006 to pre-fund an additional 75 years of retirement benefits for its employees, and was given just 10 years to raise that money. This amounts to $5.5 billion per year for that 10 years.
Under current legislative rules, the USPS will have a maximum debt of around $10 billion in 2016, which will take them just 2 years to completely erase.
The postal service *isn't* broke.
the postmaster general, Patrick R. Donahoe, said ; “If Congress doesn’t act, we will default.”
In recent weeks, Mr. Donahoe has been pushing a series of painful cost-cutting measures to erase the agency’s deficit, which will reach $9.2 billion this fiscal year. They include eliminating Saturday mail delivery, closing up to 3,700 postal locations and laying off 120,000 workers — nearly one-fifth of the agency’s work force — despite a no-layoffs clause in the unions’ contracts.
The post office’s problems stem from one hard reality: it is being squeezed on both revenue and costs.
As any computer user knows, the Internet revolution has led to people and businesses sending far less conventional mail."
You say; The USPS's debt is what I said it was: the arbitrary requirement to pre-fund 75 years of employee retirement benefits.
So government intervention is causing the problem....No?....Yes....?
I said...You have FAILED in every "government service" you have shoved down our throats while overspending our tax dollars.
YOU WANT AMERICANS TO BELIEVE YOU CAN BE TRUSTED WITH A GOVERNMENT-RUN HEALTH CARE SYSTEM??
What makes you think when it comes to health care they won't as you say...."arbitrary requirement to pre-fund 75 years of employee retirement benefits for the healthcare employees"....the IRS in this case? Or raid the funds like LBJ did Social security?
The Governments duty to the people is national security and a level playing field....and to stay out of the way.
Ahh....I said;What we need is affordable healthcare and a Government run program will not provide it.
What "government run program" are you talking about? All the "programs" here are privately-issued and privately-purchased insurance policies to cover services provided by private health care providers.
So what exactly is "government run"?
PPACA does exactly what you said it should: It levels the playing field, and gets out of the way to let private industry provide services and health care to private consumers.
__________________
__________________
We work together every damn day. --Jon Stewart
OMG....there are thousands of rules and billions in new taxes attached to that BS ...it's mandatory forces people to help fund abortion and will force out private industry provide services and health care. 16 k new IRS agents to over see it....death panels are in that bill. Even Obummer admits it's Government run healthcare...
So insurance companies can sell polices across state lines now? Frivolous lawsuits were abolished? Nothing was done to bring down costs. It's not free trade...it's government mandated....I can tell you the facts...I can not understand them for you.
OMG....there are thousands of rules and billions in new taxes attached to that BS ...it's mandatory forces people to help fund abortion and will force out private industry provide services and health care. 16 k new IRS agents to over see it....death panels are in that bill. Even Obummer admits it's Government run healthcare...
So insurance companies can sell polices across state lines now? Frivolous lawsuits were abolished? Nothing was done to bring down costs. It's not free trade...it's government mandated....I can tell you the facts...I can not understand them for you.
Everything you described is "leveling the playing field". There is room for a ton of innovation within the rules, but those rules are the very basics believed to be needed to create the market. If those rules are found to be too restrictive, future sessions of congress can fix them. If the rules allow some unfair advantage, they'll be expanded.
I don't believe I called it free trade. I believe I said that it's private industry. The profits to be made will be made by private insurers and private healthcare providers. Just like any industry, they are required to comply with regulations designed to level the playing field.
__________________
We work together every damn day. --Jon Stewart
Everything you described is "leveling the playing field". There is room for a ton of innovation within the rules, but those rules are the very basics believed to be needed to create the market. If those rules are found to be too restrictive, future sessions of congress can fix them. If the rules allow some unfair advantage, they'll be expanded.
I don't believe I called it free trade. I believe I said that it's private industry. The profits to be made will be made by private insurers and private healthcare providers. Just like any industry, they are required to comply with regulations designed to level the playing field.
I think it comes down to the definition of "unfair advantage" or "level playing field".
Let's use Stock car racing as an example... (I only know a little about it)..
Apparently having a significantly faster car was eventually found to be an "unfair advantage"... So now, if you have a faster car you will have a bigger spoiler to make it "fair". Some have no problem with that. I for one would probably be a Nascar fan if in fact it was still "Stock car racing" which it is not. All the cars have been made to be the same, so now it is just driver against driver (almost becomes like a soap opera which I do not like.)
Or, someone is a faster runner because they have worked out to slim down and become stronger... Well, if another runner is overweight and isn't as fast then let's make the slim athelete wear some weights or a heavy backpack or something... To some, that is leveling the playing field. To me it is not. Now you just have two slow guys running. Instead of everyone winning, everyone loses.
__________________
"A society that puts equality ... ahead of freedom will end up with neither equality nor freedom."
My idea of a level playing field is somewhat simpler...I mean honest with out the Government picking the winners and loser the incumbent in office at any given time choose. Far too often legislation favors those who line the correct pockets.
I think it comes down to the definition of "unfair advantage" or "level playing field".
Let's use Stock car racing as an example... (I only know a little about it)..
Apparently having a significantly faster car was eventually found to be an "unfair advantage"... So now, if you have a faster car you will have a bigger spoiler to make it "fair". Some have no problem with that. I for one would probably be a Nascar fan if in fact it was still "Stock car racing" which it is not. All the cars have been made to be the same, so now it is just driver against driver (almost becomes like a soap opera which I do not like.)
Or, someone is a faster runner because they have worked out to slim down and become stronger... Well, if another runner is overweight and isn't as fast then let's make the slim athelete wear some weights or a heavy backpack or something... To some, that is leveling the playing field. To me it is not. Now you just have two slow guys running. Instead of everyone winning, everyone loses.
Except that the government is not going to Aetna and saying "you guys are doing great, so you have to help out Medical Mutual". They are saying "you're an insurance company? These are the rules you have to follow"
Now, perhaps you're talking about benefits for the poor. I would argue that assisting the poor in acquiring private insurance is cheaper than directly paying for the health care they will use, and them having access to healthcare lowers the incidence of communicable diseases that they would then pass on to the rest of us.
__________________
We work together every damn day. --Jon Stewart
On that note, the house has voted 33 (or is it 34 now?) times to repeal Obamacare, at a cost to the taxpayer of 48 million dollars.
Money well spent. If it takes a billion dollars to get rid of that obamanation it will still save us money in the long run.
It's not the fault of those voting against it anyway. We owe this to the ones who passed it even though we don't want it. They had better get rid of it or we will get rid of them and get someone who will get rid of it. We want cost brought down not high costs supplemented with more taxes.
Linear Mode
