quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: Yeah, government health care will be cheaper than private health care.
Give me one example of government services that are cheaper than private ones.
Government health care.
That's a prediction, not an example.
Wrong! The US isn't the only country in the world. All those countries which have some form of either Government health care or Government health insurance, have health care costs that are a fraction of what we pay for our private system in the US. It's not just one example, its many.
quote:Give me one example of a government project that has concluded under budget?
Off hand, roconstruction of I15 in Salt Lake County which concluded in 2001 concluded under budget and ahead of schedule. I'm sure if I put more than 2 seconds into it, I'd come could come up with some more examples.
That's not a service, that's a project. Projects end, services don't.
I'm not asking what YOU pay but what they cost. Section 8 housing is free for the resident but pays more than prevailing rent where I live. One example please.
By the way, I'm a government contractor. I guarantee the government overpays for short term contracts.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: Yeah, government health care will be cheaper than private health care.
Give me one example of government services that are cheaper than private ones.
Government health care.
That's a prediction, not an example.
I'm asking for cost of services not cost to you. Section 8 housing might be free for the resident but the amount PAID is more than the going rate. I'm in that predicament, I don't want sec 8 in my house but it's guaranteed rent that is higher than prevailing rent. The gov pays more than the free market.
quote:I'm not asking what YOU pay but what they cost. Section 8 housing is free for the resident but pays more than prevailing rent where I live. One example please.
You've already been given you the example, repeatedly, it is Health care. And I'm not talking about what you pay --- I'm talking about total cost. If you compare the annual per capita cost for health care between the US and any country with government health care or government Health insurance, you will find that the cost of health care is double or more in our private system than in any government system.
What's more, you will find that those systems have better outcomes than the US system by every measure. People in fully developed countries with government health care or insurance (every industrialized nation except the US) have better health, longer lives, lower infant mortality, better chance of surviving a major illness and are more satisfied with their medical care -- and at half the cost or less.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:you will find that the cost of health care is double or more in our private system than in any government system.
Looking at per capita rates, we're presently at somewhere around two and a half times the industrialized world's median cost for healthcare.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:By the way, I'm a government contractor. I guarantee the government overpays for short term contracts.
So you are cheating us by overcharging the government for short term contracts?
Thanks for letting us know.
BTW, those short term contracts have become commonplace because of the unsubstantiated theory that private contractors can do the work cheaper than direct government employees. That theory doesn't hold up to scrutiny, but it does end up lining the pockets of people like you at the tax payers expense.
How can you in good conscience criticize people on the dole, when by your own admission you are overcharging the US tax payers for what you do?
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'll give you a few examples of government services that have performed as projected:
- social security - mecaire - medicaid
Maybe govt health care will break the trend?
Don't get me wrong, it's not the government's fault. Govt of the people, by the people, for the people. People are greedy.
I want another house. I could sign up as a section 8 landlord and get a guaranteed $1300 per month right now or I could put it up on the public rental market and maybe get $900. Personally, I'll take the $900 over some piece of crap who doesn't care about where he/she lives since mommy gov is paying for it.
Waiting for your example???
I'll give you a few:
Unemployment fraud. Medicare fraud. Medicaid fraud. Social security fraud.
My son had his teeth cleaned when I was in the military, they charged the gov for fillings. Many medicair recipients have unnecessary testing and doctor visits...chargeable to govt. I've known many people who were fired or quit yet the employer reported a layoff so they could get unemployment benefits. My brother in law burned his brain out on drugs at 20 years old but will collect social security since he found a doctor who contested he was crazy. If the government pays for medical care, every time my child gets the sniffles, I'll take him to the doctor, just in case.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not blaming the government, I'm blaming human nature. Government provided is a blank check to the biller and a free pass to the consumer. Not efficient at all.
Breaking news: Merril Lynch spent 22 times the bonusses of AIG (billions this time) with govt bailout money. If the govt would've let them go bankrupt they would've received nothing and not been able to pay them. All you'll do is blame Merril Lynch for the bonuses. The gov't is the sucker for greedy people. I rail against the govt as an enabler because the consumer and the provider will take advantage of the blank check.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well malanthrop, you were lying about the Obama budget stuff too it seems. You couldn't find a real example of something that happened so very often.
But I have to admit this latest stunt of yours is even better: "find me this thing." *several people give you that thing* "No no, that doesn't count, find me THIS thing!"
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thanks, I did say project and you could probably find an example of projects that are within budget. (rarely) We were discussing health care costs....
Project: reconstuction ends. Service: never ends, social security, medair, medical coverage, military defense, things that have no completion date.
your I15 project had and end date and a limited budget. Services don't end or expire. Give me one example that has performed at or under budget. I'll help you out...
govt services:
education postal social security medicair medicaid national defense
Defense is the only one I see that is actually perfoming (yet still cost too much) others cost too much and underperform.
Please, one example of a service that is successful and meets budget. (one or the other if you can't think of one that measures up to success and cost)
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Well malanthrop, you were lying about the Obama budget stuff too it seems. You couldn't find a real example of something that happened so very often.
But I have to admit this latest stunt of yours is even better: "find me this thing." *several people give you that thing* "No no, that doesn't count, find me THIS thing!"
I already answered your question. Obama has dismissed critisism of his budget by blaming the previous administration. If we go way way back in our correspondence, that was my point. Citing another persons mistakes is no justification for your own. Saying, he overspent and I inherited a defecit is no excuse to triple the defecit you inherited. If you don't get it, you don't get it. Bush sucked, Obama sucks even more. I'm not here to defend Bush and I won't.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Perhaps you have missed the existing government health care programs in other countries? Or is your thesis only that the US government is necessarily incapable of providing a decent service, and other countries are not hindered that way?
I have to wonder about your reading comprehension, since health care programs in other countries (and their superior performance) have been brought up repeatedly to you just a few posts above.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
Mal, your lack of understanding of the situation is causing problems in this discussion.
quote: Saying, he overspent and I inherited a defecit is no excuse to triple the defecit you inherited. If you don't get it, you don't get it.
You don't get it.
First, you need to consider (not necessarily accept, but just consider) that Obama's plan calls for the kind of spending that will both enlarge the deficit, and eventually lead to an economic recovery. I don't personally think this is guaranteed, and I don't think a guarantee has been implied by Obama's administration- nor can one be made.
Next, consider that deficit spending takes many guises. Deficit spending, you will come to understand if you study the basics of our economic situation, is not necessarily a bad thing. There are many ways to spend that money, some possibly good, some not. So to say that Obama is justifying a deepened deficit by pointing out Bush's track record is establishing a false equivalence. Obama believes that the deficit spending under Bush was money spent which would not lead to economic growth, and which probably hurt growth in the long term. Obama wants to spend into a deficit with different aims.
Not all deficit spending is created equal. As the simplest analogy possible, let's suppose the national debt is a credit card with a limit of 10,000 dollars: Bush had the card, and let's suppose he spent 1,000 dollars on candy and cigarettes. The deficit is now 1,000 USD. Let's suppose now that Obama has gotten the card, with this 1,000 dollar deficit. He has decided that buying candy and cigarettes is bad for the economy. Rather than buy nothing and just tax his friends to pay back the mistakes (which you also oppose, by the way), he wants to now spend 3,000 dollars on a new tool set. That tool set is going to enable him to get some things done around the house, and find more work in the future, since he'll be better equipped. He will be in debt for the tools, but he will have opportunities to pay it back- whereas with candy and cigarettes, once you consume them, they're gone, and you're worse off than when you started.
You need to deepen your understanding of these issues before comparing the two situations. I guarantee you that Obama has not used Bush's deficit as a precedent for his own spending. He doesn't have to, because FDR did the same thing Obama is trying to do, and it appeared to work at the time. Deficit spending is not all the same, and as long as you continue to think about it in such a simplistic way, you will never understand that.
In fact, in general you need to educate yourself much more broadly on what you've been talking about. Your conclusions, not surprisingly, have fit well with how much you actually know. Your ideas are about as narrow as your actual field of knowledge.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: Prediction, not example.
Use medicare as an example if you like. That is our current govt provided healthcare.
Don't be a dick. You want medicare used as an example because it doesn't work. People are talking about other countries that have systems that work, because they are GOOD EXAMPLES. Can we not know the full effects of such systems if they were applied in the US? Of course we can't. But we would be pretty freaking surprised if they worked everywhere else, and not in the US.
Seriously. Don't be a dick.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I have to wonder about your reading comprehension, since health care programs in other countries (and their superior performance) have been brought up repeatedly to you just a few posts above.
He knows that. How can he not know it? It's common knowledge. So his only recourse is to pretend it doesn't matter and exclude it, which is exactly what he's doing. It's not a matter of reading comprehension.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: Perhaps you have missed the existing government health care programs in other countries? Or is your thesis only that the US government is necessarily incapable of providing a decent service, and other countries are not hindered that way?
I have to wonder about your reading comprehension, since health care programs in other countries (and their superior performance) have been brought up repeatedly to you just a few posts above.
If you define superiority as access, you might be correct. Everyone has access in Cuba but they still suck. Ameriacan pharmecutical companies develop the drugs. The best doctors in the world are American doctors. Capitalism does have its downfalls but it drives innovation. An American doctor will not deny you a hip replacement because someone younger needs a hip. Other countries ration their care and suck off of American capitolistic innovation.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: Prediction, not example.
Use medicare as an example if you like. That is our current govt provided healthcare.
Why not use the health insurance given to Federal employees. That is also a current US government healthcare program.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:I already answered your question. Obama has dismissed critisism of his budget by blaming the previous administration. If we go way way back in our correspondence, that was my point. Citing another persons mistakes is no justification for your own.
Obama isn't trying to justify his budget based on the mistakes of others, he is explaining that these expenditures are necessary to fix the mistakes made by the others. That is substantially different.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
People have given you lists of places that have, as I noted before (but apparently you didn't read):
1. Lower costs
2. Higher satisfaction
3. Better outcomes
That's what is meant by better.
Given that many of the successful gov't health care programs are single-payer health insurance, with all the providers still being private, I see no reason there won't still be competition among doctors and pharmaceutical companies.
And if you're annoyed at that reason for denying a hip replacement, how do you feel about someone being denied a hip replacement in the US because they don't have insurance?
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
And if you're wondering, England isn't known as one of the best government health care programs, but it still has lower costs, higher satisfaction, and better outcomes.
Would you like me to dig up some articles on people in the US dying because they couldn't afford treatment, if we're trading stories about the deficiencies in medical systems?
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: Prediction, not example.
Use medicare as an example if you like. That is our current govt provided healthcare.
Why not use the health insurance given to Federal employees. That is also a current US government healthcare program.
Health insurance provided to federal employees is sitll just insurance. Insurance the federal employee can choose to accept or deny and the worker must pay for. Socialized medical care is insurance for all for nothing. If you want to pay what a federal employee payw per month for his/her healthcare coverage, absolutely I agree. It's not free. Gov't employees have great insurance but it still requires a premium.
I sit next to a GS11 and my company's insurance is less. Pay attention to the cost instead of focusing on the coverage. Just because a govt employee has it doesn't mean it's free and everyone should get it.
You want the "same coverage" as a government employee, great it should be the "same cost" a govt employee pays. Not free, not national or universal. They sell it to you as free though.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:I already answered your question. Obama has dismissed critisism of his budget by blaming the previous administration. If we go way way back in our correspondence, that was my point. Citing another persons mistakes is no justification for your own. Saying, he overspent and I inherited a defecit is no excuse to triple the defecit you inherited. If you don't get it, you don't get it. Bush sucked, Obama sucks even more. I'm not here to defend Bush and I won't.
No, you didn't. Instead you linked to some quotes that only slightly resembled what you said they would. That's a very different thing, and it's your usual method of avoiding an argument you won't win around here. The only question more puzzling than why you'd waste your time in such obvious BS is why so many of us waste our time responding to you. I guess the answer is the same-we just can't help ourselves:)
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:I already answered your question. Obama has dismissed critisism of his budget by blaming the previous administration. If we go way way back in our correspondence, that was my point. Citing another persons mistakes is no justification for your own. Saying, he overspent and I inherited a defecit is no excuse to triple the defecit you inherited. If you don't get it, you don't get it. Bush sucked, Obama sucks even more. I'm not here to defend Bush and I won't.
No, you didn't. Instead you linked to some quotes that only slightly resembled what you said they would. That's a very different thing, and it's your usual method of avoiding an argument you won't win around here. The only question more puzzling than why you'd waste your time in such obvious BS is why so many of us waste our time responding to you. I guess the answer is the same-we just can't help ourselves:)
I linked to quotes of Obama dismissing critisism of his budget by pointing to the previous one. That is no justification. If you can't see it, that's your problem. How many parents have asked their kids, "If Joe jumped off the bridge, would you too".
Don't defend your mistakes with the mistakes of others. Don't justify your misdeeds with the misdeeds of others. This is my gripe with so many of you. You can't logically defend your positions so you scream hypocrisy. When pinned into a corner, out comes: you're a hypocrit, you're a racist, you're a sexist, you're a homophobe, you don't know what you're talking about, you don't understand or I'm not going to waste my time with you.
The more time I spend in her with you, the more clearly I see your bs.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
*sigh* Rabbit has already explained above why this latest spin of yours is bogus. And I don't even know who has accused you of hypocrisy lately. Certainly not me, even though it would be an accurate criticism. Ahh well.
President Obama didn't say what you said he said so often you couldn't count it, and your flimsy attempts to claim he did aren't fooling anyone except maybe yourself.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Health insurance provided to federal employees is sitll just insurance. Insurance the federal employee can choose to accept or deny and the worker must pay for. Socialized medical care is insurance for all for nothing. If you want to pay what a federal employee payw per month for his/her healthcare coverage, absolutely I agree. It's not free. Gov't employees have great insurance but it still requires a premium.
Medicare is also just insurance. Canada's health care system is also just insurance, but its one insurance program (single payer) rather than hundreds of competing insurers. And it turns out to be both more cost effective and provide better health outcomes than the US system.
Take 10 minutes to look into what you call "socialized medicine" in most of the OECD countries and you will find a great variety of approaches most of which by your definition are insurance plans not socialized medicine. The programs most people are proposing for the US are also national health insurance programs, not socialized medicine. You are fighting against a straw man of your own design that has no bearing on an real proposals being considered.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Project: reconstuction ends. Service: never ends, social security, medair, medical coverage, military defense, things that have no completion date.
Uh-huh. Re-read your challenge. You asked for a PROJECT. When you got a project, you said "No, not a project, a SERVICE." Don't lay your communication problems on other people.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Twisting semantics. Social security is a retirement plan and the statement they send me every year talks about my account. Problem is, there is no account. The money I've put in is gone. The pyramid schemes of the government would land a civilian in jail. I'm sick of your sematics. Prove to me I'm wrong: if a premium is required will the unemployed and poor have coverage? Will the "premiums" be the same for everyone? A GS6 pays the same insurance premium as a GS14. If the govt came out with an insurance plan where everyone paid the same regardless of income and the payment was required, I would agree with you.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Project: reconstuction ends. Service: never ends, social security, medair, medical coverage, military defense, things that have no completion date.
Uh-huh. Re-read your challenge. You asked for a PROJECT. When you got a project, you said "No, not a project, a SERVICE." Don't lay your communication problems on other people.
I already acknowledge my mistake in this. You are absolutely correct...I did say project without thinking....fingers faster than mind...health care is not a project, it's a service....sorry for the err.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Give me one example of a govt service that is within budget and successful.
What I refer to as "socialized" medical care is not insurance. The human body is the same wether you are rich or poor. I understand the owner of a Laborghini paying more insurance that the owner of a 1979 Ford Pinto, but human bodies are equal. If the govt puts forth a universal insurance plan where everyone pays the same, I'm all aboard. If the premium isn't the same for the same coverage, it's socialism. They may argue that the "people" deserve the same coverage as a govt employee, but unless the people pay the same "premium" as a govt employee, it's mute.
quote:Give me one example of a govt service that is within budget and successful.
Most government services have fixed budgets which cannot be exceeded. Public schools don't get to spend more money than budget, nor do fire departments or police forces and these services are often implemented in an effective and efficient manner.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
malanthrop: How about the postal service? It consistently works within it's budget and I'd say the quality of their service is within the bounds of successful. There is still a thriving private market for parcels and letters and yet people find themselves using both the private and public service.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sorry to revert to an early point in the conversation, but:
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop:
I want another house. I could sign up as a section 8 landlord and get a guaranteed $1300 per month right now or I could put it up on the public rental market and maybe get $900. Personally, I'll take the $900 over some piece of crap who doesn't care about where he/she lives since mommy gov is paying for it.
I live in Section 8 housing. It is the best apartment that I could afford on my wages and I pay every expense out of my own pocket.
I find your characterization of section 8 housing residents misinformed and offensive. Do you actually read what you write or do you find that you kind of drift in and out?
If you're trying to hold the moral high ground, ridding your posts of phrases like "some piece of crap" (in reference to fellow human beings) is a good place to start. </annoyed>
Carry on everyone.
Posts: 681 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: malanthrop: How about the postal service? It consistently works within it's budget and I'd say the quality of their service is within the bounds of successful. There is still a thriving private market for parcels and letters and yet people find themselves using both the private and public service.
"The federal government maintains a monopoly on the transport and delivery of messages on pieces of paper or other material media. It is a federal crime for private suppliers to offer these services. " http://www.cato.org/testimony/ct-eh043096.html
If Fed Ex and/or UPS were legally allowed to mail letter, they would put USPS out of busines. Most people go to FedEx and UPS to send packages since they are cheaper than USPS. There's a reason mail isn't sent through FedEx or Ups, it's illegal.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: You want the "same coverage" as a government employee, great it should be the "same cost" a govt employee pays. Not free, not national or universal. They sell it to you as free though.
There is no one here claiming that free health care is possible. It is not possible. However, there are many systems through which better care is provided to more people, for less money. There is a simple reason: a well run single payer system can provide more of its resources to recipients than private insurance does in practice. This is simple- privatized health care naturally seeks methods of paying the least possible, while gaining the most in profit for the companies involved. At a certain point, this process works against competition, and we get diminishing outcomes. This is why in the US we pay more per capita than any other country for healthcare, and we have inferior outcomes and satisfaction.
We are already paying twice as much in total health care costs per capita than any other country does. Why do you think that is? What we get in medical advances is a great outcome of that system, but this has not worked to increase overall outcomes, when compared with countries that are still spending less. Obviously, BY DEFINITION, we are doing something wrong- we are not doing all that we can.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: malanthrop: How about the postal service? It consistently works within it's budget and I'd say the quality of their service is within the bounds of successful. There is still a thriving private market for parcels and letters and yet people find themselves using both the private and public service.
"The federal government maintains a monopoly on the transport and delivery of messages on pieces of paper or other material media. It is a federal crime for private suppliers to offer these services. " http://www.cato.org/testimony/ct-eh043096.html
If Fed Ex and/or UPS were legally allowed to mail letter, they would put USPS out of busines. Most people go to FedEx and UPS to send packages since they are cheaper than USPS. There's a reason mail isn't sent through FedEx or Ups, it's illegal.
Fair enough, but I still feel the USPS does an effective job handling the mail. I doubt that everyone would amass wholesale to FedEx and UPS if they were permitted to deliver the mail. Mail has also in part been replaced by email, and yet the USPS is still relevant.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:If Fed Ex and/or UPS were legally allowed to mail letter, they would put USPS out of busines.
Possibly, but that wasn't the question. You were asking for successful government services that operate within their budget. Since most government services are subject to a fixed budget, all that is left is successfulness and USPS seems to be at least reasonably successful.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: You want the "same coverage" as a government employee, great it should be the "same cost" a govt employee pays. Not free, not national or universal. They sell it to you as free though.
There is no one here claiming that free health care is possible. It is not possible. However, there are many systems through which better care is provided to more people, for less money. There is a simple reason: a well run single payer system can provide more of its resources to recipients than private insurance does in practice. This is simple- privatized health care naturally seeks methods of paying the least possible, while gaining the most in profit for the companies involved. At a certain point, this process works against competition, and we get diminishing outcomes. This is why in the US we pay more per capita than any other country for healthcare, and we have inferior outcomes and satisfaction.
We are already paying twice as much in total health care costs per capita than any other country does. Why do you think that is? What we get in medical advances is a great outcome of that system, but this has not worked to increase overall outcomes, when compared with countries that are still spending less. Obviously, BY DEFINITION, we are doing something wrong- we are not doing all that we can.
Now we get to the bottom of it. "Overall outcomes" I know socialism is a dirty word, but I was born poor and worked very hard. Why should I pay for someone else's health care. I understand the elderly and truly needy, they are already covered under our current system. I shoveled sand into a cement mixer during the school year and worked 96 hours per week during the summer to pay for college. I am successful due to my hard work, why should I contribute more towards medical coverage than anyone else. I'm happy to give more to suplement truly needy people but I have no sypmpathy for the rest. Medicare, Medicaid is for the poor. Universal is for everyone. I won't deny it, I push six figures but ten years ago I supported a family on $200 per week. If you are still in the same position you were ten years ago, it's not my problem. If they want to nationalize healthcare for fairness purposes, it should cost the same for everynone.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: malanthrop: How about the postal service? It consistently works within it's budget and I'd say the quality of their service is within the bounds of successful. There is still a thriving private market for parcels and letters and yet people find themselves using both the private and public service.
"The federal government maintains a monopoly on the transport and delivery of messages on pieces of paper or other material media. It is a federal crime for private suppliers to offer these services. " http://www.cato.org/testimony/ct-eh043096.html
If Fed Ex and/or UPS were legally allowed to mail letter, they would put USPS out of busines. Most people go to FedEx and UPS to send packages since they are cheaper than USPS. There's a reason mail isn't sent through FedEx or Ups, it's illegal.
From your link:
"The federal government maintains a monopoly on the transport and delivery of messages on pieces of paper or other material media. It is a federal crime for private suppliers to offer these services. "
How is that possible? I send letters - messages on pieces of paper - by FedEx all the time. How is that illegal? I don't use it for everything because it is enormously expensive compared to the USPS.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm sure you do. Put a letter in a regular sized envelope and take it to Fed Ex. See what happens. You ever get a letter or post card from Fed Ex....no way. It's illegal.
You can send whatever you want inside the "package" but it isn't a "letter"
You get packages from FedEx and letters from USPS. Thats the law.....look it up, I'm not really going to argue it with you.
Only USPS sends regular envelopes and post cards, by law.
Where do you go when you have a heavy box to send? You don't think the same company could send a light letter? When you want to send something "efficiently" ie overnight, where do you go?
posted
So the big difference that makes it legal is that I put the letter in a FedEx envelope?
Come to think of it, though, even that isn't true. I do have the option of using my own packaging with FedEx.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Only USPS sends regular envelopes and post cards, by law.
That's not technically correct. The monopoly is over "non-urgent" mail. FedEx could, if it wanted, deliver "urgent" letters in any form factor it desires, but it makes economic sense for them to standardize on a form factor.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:There's a reason mail isn't sent through FedEx or Ups, it's illegal.
No its not. People send letters and other messages on paper or other material media by FedEx and UPS express mail all the time. The USPS competes directly with FedEx and UPS for the express letter delivery market and does so very effectively.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
5.0 Private Express Statutes 5.1 Private Express Statutes 5.1.1 Legal Foundation By the laws known as the Private Express Statutes, Congress has generally conferred on the USPS the exclusive right to carry letters for others over post routes. USPS regulations under the Private Express Statutes are in the Code of Federal Regulations, 39 CFR 310 and 320, as amended by final rules published in the Federal Register...
5.1.2 Definition of a Letter for Private Express For the Private Express Statutes, a letter is a message directed to a specific person or address and recorded in or on a tangible object. A message consists of any information or intelligence that can be recorded on tangible objects including, but not limited to, paper in sheet or card form, recording disks, and magnetic tapes...
Posts: 1794 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
To me, it's a wonder UPS is competing with the Postal system. By your original challenge, the USPS meets the criteria of being cheaper than private sector shipping.
Posts: 681 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
