Bob Greene postulates about the possibility of stopping Saturday mail delivery at CNN Commentary and it brings up an obvious question. Well a few obvious questions, not the least of which is “if competition is good for the health insurance companies, then why don’t we allow true competition for the Postal Service?” But that’s for a different post.
The question I have is “and what does this tell us about the possibility of government control of health care?” Now, you left wing nutjobs can espouse “it’s not government control, it’s just an option” and the ridiculous “it won’t be taxpayer subsidized” all you want. The goal is as - it has always been - single payer, universal, required healthcare. Because it’s a “right”. Right?
So what happens in a government program when it runs out of money? You either cut services or you go out and get more money from the taxpayers. But just the “rich” ones. And then you adjust what is “rich”. One thing you certainly don’t do is trim the fat. Especially when that fat is unionized inflated salaries that don’t have any competition to keep them market-based. No, you go get the government to steal more of what other people have produced. What happens when other people’s money runs out, as the great Margaret Thatcher once said? But that’s for another post as well.
The problem I have is envisioning this government option and what happens when it is run like everything else government run - Medicare, TARP, IRS, the “Stimulus Plan” that has hardly seen a “shovel-ready” shovel lifted, Amtrak, and most notably the US Postal Service.
Now USPS is considering the end of Saturday delivery to cut $3 billion out of their $7 billion shortfall. After all, Saturday services aren’t essential.
So what happens when (not if, when) the government-run bureaucracy ends up with a billions upon billions shortfall in the providing of health care services? It doesn’t take a big leap forward to reach the possibility of the cutting of services. God forbid they reduce the workforce or wages or find inefficiencies to eliminate. There will always be some political reason to keep employees on and fat right where it is. So get ready for “no non-essential care on weekends or government holidays” with Obamacare. Oh, or after work hours on those other days either.
The problem with this is that you’re comparing apples and oranges - conflating two issues that are not related. The fact is that Saturday mail delivery isn’t essential and curtailing it will save 3 billion dollars has little to do with modernizing and increasing the efficiency of healthcare.
You’re not reading it then. I’m talking about how the government deals with things where private industry is better.
And you’re assuming government control will modernize and increase the efficiency of healthcare. When has government involvement increased the efficiency of anything? Remember, I’m not talking about tweaking. Tweaking I’m fine with, as long as it means more freedom. I’m talking about the ultimate aim of universal, single payer healthcare.
Again, I don’t get your argument. No one in this debate has tried to define “non-essential” health care. It looks to me like you are doing what my mom used to call “borrowing trouble”. We don’t know what is in these reform bills bills yet.
The Post Office IS owned by the government - so we should be cheering that someone is identifying rational things to reduce government spending. We should also be cheering that there’s a focus on modernizing health care, including electronic records so that I don’t have to get the same blasted blood test 5 times when once would have done it.
When has government involvement increased the efficiency of anything? Well, let’s see…the interstate system, medicare, even the military itself (though expensive) is pretty efficient - common citizens would have a hard time organizing, training and deploying troups. Though it’s expensive, not many people would say we should do away with all these things.
So, I did read your post, but I still think you are conflating someone planning to remove an unneeded government service, with the proposition that the government would try to define what medical practice should be. But if this has been stated somewhere I’m willing to listen.
I can certainly admit to “borrowing trouble.” It’s looking down the line at what the next steps would be, considering all that this president has stated about healthcare and wanting a single payer option. If we don’t highlight the possibilities, people accept what is given as acceptable. The lobster doesn’t realize the end game is a cooked lobster, and the chef isn’t going to tell him.
I believe you’ll find that the US Postal Service IS a private company, albeit one with a government mandate. The Post Office receives NO tax dollars. It’s operations are entirely funded by the postage you pay to ship stuff (and mailboxes, and certain office supplies it sells at its branches.)
Not exactly a “private company“.
That’s enough for me. Add in the government protection from competition and you see where we are. Do you think Congress is going to let them close more post offices? I doubt it. That’s the political part. Their operations have to have congressional oversight. Let them have true competition and see what happens to them and to postal services.
More government intrusion and source of problems here.