-=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- (c) WidthPadding Industries 1987 0|510|0 -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=-

I just hate when the government has to take something over, because they are horribly inefficient at everything they do. Our postal system is government ran and they are running themselves into serious debt. Social security is going to become bankrupt in the next ten years. It's the same story every time.

Afr0 The postal system is running into serious debt because everyone's switching to using the internet and because it has to compete with FedEx.

Afr0 Government works best when it doesn't have to compete with a private sector, which is why there shouldn't be any private sectors.

Afr0 As for social security, that's an expense post on the government's list of things to pay for. It isn't a business.

Afr0 But it did incorporate pretty much everything that the Republicans wanted it to have (like making sure abortion wasn't covered by the new bill)... and they still voted it down

JL235 Health care is an emergency service, as important as police and fire services. So why should two of those be free but not health care?

Afr0 Government works best when it doesn't have to compete with a private sector, which is why there shouldn't be any private sectors.

Actually, abortion is paid for in the new bill for any woman who wants it. They shut out the Republicans from this bill and they also have been very rude about it.

This is socialism. We are not socialist. Plus our government would totally screw that up. Competition is the reason we produce such great products like computers, cars, etc. Giving that to the government is a horrible idea.

The government has run the postal system in to debt because they fail to innovate and they fail to be more efficient. Theres an crazy overhead cost to run the post office. They are also really slow when compared to UPS. And to make matters worst, taxpayer money goes toward the post office to make it "seem" cheaper. It's completely unfair to competing companies.

It makes sense that healthcare should be free. We would just go bankrupt providing it right now and it's not feasible. We pay for so many things that other countries don't like huge militaries, space programs, etc and it doesn't leave much room for other important things. Our government is flawed from the ground up and it's really hard to fix it now.

They are using what Americans are paying today and redistributing it immediately back to the seniors.

Afr0 When did this happen? Is NY times incorrect?

Afr0 How can you argue the government would screw up if they've always had to compete with private businesses?

Afr0 Please be more specific. As far as I'm aware, the national budget of the US is currently trillions of dollars in debt. Isn't the postal budget included into this? Is it run on a separate budget? Can you cite any studies proving that mail and packages sent by the regular post system is any slower than UPS? And UPS is probably more expensive.

How do you know which percentage of what tax money is spent on the (national) post budget? Going by standard Republican and/or right-wing logic, it would only make sense for the government post service to be cheaper! You get what you pay for!

Afr0 I actually agree with you on this. At least partially. Obama should have pulled the plug on Iraq and Afghanistan the moment he entered the oval office.

Afr0 Which is how it should be. Retirement should be paid for by the government, not by private insurance companies. However, I'm not entirely sure what you're getting at. I was under the impression that (most?) people in the US had their pensions paid for by private insurance companies and not the government? When did the government start taking over?

Which is how it should be. Retirement should be paid for by the government, not by private insurance companies. However, I'm not entirely sure what you're getting at. I was under the impression that (most?) people in the US had their pensions paid for by private insurance companies and not the government? When did the government start taking over?

Private insurance companies don't fund retirement. Our retirement in the United States is handled by Social Security and any money Americans have saved for themselves. They started this program in 1935.

The postal service is certainly going in to debt. UPS is far faster and more superior to USPS. I've used both services and I can receive a packing in 3 days with UPS vs a package in 7 - 14 days with USPS. Packages are also cheaper to ship. The only thing the USPS excels at is sending basic letters. I live in the United States Afr0, I'm very aware of shipping times. If you don't believe me, Google it.

You pay taxes to fuel the society. It means that more pensioners can get more money, more roads can get fixed and you can get money when you retire.

Afr0 This doesn't really change my original point though. If UPS is faster and more efficient, more people are going to be using it. They earn more money, and they can afford to give their employees better salaries.
This would be the situation for the United States Postal Service if it didn't have any private companies to compete with. I find it impressive that they manage to excel at delivering letters despite the competition.

Afr0 This doesn't really change my original point though. If UPS is faster and more efficient, more people are going to be using it. They earn more money, and they can afford to give their employees better salaries.
This would be the situation for the United States Postal Service if it didn't have any private companies to compete with. I find it impressive that they manage to excel at delivering letters despite the competition.

You are suggesting the US removes the good and successful organisations (the private companies) because the bad and unsuccessful organisations (the publicly owned companies) offer too poor of a service to be able to compete.

Wouldn't improving the US post office be better option? Making the competitors worse doesn't improve anything. It would just lower the quality of life.

Going off topic on the off topic... I would argue that we've never seen genuine socialism in practice anyway.

HoboBen While in a free market (still regulated by anti-monopoly laws - see how awful things are without them!), companies do usually try to offer a better service for customers when it's profitable (I say usually - have you ever been to a petrol station or seen an electricity bill!?), that's not the whole story.

A capitalist system optimises for profit for the company, not human benefit, so while the competition may lead to cheaper goods or better goods, it leads to lower wages, longer hours and poorer conditions for workers (see: "race to the bottom" and "reserve army of the unemployed"). Also worse environmental impact. (Even if you're not convinced by global warming, unregulated industry has devastating local environmental impact).

Yes, as a consumer (in a money-based economy) you might win, but as a worker or as a human you don't.

HoboBen That's interesting. Makes sense as far as workplaces that require brain-work, e.g. tech companies, teaching or creative industries. But less so in more manual fields, e.g. places like McDonnalds or Chinese sweat-shops.

A free economy thrives on competition. It pressures companies to innovate and be cheaper.

The consumer doesn't win when the government controls an entire industry because there is no pressure for the government to provide a better service or be cheaper. It's a horrible way to run an economy.

spinal However, price fixing (rival companies banding together to agree on a minimum price for their product) is a real problem. It keeps prices high and quality low, which is something I suspect is happening with the drug companies currently.

Stealth Sometimes, the free market fails to provide things that Americans need at a reasonable cost. Healthcare is one of those. In these cases, I believe the government should step in and provide where there is a need.

The consumer doesn't win when the government controls an entire industry because there is no pressure for the government to provide a better service or be cheaper. It's a horrible way to run an economy.

It keeps prices high and quality low, which is something I suspect is happening with the drug companies currently.

Going off topic on the off topic... I would argue that we've never seen genuine socialism in practice anyway.

Phoenix Why is it then that the US has one of the most (if not the most) expensive health care systems in the west?

You take a very socialistic approach to everything Afr0.

Afr0 You say that like it's an insult.

Afr0 Are you absolutely sure that sending something with UPS is cheaper?

0.1% of those without health insurance die. Wow, sounds like a serious societal problem.

You're a bit off on Russia... unemployment was virtually wiped out, actually. And production at one point was unparalleled

America hates socialism. Period.