The last person I would trust to acquire an opinion of the post office would be a post office family member. Everybody brings home the negative just like news from Iraq The facts are that the US Postal Service is a gem and a wonder like the US Army. But we know all about military intelligence, right. You, I think, need the cranial scrubbing. It is an all too common human perversion to maintain these sorts of whipping boy opinions and pass them on to others.
Social industrial complex.
Anyways somebody mentioned the military. I think there is great waste within our military but nobody wants to touch it with a 500 foot pole for looking unpatriotic. However we have as a country been able to contain the costs of the military compared to our gdp and budget. We have not been able to control health costs. Amazingly the more the govt gets involved with public run programs the higher the costs seem to sky rocket.
Tis a mystery!
The worst in my opinion is congress who will allow millions of Americans to go without medical care while they themselves have the finest coverage.
shiner
Lifer
- Jul 18, 2000
- 17,112
- 1
- 0
So because someone worked somewhere they aren't to be trusted with an opinion of their employer? Ooooook.
Look...he chose to work for the USPS. When he got out of the USAF he had the choice of the USPS or the Corps of Engineers. He chose the USPS because after looking over both he decided the USPS was a better job.
Over the years it got worse and worse. He was in administration and saw it continually go downhill. The last 15 years he worked there he was over procurement and the division that tests mail delivery times. He saw so much $ wasted it made him sick and when he tried to do something about it he was constantly slapped down by the people running the show in D.C.
On the mail delivery times he saw standard mail that was supposed to be delivered in 2 days go to 3, then 4, then finally over a week. Why? bureaucratic inefficiencies. Instead of each local Post Office sorting and delivering mail everything was changed to regional postal centers.
For example here in Tulsa which is a regional center. I live in a suburb of Tulsa and when I put my water bill in the mailbox to be picked up and delivered to City Hall which is a mile from my house it is then taken to the the local Post Office then put on a truck and taken to the regional sorting center in East Tulsa. There it is sorted, then returned to the local Post Office to be delivered. In the past that piece of mail would have been sorted locally and delivered locally.
It gets even worse the more distant your town is from a regional sorting center.
For example in towns down in SE Oklahoma that when someone puts the mail in their mailbox that is meant for delivery in the same town it is then taken to the local Post Office, then a sub regional sorting center to decide if it goes to the regional center in Tulsa, Oklahoma City or Little Rock. From the sub regional center it goes to whichever regional center, sorted, sent back to the sub regional center, then finally back to the local Post Office.
Tell me that isn't f'd up.
When I grew up my small town had a hospital and 2 doctors. 2 wasn't quite enough and they serached far and wide and found another doctor willing to settle for the small town life/wages, but it took them several years to find one. I lived 3 hopuses down from the hospital and one of the doctors lived kitty corner across the street. I remember well watching him walk to the hospital after supper every night to make his rounds. Another neighbor was a nurse/anthesist and also the hospital administrator.
Since then the hospital has expanded twice, we have 5 or 6 doctors, twice the nurses and are serving a smaller population. It may be the insurance companies making the big bucks, but the hospitals and the people working for them aren't hurting a bit from the high cost of health care.
absofuckinglutely. The US Military is one of the most inefficient institutions in government. If the military were run efficiently, we could operate it for half the cost of what we spend on it now.
Anyone who thinks universal healthcare means we can extend the excellent care we have available here to everyone is kidding themselves. Universal access it going to reduce overall quality for the sake of access...THIS IS FACT. The argument lies on whether this is an acceptable trade off. There is merit to that argument, but dont believe any politician that says we can have both. They wont know the difference since they float above the system.
You mean to tell me that if millions of Americans aren't left to die in the streets without health care the care the rest of us get is going to decline?
As a Canadian nobody ever said the US should emulate our system it isn't much better than yours.
Cheaper yes
Universal yes
Timely no
Cutting edge no
What both of us should do is emulate France, a hybrid system of socialized gov't pays but you can purchase private health if you choose to, and rated the best in the world.
Cheaper yes
Universal yes
Timely no
Cutting edge no
What both of us should do is emulate France, a hybrid system of socialized gov't pays but you can purchase private health if you choose to, and rated the best in the world.
He saw so much $ wasted it made him sick and when he tried to do something about it he was constantly slapped down by the people running the show in D.C.
I tell people they hate themselves and get laughed at. I know all about how people react who think they know something and aren't listened to. It makes the ego swell up with self importance with a concomitant urge to run down and minimize the worth of the deaf ones. We do know, however, that the people at the top of a mountain have better distance perspective. In order to create the maximum efficiency over a whole system local inefficiencies are sometime created and tolerated, yes. And how do you know my father didn't retire from the Post Office too, for that matter.
I tell people they hate themselves and get laughed at. I know all about how people react who think they know something and aren't listened to. It makes the ego swell up with self importance with a concomitant urge to run down and minimize the worth of the deaf ones. We do know, however, that the people at the top of a mountain have better distance perspective. In order to create the maximum efficiency over a whole system local inefficiencies are sometime created and tolerated, yes. And how do you know my father didn't retire from the Post Office too, for that matter.
umm...assuming they plan on utilizing the current healthcare infrastructure under a single payer system...that is exactly what I'm saying. Universal access is going to lead to rationing of care, and longer wait times. Thats the nature of the beast. That is a lovely emotional spin you put on it though.
We live in a country where competition is the name of the game. Competition is hostility so we live in a nation of hate. From the time we were born we were trained to see other people as rivals and to feel a need to be better than they. The result is that we actually base our self respect of the fact that we have what they don't have. Universal health care is not something that a Universally sick culture whats. We live in a culture of sadistic assholes.
What emotional spin? You mean the one where you would rather people die in the streets than accept lesser quality yourself?
Stunt
Diamond Member
- Jul 17, 2002
- 9,717
- 2
- 0
The 3 basic needs are Food, Clothing, Shelter; all things people cannot live without.
These are sold on a somewhat free market and have for years, I don't see why healthcare cannot be the same. Are there people who cannot buy food; yes and they go to food banks. Are there people who cannot afford housing; yes and they go to homeless shelters. Are there people who cannot afford clothing; yes and they go to the salvation army.
Sure there needs to be a social safety net provided by private and non-profit charity but to force everyone to take the same care and fund through a single payer is not the way to go. The Canadian system is absolutely horrible, but so is the American system; we need significant reform to make the system a highly regulated, private system that works for the customers not just to lower total national healthcare costs through cuts to quality, availablility and effectiveness.
Here's my 7 step plan for Canada and US for healthcare reform:
1) Increase the number of medical professionals. There is a shortage of medical professionals, largely because not enough spaces are being created. Many talented people are turned away from med school every year and even if this results in lower wages for doctors, at least accessibility and costs are improved.
2) Reduce pharmaceutical patent times. The number one cost after primary care is drugs; there is some room to reduce patent times without reducing profits for those investing in research and development of new drugs. The sooner we can get generic drugs, the sooner we can reduce costs through competition and increased accessibility.
3) Ensure a competitive environment for care providers and insurers. It will be the obligation of government to make sure care providers and insurers do not get into a monopoly situation where people are exploited. Competition will reduce costs and create the diversity of services required for such a large and personalized sector.
4) Eliminate political donations from corporations. This is more for the US as Canada has already rolled this out with the Conservative's Accountability Act. This will prevent pharmaceutical companies from lobbying for longer patent times, and prevent corporate influence with regards to a competitive environment.
5) Strict rules with regards to liability when treating patients. One thing we can learn from the US system is the abuse of the legal system for medical claims. This area must be regulated as well so people take some responsibility when they require treatment. Something along the lines of the 'good samaritan law' will significantly reduce potential legal costs for those helping others.
6) Allow professional immigrants to practice. If immigrants went to a respectable institution and pass preliminary testing here, they should be given the opportunity to work. Even if they are ESL, they will be helpful in regions where other immigrants from similar regions. This applies more to all technical positions rather than healthcare exclusively.
7) Creation of charitable care facilities. Charitable care facilities would be privately funded and created to administer care to the less fortunate. Luckily with the initiatives above, the costs of care will be much less. Private fundraising for hospitals is nothing new; this is something we see on an annual basis at most public facilities.
These are sold on a somewhat free market and have for years, I don't see why healthcare cannot be the same. Are there people who cannot buy food; yes and they go to food banks. Are there people who cannot afford housing; yes and they go to homeless shelters. Are there people who cannot afford clothing; yes and they go to the salvation army.
Sure there needs to be a social safety net provided by private and non-profit charity but to force everyone to take the same care and fund through a single payer is not the way to go. The Canadian system is absolutely horrible, but so is the American system; we need significant reform to make the system a highly regulated, private system that works for the customers not just to lower total national healthcare costs through cuts to quality, availablility and effectiveness.
Here's my 7 step plan for Canada and US for healthcare reform:
1) Increase the number of medical professionals. There is a shortage of medical professionals, largely because not enough spaces are being created. Many talented people are turned away from med school every year and even if this results in lower wages for doctors, at least accessibility and costs are improved.
2) Reduce pharmaceutical patent times. The number one cost after primary care is drugs; there is some room to reduce patent times without reducing profits for those investing in research and development of new drugs. The sooner we can get generic drugs, the sooner we can reduce costs through competition and increased accessibility.
3) Ensure a competitive environment for care providers and insurers. It will be the obligation of government to make sure care providers and insurers do not get into a monopoly situation where people are exploited. Competition will reduce costs and create the diversity of services required for such a large and personalized sector.
4) Eliminate political donations from corporations. This is more for the US as Canada has already rolled this out with the Conservative's Accountability Act. This will prevent pharmaceutical companies from lobbying for longer patent times, and prevent corporate influence with regards to a competitive environment.
5) Strict rules with regards to liability when treating patients. One thing we can learn from the US system is the abuse of the legal system for medical claims. This area must be regulated as well so people take some responsibility when they require treatment. Something along the lines of the 'good samaritan law' will significantly reduce potential legal costs for those helping others.
6) Allow professional immigrants to practice. If immigrants went to a respectable institution and pass preliminary testing here, they should be given the opportunity to work. Even if they are ESL, they will be helpful in regions where other immigrants from similar regions. This applies more to all technical positions rather than healthcare exclusively.
7) Creation of charitable care facilities. Charitable care facilities would be privately funded and created to administer care to the less fortunate. Luckily with the initiatives above, the costs of care will be much less. Private fundraising for hospitals is nothing new; this is something we see on an annual basis at most public facilities.
Interesting.
I am starting to see a shift in your thinking.
Perhaps have learned a few things here on P&N?
Your earlier Pro-Corporation at all costs kind of posts were quite unbecoming.
Vic
Elite Member
- Jun 12, 2001
- 50,422
- 14,337
- 136
I'm all for social safety nets. UHC is the opposite of that. As Moonbeam's attitude in this thread full demonstrated, UHC is about reducing the level of care to those who can afford it, not necessarily about increasing the level of care to those who can't. IMO though, there is no reason why we can't have both. You don't have to pull down to lift up.
Your in lalal land. If the health care system is going to take on the preventive medicine for the 40 million unisured (or whatever the number is) then someone is going to have to have less or we need to get more doctors/nurses in the country.
Maybe President Bush will have to have his next colonoscopy done without having an anthesist put him to sleep because he's too much of a wuss to take the discomfort.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter