Certain packages are delivered to local post offices and then delivered by postal carriers on their regular routes.
Where is your proof that USPS etc are more effecient than their private counterparts? Not any time I’ve ever had the choice of one over the other. Not to mention, last mainstream news stats had the PS losing money. FedEX and UPS haven’t.
Retirement benefits systems work far better than government ones, if they’re allowed to. Example: My mom retired from a city utility several years ago after a long time there. She has GREAT medical coverage with her former employer. Only our lovely medicare system has decided that for her and people like her, she has to use her medicare as her primary insurance. What this does is boot her out of the main system into only being able to use doctors that take medicare. This despite the fact that her own retirement insurance covers far more, is more efficient and pays more than does medicare.
Just one small example. Multiplied out in different way by I don’t know how many others like her. And that’s just medicare.
It doesn’t matter what faction of a gov’t runs a specific agency, their structure and funds are ultimately given through the Feds. Divied up just like HWY funding etc. And it ultimately all goes on up the ladder at some point. My point was, this is how the gov’t runs things, feds, state or city. Like crap. And how they’re run is based on typical government incompetence.
Like a lot of people, I deal with this every day in my job. Our company has several gov’t agencies as clients. The cost overruns caused by arrogant incompetence is overwhelming at times. As opposed to our industrial and corporate clients who more typically run like a well oiled machine.
The industry I work in is the starting to be known as the “green and sustainable” industries, something near and dear to whatsitsface’s heart. So I don’t have a real dog in this fight re: personally. If obama gets his way, my job should be secure and happy for many years to come. If I am forced to go the public option route my healthcare will be crap, but that’s okay. Once my poor hands finally fail, there’ll be lots of welfare programs to choose from for my retirement years.
However, I care what happens to the American people other than me, ergo I am against this blanket destruction and bad reconstruction of the system.
YES, DO IT…but not this way. Do it right. Doesn’t it make anyone at all think twice when our supposed leaders are backpedaling out of all the supposed CSPAN coverage that was promised, and the fact that they’re desperately pulling anything they can possibly think of to run this thing through?
I don’t care if they’re getting ready to hand us all a Cadillac and a chicken pot pie, if they’re fighting that hard, and making it that much of a so-called crisis that it MUST… GET… DONE… NOW… Doesn’t that raise even a little suspicion, a little nervousness, a little curiosity?
Now, if they were conducting this in a reasonable, thoughtful measured way. Examining and weighing each option, perhaps even putting small parts of the bill that really are good, into play instead of trying to cram this great monster, that almost no one has read, down our throats, that might be different.
This is taking the needs of the many and skewering them for the needs of a few, without even considering any interim measures to help the few. What good is it going to do the people it’s proposing to help, since it doesn’t even go into effect until 2013?
Where are you getting this information? I’ve never seen this done, ever. I don’t disbelieve YOU believe it, I just don’t happen to believe it.
Curlcoat, I don’t see why you think UHC is an unproven concept - it exists in most every civilized country in the world. And all those countries pay less per capita than the US does, and cover more people. You constantly complain about the state of California, but you don’t want anything done to change it. Why not look at Hawaii or Canada or Britain and say “why can’t we have a system more like that? One that covers everyone and that people admire and appreciate, unlike what we have now?”. Is it that you are mortally afraid of change, or just that you get off on screwing the little guy?
Also, just FYI for your next screed, I am not a sir, I have never in my life even seen Fox News, and I’m curious as to what age group exactly makes up the ‘me generation’, because I think that’s just your way of trying to give your opinion extra weight due to age alone, a desperate attack which in my experience is only made in the dying gasps of a lost arguement.
http://www.nydailynews.com/money/2009/03/25/2009-03-25_us_postal_service_going_broke_says_postm.html
That’s a successful agency? Cutting retiree healthcare, the Postmaster General makes $800k a year…Sounds like the same thing the GREEDY CORPORATIONS are all doing…High paid execs screwing the little guy…hmmmmm
But, as the OP alluded to (lo these many pages ago), if your mother was covered by a UHC, there would be no such thing as out-of-network doctors, doctors that don’t take Medicare, or percentages covered by insurance. It’s all coverage, all the time, everywhere, for everyone.
I must admit I don’t know much about Medicare, but I’m not sure that it’s a particularly good comparison to true UHC, given your description.
That is not an across the board rule for all Medicare recipients. Sometimes Medicare is the secondary provider. The rules are different depending on the retiree’s situation and the company providing the policy. But I’m sure you’ve already looked into the Medicare Secondary Payer provision to see where your mother’s policy falls.
And, according to curlcoat, you can simply decline using Medicare benefits, if you want. However, that is currently **not true **as relates to Medicare Part A if you want to keep receiving social security benefits, which she apparently does. So, despite what she says and what she apparently wants, she’s in the system. You can, under some circumstances, decline Part B, but there may be financial penalties. A lawsuit has been filed and changes in the law suggested to allow people to opt out of all of it without endangering social security benefits, but right now, no.
UPS calls their service Mail Innovations and Fed Ex calls theirs Smart Post. It’s not the regular UPS or FedEx service. My understanding is that UPS/Fed Ex gets the package to the destination post office and it is then delivered by the normal carrier.
That is true for Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) which is what curlcoat is receiving. It’s not true for “traditional” Social Security retirement benefits.
Are you saying that an SSDI recipient may opt out of Medicare? Do you have a cite for that? Because all I’m finding is things like:
Part B, sure. That’s optional to everyone, but I can’t find anything that says you can opt out of Part A without penalty.
nm
No, I’m saying an SDI recipient cannot. An SS retirement recipient can.
Ah. Someone should tell curlcoat.
But I don’t think a regular retiree can opt out of Part A without jeopardizing social security benefits. They’re linked together, which is the point of Dick Armey’s lawsuit against the DHHS. One cite.
You want social security benefits, you get Medicare, too. It’s a stupid thing, but there it is.
Open enrollment is just that - people have the opportunity to enroll, not have insurance handed to them and told if they don’t want it, they have to send something back in the mail. Which, being the government, they will probably lose.
No social security benefits are means tested you moron. I also didn’t say that was fraud - that came after I said the government is messed up. You all are so worried about old folks daring to live longer than their SS benefits, yet it’s OK with you when someone’s SS goes to their child? Automatically, for no reason?
Ya know, your lack of intelligence is almost painful. a) you have no idea whether or not the bill that finally makes it thru will have that top 3% bit in it. And even if it does, do you really think, given the cost of running a single payer thru the government, and how well the top 3% get out of their taxes, that the UH tax will only affect them? and b) is really dumb. No of course they won’t be uninsured - because we’ll be paying for them!
Oh goody. I’ll get to pay for my insurance and into the pool I won’t be using. Really looking forward that that.
Do you really believe that? People who can’t afford insurance now will suddenly be able to pay enough premium to offset the cost of running a UH?
See, that’s the thing - I do inform myself. I don’t believe anything that is told me at face value until I’ve had a chance to prove or disprove it, and/or apply logic to it. Which is one of the things that drives you insane, that I won’t just accept your reality as truth. Simply because you interpret the “thousands of news articles, releases from various members of Congress and the CBO and the GAO about the costs” differently than I do doesn’t make me wrong.
Honey, I don’t hijack anything. I comment on the subject and you and a couple of others descend and start up with your lies and exaggerations. What the hell are you so afraid of, that you have to sling all this mud simply because one person doesn’t agree with you on one subject? Is it just because you have some idea that it is my responsibility to make your life better?
The pit is not where this board has discussions. You are making a lot of noise yourself, and I answer. Think about that.
And, for one example, none of these countries seem to feel the need to rush forth and create a war someplace frequently. The US simply doesn’t have the sort of money that can pay for these wars and a UHC without heavy taxes. And before you say it, no I don’t support the wars but that isn’t the subject here. Also, it doesn’t appear that the public has any say in the wars, but they do have some small say in whether or not we get a UHC.
Uh, when in the world did I say that? I never did - I would love to not have to spend so much money on supporting all of these hundreds of thousands of people we have on MediCal and DentiCal here, not to mention the various forms of welfare our state has. As for Hawaii, they don’t have the highways to support that California does, nor do I imagine they have the illegal issues we do. So there isn’t much comparison there.
OK, your screen name made me think you were a guy and you talk like you get your “news” from Fox. The “me generation” would be today’s young adults, who have a radically different way of looking at the world than old bats like me. It doesn’t have anything to do with giving any argument weight.
And yet, the paperwork said that if I wanted to decline it, all I had to do was send the form back. Do you also assume you know what you are talking about on other subjects, or is it just Medicare? I see in your later posts you are trying to support your belief about Part A by citing information about folks who are still working, and a little later you confuse the difference between SDI and SSDI.
Do you all see why I don’t automatically assume that you know what you are talking about and/or your opinions are based in fact? legalsnugs here is making confident statements that are incorrect, and citing information that has nothing to do with what he/she is saying.
I’m going by what I read online. I provided cites. I’m not making this stuff up. Just because you don’t agree with it doesn’t make me wrong. You are the one who said you’re getting SSDI. Is that not Social Security benefits for those under age 65 through disability?
See, for example:
Bolding, mine.
This cite is very telling as well. Apparently sometimes SS doesn’t tell you what the consequences are for opting out of Medicare. But this appears everywhere in the interwebs. Please provide a cite, any cite, for your assertion.
But you do what you want, cc. You’re the genius here. :rolleyes:
I must add, that if what I have posted here might help you avoid losing your disability benefits, or avoid having to pay back the benefits you’ve already received, or help you avoid a medical bankruptcy, I would be glad for it. But I have to think that any normal person in your shoes, when provided with the cites I have provided to you, would say, “Hey. Thanks. That might help me. I’ll look into that,” rather than, “you’re wrong because I just know you’re wrong.”
Maybe I am wrong. Maybe the internet cites are wrong. Maybe you are absolutely right about everything. But if you won’t do any little bit of research to help yourself, then you are an idiot. I await your cites to show me my wrongness.
Considering that one of your cites says:
that is a pretty fucking hilarious thing to try to pin on others, coming from you.
Look, Americans spend more per capita than any other country does on heath care. By a lot. Normal health procedures in the US cost at least twice as much as they do in other countries, not to mention the costs incurred by the lack of preventative care for the underinsured*. If the US moved to UHC your taxes might go up (big might), but your personal costs for healthcare would go down. Get is through your head, overall you would not be paying more!
And this has nothing to do with the war or the highways or anything else. That is a rediculous strawman.
I’m not sure that I have any more time for this. Classes have started and I have students to teach who might actually want to learn something about biology or logic, both of which you must surely have failed.
cites (not for* Curlcoat **per se, but for those who want to read actual info):
You two are dealing with the Curliinator. Relentless. Remorseless. It cannot be reasoned with. Cites bounce off it’s impervious carapace. Logic is repelled.
Give up now for God’s sake!