chuckakers 426 #51 February 18, 2009 Quote>The USPS loses money and your federal government extracts >money from me and the rest of the taxpayers to make it up. ============= Postal Service Turns a Profit in 2008 Tuesday February 12, 2008 Despite a downturn in mail volume, the perennially cash-strapped U.S. Postal Service managed to post a net profit of $672 million on gross revenue of $20.4 billion during the first quarter of 2008. The USPS' total revenue of $20.4 billion represented a 3.5 percent increase over the same period last year. Postal officials attributed the increase to last May's postage increase. Total mail volume during the quarter declined 3 percent; with First-Class Mail being particularly affected, declining by 3.9 percent. ============== >The point I was making is that as a business, the USPS sucks. It can >not sustain itself. Apparently it's doing about as well as any other business did in 2008. About time. And at the expense of how many trees and how much CO2 spewed into the air to produce, transport, and dispose of that dead tree waste called bulk mailing? Try this: from http://www.newdream.org/junkmail/facts.php * More than 100 million trees’ worth of bulk mail arrive in American mail boxes each year – that’s the equivalent of deforesting the entire Rocky Mountain National Park every four months. (New American Dream calculation from Conservatree and U.S. Forest Service statistics) * In 2005, 5.8 million tons of catalogs and other direct mailings ended up in the U.S. municipal solid waste stream – enough to fill over 450,000 garbage trucks. Parked bumper to bumper these garbage trucks would extend from Atlanta to Albuquerque. Less than 36% of this ad mail was recycled. (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency) * The production and disposal of direct mail consumes more energy than 3 million cars. (New American Dream calculation from U.S. Department of Energy and the Paper Task Force statistics) * Citizens and local governments spend hundreds of millionsof dollars per year to collect and dispose of all the bulk mail that doesn’t get recycled. (New American Dream estimate from EPA statistics) * California's state and local governments spend $500,000 each year collecting and disposing of AOL’s direct mail disks alone. (California State Assembly) * U.S. companies sent 35 billion pieces of direct postal mail in 1980, 64 billion pieces in 1990, 90 billion pieces in 2000, and 100 billion pieces in 2005. That’s more than 300 pieces of bulk mail for every man, woman, and child! (U.S. Postal Service) * One study says Americans throw away 44% of bulk mail unopened, yet still spend 8 months per lifetime opening bulk mail. (Consumer Research Institute) * Fifty-five percent of Americans “dislike” and 26% “despise” getting internet disks in the mail, while 1.9% “really appreciate” them. (June 2002 Opinion Research Corporation International Poll commissioned by New American Dream) * Ninety-one percent of all U.S. adults have heard of the National Do Not Call Registry. More than half of all adults report that they signed up and now receive far fewer telemarketing calls or none at all. (February 2002 Harris Poll) Artificial profits from a horrific eco-practice. Now that's success.Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #52 February 18, 2009 QuoteThe best medical care in the world is about to be as efficient as the f*cking post office. The US is far from having the "best medical care in the world." It's only the most expensive.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #53 February 18, 2009 QuoteQuoteThe best medical care in the world is about to be as efficient as the f*cking post office. The US is far from having the "best medical care in the world." It's only the most expensive. If that were true, the rich wouldn't be coming to the states for medical treatment.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Capt.Slog 0 #54 February 18, 2009 Quote Quote >The USPS loses money and your federal government extracts >money from me and the rest of the taxpayers to make it up. ============= Postal Service Turns a Profit in 2008 Tuesday February 12, 2008 Despite a downturn in mail volume, the perennially cash-strapped U.S. Postal Service managed to post a net profit of $672 million on gross revenue of $20.4 billion during the first quarter of 2008. The USPS' total revenue of $20.4 billion represented a 3.5 percent increase over the same period last year. Postal officials attributed the increase to last May's postage increase. Total mail volume during the quarter declined 3 percent; with First-Class Mail being particularly affected, declining by 3.9 percent. ============== >The point I was making is that as a business, the USPS sucks. It can >not sustain itself. Apparently it's doing about as well as any other business did in 2008. About time. And at the expense of how many trees and how much CO2 spewed into the air to produce, transport, and dispose of that dead tree waste called bulk mailing? Try this: Fascinating way you have of admitting that you were WRONG. Have you been taking lessons from mnealtx? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Capt.Slog 0 #55 February 18, 2009 Quote Quote Quote The best medical care in the world is about to be as efficient as the f*cking post office. The US is far from having the "best medical care in the world." It's only the most expensive. If that were true, the rich wouldn't be coming to the states for medical treatment. A large number of "the rich" go to London for treatment Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #56 February 18, 2009 QuoteAnd speaking of service, I don't feel very well served when I have to sift through pounds of advertising fliers to find the mail I actually need. Would you prefer that postal workers read your mail before delivering it, and deciding for you what is important and what is not? QuoteYour low prices are also subsidized by the USPS allowing - hell, encouraging & marketing - bulk mail advertising. I'm pretty sure that it's capitalism that encourages companies to advertise to potential customers. Are you suggesting that we eliminate capitalism so you won't be inconvenienced when you check your mail? QuoteAnd whether we like it or not, most of those (dare I say) billions of pounds of paper - those millions of earth-saving trees - will end up in a dump, where a bulldozer burning fossil fuel will have to stack it up in piles to rot and pollute. That's not really serving anyone, especially the greenies that should be picketing naked over it. Agreed. What do you suggest should be done about the problem? Should we ban hard copy advertisement? I suspect that would only serve to increase email based spam and telemarketing. It might even cause television networks to cram 40 minutes of programming into each hour instead of 44. Should we just make it illegal to use the USPS for advertising? I suspect that would lead to more flyers on my windshield and front door.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #57 February 18, 2009 QuoteYou don't seem to have a clue of how these systems might work. It's fully possible, and common, to "pay as you go". The only difference is that it's not the patient that is paying the bill. If public health is what is important, publicly financed health care provides more care for the money. Without a doubt and by a landslide. /Martin There are some who, unfortunately, seem to believe that only large corporations like WalMart should have such buying power, not individual consumers.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #58 February 18, 2009 QuoteQuoteHaving politicians run medicine is like having a porti-potty cleaning crew fix your plumbing. Absolutely agree (on the health care part). Health care (providing it and financing it) should all be in the not-for-profit realm. Organizations adminstered by trustees with a goal of positive impact on public health and no interference from needing to satisfy stockholders. It is a very good solution because there is still pressure to be effective and answer to a bottom line (need to be solvent and maintain claims reserves while ensuring good outcomes) but there is no pressure to not pay for needed care. In fact, with proper auditing in place, there is every incentive to get it right. Your suggestion is the first reasonable alternative to socialized healthcare that I've read in this forum. While I'm not sure whether or not I agree with your solution, it does address some of the underlying problems. More importantly, it doesn't reek of the all too common denial of the current system being broken and badly in need of repair. Thanks for offering an option C to what is typically a binary discussion.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #59 February 18, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuoteThe best medical care in the world is about to be as efficient as the f*cking post office. The US is far from having the "best medical care in the world." It's only the most expensive. If that were true, the rich wouldn't be coming to the states for medical treatment. If your argument were ingenuous, you would compare the means, medians, etc. of different countries, not the actions of elites (outliers).Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #60 February 18, 2009 Quote Quote Quote Quote The best medical care in the world is about to be as efficient as the f*cking post office. The US is far from having the "best medical care in the world." It's only the most expensive. If that were true, the rich wouldn't be coming to the states for medical treatment. A large number of "the rich" go to London for treatment You mean, like this guy? Or maybe you mean this guy. Or, this guy? Hmm....maybe not.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pirana 0 #61 February 18, 2009 Thank you. I've been consulting in health care financing operations nearly my entire adult life. As anybody else intimately close to the issues could tell you; the answers are pretty easy - so it's not like I'm a rocket scientist or anything - I just do not pay homage to any sacred cows. The solution is easy. The hard part is that all the little birds with their beaks in the air don't want anything to change. #1 - National mandate (as in many states today) that to be in the business requires being not-for-profit. Critical because short term shareholder interest is in direct conflict with long term needs for improving public health. #2 - Regulation at the national level. Also critical because some insurance companies and many large employers game the system via geography and the differences between states. #3 - Eliminate special provisions based on political affiliation, employer size, etc. In fact, get employers out of the business altogether. Need for health care is not dependent on where you work and what you do for a living. This one also gets rid of our legislators bad habit of exempting themselves from the rules they make. (Any time the people who make the rules exempt themselves should be a red flag). It also gets rid of need for temporary provisions when between jobs, which is a huge administrative hassle for all parties. Pre-X BS becomes a thing of the past because all coverage is continuous. There is so much to gain by removing employers from the picture. #4 - Automate everything. With the immense volumes of transactions involved, every bit of automation saves huge amounts of money. #5 - Standardized benefit sets. Another humongous step for administrative savings. Minimal but reasonable set of benefits for everybody with emphasis on preventive care, incentives for managing chronic diseases, and sliding premiums based on income. Half a dozen levels available for people who want to pay more on their own. #6 - Outcomes studies available to the public, and preferred networks based on a matrix of price and quality of care. Those fundamental changes would be the place to start. Everybody in the business knows it, but nobody with the power and authority will stick out their neck and fight to make it happen because those things are so fraught with political peril. I see the current administration pushing in the right direction on some of these, but then also see people whining about it. People either need to stop whining and pay the curent price, or let some people that know what they are doing start effecting some positive change." . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Capt.Slog 0 #62 February 18, 2009 Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote The best medical care in the world is about to be as efficient as the f*cking post office. The US is far from having the "best medical care in the world." It's only the most expensive. If that were true, the rich wouldn't be coming to the states for medical treatment. A large number of "the rich" go to London for treatment You mean, like this guy? Or maybe you mean this guy. Or, this guy? Hmm....maybe not. No, I meant THE RICH, just like YOU wrote. If you want to discuss poor people, the UK and Canada do a far better job than we do. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wmw999 2,547 #63 February 18, 2009 QuoteSo, what are the drug companies supposed to use for capital to develop new drugs and do the required testing and evaluations?Oh, I don't know. Maybe some of the money that they currently use for advertising -- nearly twice the money that they spend for research. Source Wendy W.There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andrewwhyte 1 #64 February 18, 2009 Quote Quote So, what are the drug companies supposed to use for capital to develop new drugs and do the required testing and evaluations? Oh, I don't know. Maybe some of the money that they currently use for advertising -- nearly twice the money that they spend for research. Source Wendy W. So you think if they have to convince government officials rather than doctors they will spend less? I only wish that were true. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wmw999 2,547 #65 February 18, 2009 It's not the doctors they're targeting, it's the consumers. Because consumers then go bug their doctors to prescribe the new proprietary medicine because it (xxx -- whatever the ad said) and will fix all of their problems. Advertising per se is not evil. Really. And, while convincing the government might not be any easier, at least you might not have quite as many people being prescribed expensive medicines to get them off the doctor's back. The upside, of course, is that doctors' perception is that consumers become more knowledgeable because of this advertising ((source), but I'm not sure that advertising is the best of all possible health education options. Of course, it probably stimulates the economy Wendy W. There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,079 #66 February 18, 2009 >Fascinating way you have of admitting that you were WRONG. His next post to you will be "I'm not even sure what you just said or why. Have another drink. Wait. I'll have one and re-read your post....zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #67 February 18, 2009 Quote"There's a shortage of doctors - we're going to solve the problem by limiting what they can charge." Yeah, *THAT* is going to encourage more kids to spend the hundreds of thousands in schooling and insurance to become doctors instead of lawyers or engineers or some other career field that *isn't* price-capped. Want to bet that if the medical fieldis restructured and scholarships are offered to bright students,,, the classes will be filled. That is not all that uncommon in some places. you get the money.. you learn how to be a doctor... you spend x amount of time serving a community. I would prefer doctors to have social responsibility as a motivating factor rather than what country club they can join. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
chuckakers 426 #68 February 18, 2009 QuoteQuoteThe best medical care in the world is about to be as efficient as the f*cking post office. The US is far from having the "best medical care in the world." It's only the most expensive. So people from around the world come to our state-of-art medical centers for second-rate treatment. That makes perfect sense. Have you ever visited the Houston Medical Center? It looks like there's a United Nations meeting in town.Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
chuckakers 426 #69 February 18, 2009 Quote Quote Quote >The USPS loses money and your federal government extracts >money from me and the rest of the taxpayers to make it up. ============= Postal Service Turns a Profit in 2008 Tuesday February 12, 2008 Despite a downturn in mail volume, the perennially cash-strapped U.S. Postal Service managed to post a net profit of $672 million on gross revenue of $20.4 billion during the first quarter of 2008. The USPS' total revenue of $20.4 billion represented a 3.5 percent increase over the same period last year. Postal officials attributed the increase to last May's postage increase. Total mail volume during the quarter declined 3 percent; with First-Class Mail being particularly affected, declining by 3.9 percent. ============== >The point I was making is that as a business, the USPS sucks. It can >not sustain itself. Apparently it's doing about as well as any other business did in 2008. About time. And at the expense of how many trees and how much CO2 spewed into the air to produce, transport, and dispose of that dead tree waste called bulk mailing? Try this: Fascinating way you have of admitting that you were WRONG. Have you been taking lessons from mnealtx? You cited one year of results. Look at history. Even in the article you cite the author stresses that the Postal Service "managed" to post a net profit. Nice jab at mnealtx, though. That's really becoming - or at least revealing - of you.Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
chuckakers 426 #70 February 18, 2009 QuoteQuoteAnd speaking of service, I don't feel very well served when I have to sift through pounds of advertising fliers to find the mail I actually need. Would you prefer that postal workers read your mail before delivering it, and deciding for you what is important and what is not? QuoteYour low prices are also subsidized by the USPS allowing - hell, encouraging & marketing - bulk mail advertising. I'm pretty sure that it's capitalism that encourages companies to advertise to potential customers. Are you suggesting that we eliminate capitalism so you won't be inconvenienced when you check your mail? QuoteAnd whether we like it or not, most of those (dare I say) billions of pounds of paper - those millions of earth-saving trees - will end up in a dump, where a bulldozer burning fossil fuel will have to stack it up in piles to rot and pollute. That's not really serving anyone, especially the greenies that should be picketing naked over it. Agreed. What do you suggest should be done about the problem? Should we ban hard copy advertisement? I suspect that would only serve to increase email based spam and telemarketing. It might even cause television networks to cram 40 minutes of programming into each hour instead of 44. Should we just make it illegal to use the USPS for advertising? I suspect that would lead to more flyers on my windshield and front door. I don't suggest do we anything, except stop subsidizing the USPS. I could care less if they double the amount of crap in the system, beyond the inconvenience of having to fill my trash with it. That aspect is indeed free market capitalism at work. I was just pointing out the irony in the situation.Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pirana 0 #71 February 18, 2009 I throw it all in a box and save it to start fires. I should be more careful though. One of these days the investigators are going to find a partially burnt envelope with my name on it; and then I'll be in big trouble." . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
chuckakers 426 #72 February 18, 2009 QuoteI throw it all in a box and save it to start fires. I should be more careful though. One of these days the investigators are going to find a partially burnt envelope with my name on it; and then I'll be in big trouble. Just douse the address area with lighter fluid before lighting. That should do the trick.Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Capt.Slog 0 #73 February 18, 2009 Quote Quote Quote Quote >The USPS loses money and your federal government extracts >money from me and the rest of the taxpayers to make it up. ============= Postal Service Turns a Profit in 2008 Tuesday February 12, 2008 Despite a downturn in mail volume, the perennially cash-strapped U.S. Postal Service managed to post a net profit of $672 million on gross revenue of $20.4 billion during the first quarter of 2008. The USPS' total revenue of $20.4 billion represented a 3.5 percent increase over the same period last year. Postal officials attributed the increase to last May's postage increase. Total mail volume during the quarter declined 3 percent; with First-Class Mail being particularly affected, declining by 3.9 percent. ============== >The point I was making is that as a business, the USPS sucks. It can >not sustain itself. Apparently it's doing about as well as any other business did in 2008. About time. And at the expense of how many trees and how much CO2 spewed into the air to produce, transport, and dispose of that dead tree waste called bulk mailing? Try this: Fascinating way you have of admitting that you were WRONG. Have you been taking lessons from mnealtx? You cited one year of results. Look at history. Even in the article you cite the author stresses that the Postal Service "managed" to post a net profit. Nice jab at mnealtx, though. That's really becoming - or at least revealing - of you. If you bothered to do just a tiny teeny bit of research you would find that the USPS has averaged over $1Billion/yr in profits over the past 10 years. 2008, the year Bill cited, was actually down because of the economy, Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #74 February 18, 2009 Quote If you bothered to do just a tiny teeny bit of research you would find that the USPS has averaged over $1Billion/yr in profits over the past 10 years. 2008, the year Bill cited, was actually down because of the economy, HEY.. STOP IT Just who the fuck do you think you are.. bringing facts to support blowing the shit out of another sacred right wing phallacy Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #75 February 18, 2009 QuoteSo people from around the world come to our state-of-art medical centers for second-rate treatment. That makes perfect sense. I have no doubt that the very best care available in the US is comparable to the very best care available in any country. However, if we only look at the quality of the best care the US has to offer, and the wealthy recipients of that care, we get no useful information about the average care that the average recipient receives, which is far more useful information.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
