Health Care Plan Invokes the Postal Service as Example?

Mr. Obama recently invoked the Postal Service in a conversation about his health care plans; more specifically, he used the incompetence of the postal service as rationale for support of a public health care option to "compete" with private plans in the marketplace.

So, I wanted to attempt to put this perspective. The United States Postal Service has a state-enforced monopoly in what is a very simple core business -- delivering first class mail. The organization has run at loss since its existence, has substandard service at best, and obviously has been heavily subsidized by the taxpayer. As a matter of fact, it is on track to lose $7 billion this year.

In the USPS's non-core business (overnight deliveries, packages, etc.), companies like FedEx, UPS, and private messengers do compete (albeit at a disadvantage versus their subsidized competitor), provide better service, and manage to turn a profit to their shareholders. Now the Post Office could decide to undercut them on price and lose additional billions and gain more market share even with their level of service, but as you might imagine there would be little to no political stomach for it.

In today's healthcare environment, profit and not-for-profit businesses compete with each other in the face of creeping government interference -- in many cases telling them where they can compete, what products they can offer, and what they can charge. Those who operate at a loss go out of business. Many still make a profit -- with an edge going to the larger companies obviously, because of the barriers to entry put up.

Now the federal government has decided it wants to come in and "compete", by entering the business with a plan that effectively forces their customers (small businesses in particular) to buy from them at artifically set low rates. Now does this competitor care whether or not they run at a loss? Of course not, why should they care -- the taxpayers are in this for over a trillion dollars and much more in future liabilities as no one will admit they've understated the cost of the a government run system.

Who thinks this won't change the rules of the game? Will the result be fair for the companies that are competing against them, their shareholders, and their employees when they are forced out of business?

And as to quality of service going forward: if you have a package to be delivered the next day that is a matter of life or death, who are you going to choose, a private service or the post office? (If you said the post office, you are either being disingenuous or you just don't have a clue....).

Your health care is argued by many as being a matter of life or death - do you want these decisions to go the way of the post office by forcing out private enterprise? I'm just asking....