what do you want for 43 cents

A letter returned for insufficient postage.

It's 44 cents. :)

The USPS easily has the toughest management job around. By law, they must provide services whether profitable or not. Demand for their most basic service - the first class letter - is in a steep decline. Nobody writes letters anymore AND mailed bill payments are being replaced with online payments. The recession has cut direct mail advertising and credit card reform has cut direct mail offers.

In the past two weeks, there have been several days that I have received no mail at all. Nothing. Yet the truck must drive by my mailbox 6 days a week to make sure I haven't mailed out anything.

Somebody could get a Ph.D. doing a dissertation on how the USPS manages to survive from 2008-2011.

not if you have the forever stamp. what a wonderful thing they thought up. A stamp that will hold current value no matter how long you keep it. thats better than a savings bond. Oh and BTW they saved $millions by starting up the Forever stamp. providing 1-3 cent stamps cost more to produce than they were worth.
Canadian stamp prices about 49 cents
UK letter rate.0.39p about 64 cents
[url=http://www.discoverfrance.net/France/DF_postal.shtml#GeneralDelivery[/url]french rates[url] .56 euros. or about 79 cents
[/url=http://www.post.japanpost.jp/english/fee/domestic/letter.html]japanese rates[url] 80 yen or about 85 cents.
all rates are for in country delivery. Seems the US is doing pretty well at keeping the postal costs down. lets not forget that the US has a bit more territory to cover than all the countries mentioned. Not a bad deal indeed

all rates are in their national rate and converted to the current us/nation exchange rates.[/url]

---

In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope

what do you want for 43 cents

A letter returned for insufficient postage.

It's 44 cents. :)

The USPS easily has the toughest management job around. By law, they must provide services whether profitable or not. Demand for their most basic service - the first class letter - is in a steep decline. Nobody writes letters anymore AND mailed bill payments are being replaced with online payments. The recession has cut direct mail advertising and credit card reform has cut direct mail offers.

In the past two weeks, there have been several days that I have received no mail at all. Nothing. Yet the truck must drive by my mailbox 6 days a week to make sure I haven't mailed out anything.

Somebody could get a Ph.D. doing a dissertation on how the USPS manages to survive from 2008-2011.

not if you have the forever stamp. what a wonderful thing they thought up. A stamp that will hold current value no matter how long you keep it. thats better than a savings bond. Oh and BTW they saved $millions by starting up the Forever stamp. providing 1-3 cent stamps cost more to produce than they were worth.
Canadian stamp prices about 49 cents
UK letter rate.0.39p about 64 cents
[url=http://www.discoverfrance.net/France/DF_postal.shtml#GeneralDelivery[/url]french rates[url] .56 euros. or about 79 cents
[/url=http://www.post.japanpost.jp/english/fee/domestic/letter.html]japanese rates[url] 80 yen or about 85 cents.
all rates are for in country delivery. Seems the US is doing pretty well at keeping the postal costs down. lets not forget that the US has a bit more territory to cover than all the countries mentioned. Not a bad deal indeed

all rates are in their national rate and converted to the current us/nation exchange rates.[/url]

I would pay more if they could muster up better customer service and delivery consistancy. The problem is poor management, which has very little to do with pricing.

If you mail a letter in BUMF***ed washington and mail it to elks butt west virginia it will get there in 3 days. I think thats pretty impressive trick for less than 50 cents

---

In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope

The competition that Mr. Obama envisions between government and private insurance companies won't be fair. Many proposed regulations, such as eliminating caps on what insurance companies will pay out or preventing insurance companies from discriminating against those with pre-existing conditions, will eliminate private insurance. But even if the government only tilts the playing field partially in favor of a government insurance plan, making it artificially cheaper, a lot of Americans will give up their private insurance to save money. Government insurance gradually will take over, and service will deteriorate." --The Washington Times

Well now, this is lame.

The point that the President was making was that those who want to keep their "cadillac" private insurance 1) would be able to, and 2) yes, private insurers will be able to do so at a profit.

Using the USPS and FedEx was, in fact, a good example. As part of my job, I send legal documents all over the country. Some are extremely time sensitive and some are not. With the USPS and FedEx, I am given a reasonable choice between exceptional speed and reliability vs. price. If I send a letter from NC to Los Angeles that 'absolutely positively' needs to be there the next day with up to the minute web=based tracking, I spend the $24.25 to send it by FedEx. If I need it there the next day with less accurate tracking, I can use Express Mail for $17.50. if I am sending a routine follow up, I can do so by traditional "snail mail" for 44 cents. The end result is the same.

FedEx and UPS continue to do well because they meet a specific need at a price point people are willing to pay. If private health insurance plans provide
premium service at a reasonable price, their customers will want to stay with them, too.

Unfortunately, the 40 Million plus Americans who are currently living without health insurance and those who cannot afford the high premiums currently have no other choices. As a result, they wind up in emergency rooms with no ability to pay jacking up the costs for those of us with insurance when we get sick.

---

Join the PACK!

The competition that Mr. Obama envisions between government and private insurance companies won't be fair. Many proposed regulations, such as eliminating caps on what insurance companies will pay out or preventing insurance companies from discriminating against those with pre-existing conditions, will eliminate private insurance. But even if the government only tilts the playing field partially in favor of a government insurance plan, making it artificially cheaper, a lot of Americans will give up their private insurance to save money. Government insurance gradually will take over, and service will deteriorate." --The Washington Times

Well now, this is lame.

The point that the President was making was that those who want to keep their "cadillac" private insurance 1) would be able to, and 2) yes, private insurers will be able to do so at a profit.

He now is saying that you will more than likely will be able to keep your private insurance. Reassuring, no?

Using the USPS and FedEx was, in fact, a good example. As part of my job, I send legal documents all over the country. Some are extremely time sensitive and some are not. With the USPS and FedEx, I am given a reasonable choice between exceptional speed and reliability vs. price. If I send a letter from NC to Los Angeles that 'absolutely positively' needs to be there the next day with up to the minute web=based tracking, I spend the $24.25 to send it by FedEx. If I need it there the next day with less accurate tracking, I can use Express Mail for $17.50. if I am sending a routine follow up, I can do so by traditional "snail mail" for 44 cents. The end result is the same.

Have you ever waited half an hour at a post office just to send a package or buy stamps?

FedEx and UPS continue to do well because they meet a specific need at a price point people are willing to pay. If private health insurance plans provide
premium service at a reasonable price, their customers will want to stay with them, too.

When you say 'premium', do you mean better than the public plan?

Unfortunately, the 40 Million plus Americans who are currently living without health insurance and those who cannot afford the high premiums currently have no other choices. As a result, they wind up in emergency rooms with no ability to pay jacking up the costs for those of us with insurance when we get sick.

Yes, there is a problem. The disagreement is about the solution.

just and FYI the post office also has a self check out for letters/packages. This eliminates the need to wait on one of the semi warm bodies to take care of your postal needs.

Is the "maybe" part of keeping ones health insurance the latest neocon talking point. I've yet to read or hear anything about this. I've even heard Obama speak funny how when you actually here it straight from the horses mouth you're less likely to get a different answer.

Premium is just that. Subjective to ones own needs. for the 43 million without any insurance coverage I'd call the public plan a Premium.

Heck I could spend 2X what I currently pay to get the top level insurance at my work. what would I save? $5 for an office visit and $500 annually out of pocket expense. that hardly seems like a savings. spend an extra $100 a month to save less than half the cost.

---

In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope

just and FYI the post office also has a self check out for letters/packages. This eliminates the need to wait on one of the semi warm bodies to take care of your postal needs.

Not where I live.

Is the "maybe" part of keeping ones health insurance the latest neocon talking point. I've yet to read or hear anything about this. I've even heard Obama speak funny how when you actually here it straight from the horses mouth you're less likely to get a different answer.

"Everybody here who still has -- who has currently private insurance, you know, you would more than likely still be on your private insurance plan." --Obama (in a town hall meeting)

Premium is just that. Subjective to ones own needs. for the 43 million without any insurance coverage I'd call the public plan a Premium.

Heck I could spend 2X what I currently pay to get the top level insurance at my work. what would I save? $5 for an office visit and $500 annually out of pocket expense. that hardly seems like a savings. spend an extra $100 a month to save less than half the cost.

If private health insurace in more expensive than the public option, it should also be better. If the public insurance was better than private than why would anyone pay more for less?

just and FYI the post office also has a self check out for letters/packages. This eliminates the need to wait on one of the semi warm bodies to take care of your postal needs.

Not where I live.

Is the "maybe" part of keeping ones health insurance the latest neocon talking point. I've yet to read or hear anything about this. I've even heard Obama speak funny how when you actually here it straight from the horses mouth you're less likely to get a different answer.

"Everybody here who still has -- who has currently private insurance, you know, you would more than likely still be on your private insurance plan." --Obama (in a town hall meeting)

Premium is just that. Subjective to ones own needs. for the 43 million without any insurance coverage I'd call the public plan a Premium.

Heck I could spend 2X what I currently pay to get the top level insurance at my work. what would I save? $5 for an office visit and $500 annually out of pocket expense. that hardly seems like a savings. spend an extra $100 a month to save less than half the cost.

If private health insurace in more expensive than the public option, it should also be better. If the public insurance was better than private than why would anyone pay more for less?

first off if the public plan is better I'll switch over. thus making me not one of the most. There really isn't a vast left wing conspiracy here its just poor wording on his part.
I'd assume the public plan to be at least as good as medicare so its going to cost less and be better than private insurance. THis will force the insurance companies to take a hard look at the $280 billion profit they make annually and perhaps provide service at a lower cost to their consumers. I doubt that will happen. I do think they will try to go HMO on everyone where all your testing is done and a test mill like Quest or Labcorp

---

In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope

"The Party seeks power entirely for its own sake. We are not interested in the good of others; we are interested solely in power. Not wealth or luxury or long life or happiness: only power, pure power. ... We know that no one ever seizes power with the intention of relinquishing it. Power is not a means, it is an end. One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship. The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power. Now do you begin to understand me?" --George Orwell, "1984"

More wastefull spending in washington. Where is our hope and change? It is time to vote in a new congress!

The Airport for No One
The Senate votes to keep funding Jack Murtha's weekend landing strip.

Last week 53 Senators—including 51 Democrats—voted down an amendment by Republican Jim DeMint of South Carolina to stop spending federal funds on the airport that Mr. Murtha built with more than $150 million in federal subsidies and earmarks over the last two decades. (The Republicans voting against Mr. DeMint were Kit Bond and George Voinovich, neither of whom is running for re-election.) The airport has three daily commercial flights, and those are to Washington, D.C. The federal subsidies average $100 for each of the fewer than 30 passengers who use the airport each day, which means it would be cheaper for taxpayers to buy a train ticket for Mr. Murtha and other Washington D.C.-bound travelers than to keep the airport open.

Mr. DeMint pleaded with his colleagues that "if we can't cut funding for this project, we can't cut anything in Washington" and that the Senate will have declared "there's no such thing as waste, there's no such thing as fraud and corruption." He lost, but voters keeping score can add it to their mental tally of why we have a $1.6 trillion deficit.

More status quo:

"Democrats have found someone worth fighting in Afghanistan. His name is Stan McChrystal. The other night, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi went after the commander of U.S. and allied forces in Afghanistan, 'with all due respect,' for supposedly disrespecting the chain of command. Around the Congressional Democratic Caucus, we're told Members refer to General McChrystal as 'General MacArthur,' after the commander in Korea sacked by Harry Truman. White House aides have fanned these flames with recent leaks to the media that 'officials are challenging' his assessment asking for more troops. In the last two days, the White House National Security Adviser and the Secretary of Defense have both suggested that the general should keep his mouth shut. President Obama called him in Friday for a talking-to on the tarmac at Copenhagen airport. Though a decorated Army four-star officer, the General's introduction to Beltway warfare is proving to be brutal. To be fair, Gen. McChrystal couldn't know that his Commander in Chief would go wobbly so soon on his commitment to him as well as to his own Afghan strategy when he was tapped for the job in April. ... Gen. McChrystal's liberal critics also have very short memories. In 2003, Army Chief of Staff General Eric Shinseki clashed with his superiors by saying many more troops were needed to pacify Iraq. He became a Democratic hero and is now Mr. Obama's Veterans Secretary. In this case, Gen. McChrystal has become a political target merely for taking at face value Mr. Obama's order to fight the war properly. ... In an interview with Newsweek, Gen. McChrystal said he wouldn't resign if the President rejects his request for more troops. If he were really trying to dictate policy, he'd have given a different answer. But we don't think Gen. McChrystal should stay to implement a Biden war plan either. No commander in uniform should ask his soldiers to die for a strategy he doesn't think is winnable -- or for a President who lets his advisers and party blame a general for their own lack of political nerve." --The Wall Street Journal

This speaks volumes as to how our current congress regards the constitution:
Just more of the status quo, nothing new.

Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) was befuddled and deflected:

CNSNews.com: Where, in your opinion, does the Constitution give specific authority for Congress to give an individual mandate for health insurance?
Leahy: We have plenty of authority. Are you saying there is no authority?
CNSNews.com: I'm asking-
Leahy: Why would you say there is no authority? I mean, there's no question there's authority, nobody questions that.

While Leahy's answer is both defensive and outrageously arrogant, in a sense, he's right: Not enough voters question the constitutional authority for anything Congress does. Even Republicans too often simply declare, "Me too, only a little less," instead of abiding by the Constitution.

The interviewer persisted, however, and again asked the question. Leahy dodged, saying, "Where do we have the authority to set speed limits on an interstate highway? The federal government does that on federal highways." He then walked away.

So to get this straight, Leahy defended Congress' unconstitutional attempt to take over one sixth of the U.S. economy by citing another unconstitutional law that was justly repealed 14 years ago.

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD) answered the question by saying, "Well, in promoting the general welfare the Constitution obviously gives broad authority to Congress to effect [a mandate that individuals must buy health insurance]. The end that we're trying to effect is to make health care affordable, so I think clearly this is within our constitutional responsibility."

On the contrary, in 1994, the Congressional Budget Office reported that a mandate forcing Americans to buy insurance would be an "unprecedented form of federal action. The government has never required people to buy any good or service as a condition of lawful residence in the United States."
According to Hoyer and his accomplices, however, the General Welfare Clause in the Constitution empowers Congress not only to "promote the general Welfare," but to provide it, demand it and enforce it.

But House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) was the worst offender. "Madam Speaker," CNSNews.com asked, "where specifically does the Constitution grant Congress the authority to enact an individual health insurance mandate?" Her brief reply spoke volumes about the Left's contempt for the Constitution and the Rule of Law: "Are you serious? Are you serious?" She then ignored the question and moved on to the next one. Her spokesman later added, "You can put this on the record: That is not a serious question. That is not a serious question."

Even in light of the current recession, we live in a day of unprecedented prosperity and, as a result, we have become complacent. Unfortunately, the likes of Leahy, Hoyer and Pelosi, who mock the Constitution instead of keeping their oaths, have almost completely robbed us of the "Blessings of Liberty" which our Founding Fathers pledged "our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor" to defend.

I will once again point out that the Constitutions preamble clearly states "to promote the general welfare..." I can't think of anything currenty that would promote the general welfare than Universal health care.

---

In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope

I will once again point out that the Constitutions preamble clearly states "to promote the general welfare..." I can't think of anything currenty that would promote the general welfare than Universal health care.

That is a gross misrepresentation, imo.

Keep this in mind while reading article one, section 8.

Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Please tell me which part below:

Article 1 - The Legislative Branch
Section 8 - Powers of Congress

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

So you've made my point for me. Congress is allowed to create universal healthcare since it must be provided uniformly and the whole Universal health care arguement is to provide healthcare uniformly. Thanks for the help!!!

---

In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope

So you've made my point for me. Congress is allowed to create universal healthcare since it must be provided uniformly and the whole Universal health care arguement is to provide healthcare uniformly. Thanks for the help!!!

Circular reasoning.

Anyway, quote the passage in the constitution that supports your claim. I do not see it.

The constitution supports the idea that the states and the people are responsible for healthcare. See Amendment X.

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States;

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Our Founders realized that a healthy work force was essential to our economic health and growth. It was for this reason that, in July of 1798, Congress passed, and President John Adams signed into law an act “For the Relief of Sick and Disabled Seamen,” establishing the Marine Hospital Service.

This Federal government socialized healthcare insurance was funded by a tax that was withheld from the sailor’s pay, and then turned over to the government by the ship’s owner. This first payroll tax amounted to slightly over 1% of the sailor’s wages. An injured or sick sailor would make a claim, his record of payments would be confirmed, and he would be given a “chit” for admission to the local hospital. Some of these healthcare facilities were private, but in the larger ports Federal maritime hospitals were built.

A year later, in 1799, the hospitals were opened to members of our Navy, until its own were established. (In 1936 the Merchant Marines were declared an auxiliary of the Navy during times of war and emergency, until then, they were always private employees.)

As America grew, this system was expanded to the inland ports along the Ohio and Mississippi rivers and others. It eventually became our Public Health Service, led by the Surgeon General.

We should take a lesson from our Founders, and view today's health insurance issue through the same lens. A healthy work force is more productive. We have enough disadvantages as we compete in the global economy without having to bear the costly burden of a healthcare system that in too many ways works in opposition to its purpose. We're draining consumer purchasing from other more productive areas of our economy to prop up a highly monopolized system that violates that forgotten third word of the free market phrase: competition.
True competition would allow the public to participate. There is no valid free market theory that would reject that idea. That some would describe personal responsibility as surrendering our national interest to the profit motive of the few is a result of thoughtless ideology, not reason.
If we ask the question "Are we being served, or served on a platter?" the answer reveals the action we, the people should take.

Those who disagree are free to do so, but now stripped of the pretense that they are representing the principles of Our Founders, they should avoid that tidbit of sloganeering. Those saying the Constitution doesn't allow the citizens to provide for themselves are obviously wrong. What I have written about here is a prescription to cure that strain of ignorance.

http://tinyurl.com/RepuglycansSuck

---

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States;
http://tinyurl.com/RepuglycansSuck

Thank you for your post, at least you quote evidence.

My question: It is possible that what you are refering to is medicare/medicaid ?

The definition of "general welfare" is vague at best.

Furthermore, I am more interested in wether what Obama is doing is constitutional. No one is proposing universal healthcare here in the states (no bills have been proposed in congress). The constitution "might" support universal healthcare. But does it support Obamacare which is not fair or universal? It seems to just be another way to distribute wealth.

If the constitution did support obamacare, why can't our represenrtatives answer a simple question?

the reason they made so many things vague is that they were not able to see the future. They also knew that we'd have to have a bit of breathing room with the document. Had they not wanted people to have something it would have been enumerated.

---

In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope

the reason they made so many things vague is that they were not able to see the future. They also knew that we'd have to have a bit of breathing room with the document. Had they not wanted people to have something it would have been enumerated.

The powers of congress are strictly enumerated, all other powers are granted to the states and to the people. See amendment X.