“Postal” Healthcare Could be Good

David Streeter — August 27, 2009 – 2:58 pm | Congress | Democrats | Domestic Policy | Health Care Comments (0) Add a comment

In today’s U.S. News and World Report, Rick Newman writes about the potential benefits of a public healthcare system run like the post office. The tone of his article seems facetious, but there’s definitely some merit to his claims that postal-haters and naysayers on a public option should really think through.

The postal service is one of America’s most important institutions. It generally delivers the mail on time, is affordable, and treats everyone the same. Unfortunately, mishaps happen, and the postal service has developed a reputation for bureaucratic inefficiency and surly employees. Nevertheless, the mail gets delivered. If a public health care option is run like the postal service, wouldn’t that mean that people receive healthcare regardless of bureaucratic squabbling or tempers? 

But what’s most important for the naysayers and postal-haters to take away from Newman’s piece is that, even if a “postal” public option exists, it would be good for the private insurance companies. People who can afford to get away from surly bureaucrats will pay extra to do so, the same way that people who don’t want to deal with surly postal employees use Fed-Ex or UPS to send their mail. Why should healthcare be different?

If the insurance companies are worried that a public option run like the postal service is going to threaten their business, then maybe should reevaluate their business model. But in the meantime, they should note Newman’s mention that found the postal service has a better customer satisfaction rate than they do.

Comments

There are no comments for this entry