Trump going after United Health

None of those tales are valid excuses for completely destroying our healthcare system and the government agencies that administer and monitor it. Of course there's fraud and abuse. It's impossible to avoid; it can only be mitigated. Or to put it differently, we can institute a draconian system wherein everything is quintuple-checked and patients routinely die before their paperwork is vetted and they finally receive care. Just like there was very little petty crime in Nazi Germany--if you get my analogy.

If we removed the profit motive from our healthcare system (as in: switched to government-sponsored single-payer care), then this problem would go away.

How would you solve the post office problem.  Low wages, and high costs and losing money every year.

Solving the Post Office problem is very easy - but the people who complain most about the Post Office are the ones who would suffer most with the solution.

By law the Post Office is required to deliver to every address in the UNited States.   Its not profitable to deliver to Old Macdonald's farm 30 miles outside of Beatrice, Nebraska.   But the Post Office delivers there anyway because its a public service offered by the United States government.    FedEx and UPS either outsource their deliveries to the Post Office for those addresses....or they tell Old MacDonald he has to come into town to get his package.   You wont ever see a FedEx truck at his house.

You could go a long way towards making the Post Office profitable tommorrow with that one change.   Old Macdonald will be the first one to complain....and he most likely is a Trump supporter.

I think that mandate is for letter mail, not packages.  The post office should not be helping the bottom line of ups, and fed ex by  allow them to charge 20 bucks for a pachage and then take it to the post office to deliver for 5 and  pocket the profit .  The post office could not lose 10 billion a year delivering letter mail.

First of all, by not defining it as a "problem" just because it loses money. Call it what it is--a taxpayer-funded service for Americans. I can think of a dozen major government agencies/programs that aren't profitable but there would be howling to the high heavens if they were curtailed.

One parallel I have a lot of experience with is the National Parks. They charge entrance fees, facility use fees, and annual fees for passes. Yet, they always run at a budget deficit, as those fees only pay for about 1/3 of operations and upkeep. If they wanted to operate at breakeven, a 7-day pass to Yellowstone would cost $75, not $25; a campsite would cost $100 a night; et cetera. But so many people love the parks, and so many visit them for low-cost vacations, that it's a worthwhile public benefit to subsidize the shortfall.

The post office's existence provides many benefits that aren't tangible but are nonetheless real. And yes, when you pay your federal income taxes, some of your money is going to ensure that Farmer Cletus in Pig Wallow, Nebraska can continue to get mail delivery five days a week. I'm OK with that.

You might ask, then, why isn't mailing a letter or visiting the national parks completely free? It's because we have "democratic SOOOOOOOOOOCIALISM" (eeek!). Provide a general public benefit but require the actual beneficiaries/users to shoulder some of the cost. (Another example is toll roads and bridges.)

So how much did the national  parks lose last year, and did someone else like ups and fed ex profit by its lose ?

Does Government run anything well?  We want to put them in charge of healthcare?!? 

You could make the argument that park visitors profited, because the facilities were provided at less than cost. I don't know the exact numbers, because it's all under the Department of the Interior umbrella. Some of the expenditures get melded with other federal stuff, like highways and access infrastructure.

But if you want to talk about the justification of the expenditures...the National Parks are a strong net positive for the economy overall. If there's a level of subsidization, it's the jobs and economy boost provided to seasonal workers and businesses in gateway towns.

Yes, it runs quite a few things very, very well. I know it's fashionable to pooh-pooh that, but it's true.

As far as health care goes, though, you have to define "well." What would that be? Care for everyone who needs it? Or something else? And compared to what?

Do some research on Medicare's approval ratings and compare it to any private insurance company.    The answer to your question is "YES".      

Right wing media has been on a smear campaign of government workers for decades now.    The government actually does a good job of managing whatver task they are given.   Many of the tasks themselvers are stupid.    You can blame Congress for appropriatting money to those tasks.  Its not the workers' fault.

And thats really the problem we see with DOGE.   They are punishing the workers instead of the projects.