Your argument is basically that universal service is "nice".
Yes, I know you wouldn't phrase it that way, but it is what it boils down to.
The counterargument is the simple fact that as the system is working and structured now, we can't afford it.
An awful lot of the problem with the way we've been responding to this economic crisis is the way that people have been acting as if we can just wish for nice things that we can't afford, and somehow it'll all just work out. Car companies may be losing money by the billions, but it sure would be nice if they made a profit, so let's wish a few more billion at them to lose, rather than making the hard decisions. It sure would be nice if the postal system could make money without making the hard decisions, so let's wish a few more billion at them.
At some point, you have to make the hard decisions. People spit at the word "profit" because of the various (mostly stupid) negative connotations given to it, but remember that no matter how socialist or even communist you may be, SOMETHING has to make a profit! Whether it's a profit in money or a profit in credits or a profit in sweet, sweet love, something has to generate more value than the effort you put into it, or you have no money or credits or love to subsidize your other desires with.
Now, if you make the right hard decisions, we can probably keep universal service. The article has several constructive suggestions. But some hard decisions will have to be made. (And for all the exciting rhetoric from the Obama administration about making hard decisions, I can't hardly name one actually hard decision he's made, rather than wishing more taxpayer money at things that make no money.) Individually, maybe we could afford a postal service that loses billions, but against an economy where everything is having trouble, we probably need to go to a model where the post office at least breaks even... and if that means losing something "nice", well, so be it.