But your examples are problems that do not depend on the market/socialist healthcare system, so while a market healthcare system does not help those problems, it does not hurt them either
Actually, they do. In rural areas of the country, providing quality health care is not economical feasible. I have fantastic health insurance - the best you can buy, but the terrible quality of health care when I live has driven me and my family to drive 75 miles to the nearest metro area to see doctors. We have a hospital here, but unless it's a life a death emergency, I will drive 50 miles to what is a "semi-metro" area where there are two hospitals that prove vastly superior care.
My story about the local hospital telling the heart attack victim to go home after taking two Tylenol is a true story. That person's wife then demanded that he be taken to the hospital 75 miles away. Once he arrived they had him on the operating table within an hour and performed life saving bypass surgery.
Let me guess. You live in a metro area where you have the choice of several different doctors. When you go to the hospital, the staff are competent and are able to make the right diagnoses on their first try most of the time.
Try living in rural America for awhile, where hospitals have to turn to temp agencies for doctors because the doctors refuse to live and work in the area on a permanent basis, and where the doctors that do agree to work are the ones that graduated with a B-- average from Devry medical school.
Try making a doctors appointment in poor, rural America and watch a ten minute doctors appointment take four hours out of your day.
Try having a major heart attack in rural America and watch as the incompetent hospital staff give you two extra strength Tylenol and tell you to go home.
Our "free market" heath care system is utterly broken, and in most of the country, is worse than any socialized system in the world.
So what about Jury duty, or the requirement for every child to either attend school or be home schooled using a certain base curriculum until at least age 16? HOw about the selective service?
Our government *forces* the population to do all of the above.
Taxes ARE wealth redistribution. Distributing the wealth in a way that best benefits the country as a whole is the real debate. You conservatives and your phobia of nuance only cloud the discussion with irrelevant hand waving.
According to your definition, we've been a extremely socialistic country for the last 70 years. Did you not get the memo? Perhaps you also didn't get the memo that conservative (rural) areas of the country produce far less wealth that liberal (urban) areas of the country and are the biggest beneficiaries of our socialistic tax system. Without "socialism", many parts of states like Kansas, and Nebraska and Mississippi wouldn't even have electricity today let alone the other things federal tax dollars (mostly from liberal urban areas) have funded.
You can try and persuade us otherwise, but even though we'll lose this election, we're still 30% of the country, and can make one hell of a civil war.
Give me a break. You sound like the liberals in '04 who said they'd move out of the country if Kerry didn't get elected.
Actually, not at all. If you would have read Obama's book, you'd find that he actually condemns Clinton's economics as Reaganonomics with a smattering of progressivism. Yeah, I'll give you, Clinton was the best Republican President we've had, economically, but Clinton with a Republican congress chopping his entire agenda is a lot different than Obama with filibuster proof Senate.
Which of his books, and which part addresses this? I have both and have started reading the first. I wouldn't doubt it if Obama had more progressive views on fiscal policy, but that fact is that his proposals mirror Clinton's plans. Conservatives also have much more radical goals (like eliminating the department of education, and removing all public funding from schools) than they actually have the ability to carry out too. You're not going to make me scared of Obama by saying he's liberal and/or progressive.
Ah yes, the socialism boogieman. Perhaps you Republicrats should look up that word before sprinkling it so liberaly.
Obama's tax plans are pretty much a mirror image of Bill Clinton's. Clinton implemented these policies in 1993 shortly after a time when real GDP growth was near zero. Through the 90's, the economy still grew at a normal pace, the middle class grew, average wages went up, and the budget deficit shrunk. But we wouldn't want any of that would we?
when people who aren't rich get money, they are much more likely to spend it.
QFT
Rich people get rich and stay rich because they are good at accumulating money and holding onto it. The theory that rich people will distribute their tax cut money to others is nothing but a theory pushed by rich people who are tired of having to compete the lower classes money.
Income is income, and the person who's dead is not being taxed. When someone inherits money they are receiving income. The only problem I see with the Estate tax is that it does not follow the normal tax rate. IMO, it should be taxed just like any other income.
To sum the parent's post up, we have to start paying our bills, preferably before our creditors overseas start to call them in.
If there is one thing that I cannot stand, it is politicians running up public debt. A close second would be the idiot economists who claim that public debt is not a bad thing because we are paying it back to ourselves. The last time I checked, 20% of our federal income taxes go straight to paying interest on our national debt. It's probably more now. I don't care who the interest is going to, it's still amounts to pushing paper around, which accomplishes nothing.
If oil were to shut down tomorrow, Alaska would be hurting, but it wouldn't become like a 3rd world nation or anything - it would continue to have a steady source of revenue.
It doesn't matter if there are no batteries. The low efficiency of solar panels keep small residential installations from being cost effective in the long run. A friend of mine runs a solar install business and the first thing he does when a potential customer calls is to warns them that unless their power bills are around $1000* a month, it won't save them money.
*I don't remember the exact dollar amount he told me, but the average residential power bill is not nearly enough.
I wouldn't refer to satellite radio as CD quality. Satellite companies keep their codecs and bitrates a secret, but various inside sources have said that they use a special version of AAC and the bitrates vary from 40 to 80kbps.
My free three month trial of XM radio just ended on my new car and I was not impressed by the sound quality of many of the music stations. It sounded ok, but no better than the local FM stations.
Slashdot Mirror
But your examples are problems that do not depend on the market/socialist healthcare system, so while a market healthcare system does not help those problems, it does not hurt them either
Actually, they do. In rural areas of the country, providing quality health care is not economical feasible. I have fantastic health insurance - the best you can buy, but the terrible quality of health care when I live has driven me and my family to drive 75 miles to the nearest metro area to see doctors. We have a hospital here, but unless it's a life a death emergency, I will drive 50 miles to what is a "semi-metro" area where there are two hospitals that prove vastly superior care.
My story about the local hospital telling the heart attack victim to go home after taking two Tylenol is a true story. That person's wife then demanded that he be taken to the hospital 75 miles away. Once he arrived they had him on the operating table within an hour and performed life saving bypass surgery.
I never said that. I was ranting against the assumption that the free market increases the quality of health care.
Let me guess. You live in a metro area where you have the choice of several different doctors. When you go to the hospital, the staff are competent and are able to make the right diagnoses on their first try most of the time.
Try living in rural America for awhile, where hospitals have to turn to temp agencies for doctors because the doctors refuse to live and work in the area on a permanent basis, and where the doctors that do agree to work are the ones that graduated with a B-- average from Devry medical school.
Try making a doctors appointment in poor, rural America and watch a ten minute doctors appointment take four hours out of your day.
Try having a major heart attack in rural America and watch as the incompetent hospital staff give you two extra strength Tylenol and tell you to go home.
Our "free market" heath care system is utterly broken, and in most of the country, is worse than any socialized system in the world.
Yes, that happened to me too. It was annoying.
An middle-aged white woman who is active in her christian church?
Not a chance.
So its no surprise Obama had more favorabe coverage. He was by far the 'sexier' candidate.
(Tho Palin was hotter)
Notice how Palin also got a ton of press. If she had a brain to go along with those looks, it would have been favorable.
So what about Jury duty, or the requirement for every child to either attend school or be home schooled using a certain base curriculum until at least age 16? HOw about the selective service?
Our government *forces* the population to do all of the above.
Taxes ARE wealth redistribution. Distributing the wealth in a way that best benefits the country as a whole is the real debate. You conservatives and your phobia of nuance only cloud the discussion with irrelevant hand waving.
According to your definition, we've been a extremely socialistic country for the last 70 years. Did you not get the memo? Perhaps you also didn't get the memo that conservative (rural) areas of the country produce far less wealth that liberal (urban) areas of the country and are the biggest beneficiaries of our socialistic tax system. Without "socialism", many parts of states like Kansas, and Nebraska and Mississippi wouldn't even have electricity today let alone the other things federal tax dollars (mostly from liberal urban areas) have funded.
You can try and persuade us otherwise, but even though we'll lose this election, we're still 30% of the country, and can make one hell of a civil war.
Give me a break. You sound like the liberals in '04 who said they'd move out of the country if Kerry didn't get elected.
Actually, not at all. If you would have read Obama's book, you'd find that he actually condemns Clinton's economics as Reaganonomics with a smattering of progressivism. Yeah, I'll give you, Clinton was the best Republican President we've had, economically, but Clinton with a Republican congress chopping his entire agenda is a lot different than Obama with filibuster proof Senate.
Which of his books, and which part addresses this? I have both and have started reading the first. I wouldn't doubt it if Obama had more progressive views on fiscal policy, but that fact is that his proposals mirror Clinton's plans. Conservatives also have much more radical goals (like eliminating the department of education, and removing all public funding from schools) than they actually have the ability to carry out too. You're not going to make me scared of Obama by saying he's liberal and/or progressive.
Ah yes, the socialism boogieman. Perhaps you Republicrats should look up that word before sprinkling it so liberaly.
Obama's tax plans are pretty much a mirror image of Bill Clinton's. Clinton implemented these policies in 1993 shortly after a time when real GDP growth was near zero. Through the 90's, the economy still grew at a normal pace, the middle class grew, average wages went up, and the budget deficit shrunk.
But we wouldn't want any of that would we?
BTW, not one Republican voted for Clinton's "socialistic" economic policy.
And McSame's plan taxes the insurance policy your employer provides for you to pay for other's insurance.
Grow a brain.
Here you go!
"Purely personal purposes"
Nice Euphemism.
when people who aren't rich get money, they are much more likely to spend it.
QFT
Rich people get rich and stay rich because they are good at accumulating money and holding onto it. The theory that rich people will distribute their tax cut money to others is nothing but a theory pushed by rich people who are tired of having to compete the lower classes money.
Income is income, and the person who's dead is not being taxed. When someone inherits money they are receiving income. The only problem I see with the Estate tax is that it does not follow the normal tax rate. IMO, it should be taxed just like any other income.
To sum the parent's post up, we have to start paying our bills, preferably before our creditors overseas start to call them in.
If there is one thing that I cannot stand, it is politicians running up public debt. A close second would be the idiot economists who claim that public debt is not a bad thing because we are paying it back to ourselves. The last time I checked, 20% of our federal income taxes go straight to paying interest on our national debt. It's probably more now. I don't care who the interest is going to, it's still amounts to pushing paper around, which accomplishes nothing.
We need to pay our bills.
A great quote by a great man. Sometimes dissent is the best thing one can offer their country.
Well, I think that (Washington DC's pork) is BULLSHIT too. In fact eight times the bullshit.
That actually wasn't intentional, but I'll take the credit.
You are combining nationalism with a philosophy of tight federal control, neither of which Palin or McCain share, and which would indeed be "creepy".
I don't recall expressing this sentiment, but thanks for guessing.
The kind of nationalism that is creepy to me is the kind where one is considered unpatriotic by not supporting every policy of the federal government.
The issues I really care about now are a balanced federal budget and ending the war in Iraq.
BULLSHIT. Per capita spending is all that matters. Who give a shit about Alaska's land mass? 95% of the land in uninhabited wasteland.
It ain't libertarian if you support the Republican governance platform. It is mild fascism.
The vibe I get from the current RNC platform is that of nationalism.
"Country First" was heir big theme at the convention and it was creepy to me.
If oil were to shut down tomorrow, Alaska would be hurting, but it wouldn't become like a 3rd world nation or anything - it would continue to have a steady source of revenue.
Yeah. In the form of welfare from the federal government.
Bakersfield...it's culturally and climatically preferable to Dubai.
You obviously haven't been to Bakersfield.
It doesn't matter if there are no batteries. The low efficiency of solar panels keep small residential installations from being cost effective in the long run. A friend of mine runs a solar install business and the first thing he does when a potential customer calls is to warns them that unless their power bills are around $1000* a month, it won't save them money.
*I don't remember the exact dollar amount he told me, but the average residential power bill is not nearly enough.
I wouldn't refer to satellite radio as CD quality. Satellite companies keep their codecs and bitrates a secret, but various inside sources have said that they use a special version of AAC and the bitrates vary from 40 to 80kbps.
My free three month trial of XM radio just ended on my new car and I was not impressed by the sound quality of many of the music stations. It sounded ok, but no better than the local FM stations.