Basically, for all you people who think that this new fellow is going to be "different", tell me in four years time whether you still have to go to fucking work nearly every day of the week (for the vast majority who do). Heck, I would guess at least half of the things he promised aren't even possible without the Congress, and they aren't different, even if you think this man is.
Why is not going to work a goal? Why would that change? The point is for the last 8 years, we've had a mildly retarted person speaking for us. Now, we've got someone who can put together a proper sentence to speak for us. That's a good thing. Do I think he'll accomplish all the goals he's laid out? No way. Do I expect him to? No. Do I want the government to take care of me? No. But I do want, as a figurehead, a man who doesn't sound like an idiot when he's in front of the world.
We The People have pretty much the size of Government We The People want doing pretty much the tasks We The People believe to be Constitutional else We The People would have chosen other leaders.
Tee hee. Don't know if you're that naive or just plain stupid, but you seem to be making the fairly large assumption that our leaders do what we elect them to do. Like this here 44th president. Is he going to do *half* of the shit he's promised? No...probably not. So does that mean that everything he *does* do is what the people who elected him wanted? Um...no, no likely.
If you're pulled over and suspected of DUI, then don't take the damn test, beacuse the accuracy of the breathalyzers are questionable. Plain and simple.
Worst. Advice. Ever. Let me qualify that, if you're a first offender, it's the worst advice ever. First off, depending on what state you're pulled over in, the consequences of refusing the test are worse than your first dui arrest. Second, prosecutors are now using the fact that you refused the test against you as proof that you were intoxicated. If you have no had prior DUI arrests, you should almost always take the test. You can always fight it later on, but you'll almost surely loose your license if you refuse.
I am constantly amazed at the level of ignorance and stupidity this country displays toward security. It's gutless and unreasoned. There are something like 1.2 billion Muslims on the planet, around 22% of the total population of the planet! We have problems with a few thousand of them. How long are we going to use 9-11 to justify continued fear and ignorance?
As opposed to "smart" people like you who can read about an incident and instantly understand what it was actually like being there and judge all people involved. It's good to be perfect eh?
Just curious, but why do you say that about Russia? From everything I've seen, they have no intention of rolling over to Anglo-American dominated interests.
When will shoe stores get sued for selling boots and shoes that are painful to the person receiving kicks in the ass?
Gotta remember though, they're starting in Australia, which is a good idea considering their government's attitude on the internet and the freedoms provided therein. Interesting to me that they've started there. If it works there and the government buys into it, then look for it to spread to the other overly conservative nations. (I'm looking at you Russia)
I dispute that--on average. I'm not saying that it's cause-and-effect or even that the correlation is 100%, but I will go on record as saying that getting a PhD (at least in science!) is very strongly correlated with being able to think clearly, and to discover and question one's own assumptions.
Yes, but one could argue getting a PhD is very strongly correlated with the desire to stay in school without actually having to produce anything. Just saying...
Err....it did as he was leaving. Remember that dot com bubble bursting? Bush 2 essentially inherited a recession...
Nah. He's got you there. Say what you want about Clinton, but he did a good job with the economy. That's pretty much undeniable. He made it a priority early in his presidency to focus on reducing national debt instead of tax cuts as a good way to keep the economy strong and he was right. It worked. Huge surplus, record low unemployment, smallest growth in government spending in a while...He did a fine job. I don't think you can really provide evidence that says otherwise.
It's amazing how people complain about workers in America being lazy when we're the most productive in the world and the gains in productivity end up being redistributed to those that don't really need any more money.
But it doesn't work like that. Do you know anybody who has their own business and DOES make more than $250,000? Here's the theory. They got that way by growing their business. Maybe started off barely able to make ends meet but took all their extra money and corporate profits and reinvested to make the business grow. Then the business got big enough to give them a health salary. Now, with their big salary, they take their extra money and add a location, or buy a new truck or more equipment. That, in turn, creates jobs which allow everybody else to make some money. If the average profit margin for a company is 8%, which I'm not saying it is, but that works for the folks I've worked for, then increasing taxes by 8% pretty much wipes out profits. Wipe out profits, wipe out growth. Wipe out growth, wipe out jobs. Wipe out jobs....well...you guess.
I say: Government is us; We are doing a crappy job; We should do better. Take some fraking responsibility already.
In what regard? Why is health care any different from food? People are hungry because they were to lazy to finish school or too lazy to keep a job. Should we give everybody the same food too?
BTW, I should point out that I don't make crazy money. My wife and I make modest incomes, but we've got financial priorities. Health insurance comes before cars, restaurants, etc. It's not like everybody couldn't afford the same coverage I've got. It just takes a little discipline.
The IRS seems to work fine. I can understand people disliking them because they are the ones who collect the taxes, but other than that, they seem to operate well.
Are you serious??? A tax code that is over 3500 pages long that no one person can completely understand? That's good eh? Ok. I guess.
Social Security seems to be fine, the earliest complaints are in 2027, and I doubt will be the crisis everyone expects. It's doing better than my 401k at the moment certainly.
What? Given the current state of the trust fund, all funds will be depleted by 2041. So...that's a good thing I guess? It is a crisis right now...forget later on.
Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae may be th only thing preventing a horrible depression.
What are you talking about. Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae and their under capitalization kicked off this whole mess. They led the way on relying on the government to bail them out. A good idea, for sure, but once again, it shouldn't be the government's job to provide loans. And the worst part, when mortgages SHOULD have been harder to get and therefore home prices should have naturally dropped, good ole Fannie and Freddie keep them artificially inflated by giving loans to anyone who asked. (basically) So, no, they're not helping, they started it. (of course it was really started by the nasdaq bubble, but that's another conversation)
But tell me how good your HMO is. Do they let you see any doctor? A specialist right away? Do they make you wait for treatment while they cross the i's and dot the t's (reversal intentional). I've seen most of the problems that people assume exist in a "socialized" medicare system in every HMO. It's called bureaucracy, and private enterprise is not a panacea that magically makes it disappear.
I've got a PPO and yeah, I can see whoever the hell I want and have not had a single problem getting to see a specialist. I've seen two and my wife has been to two as well. Not including the birth of our child, which by the way, was done where we chose by who we chose. So, I have no problem with the current state of my health care, besides the price. The fact is, whatever I've paid over the last, say five years, is a shadow of what I would have paid had I not bought insurance. It sucks to pay the bill, but it's *worth* the price. I drive a shittier car, but hey...my family has coverage.
And I assume that the US government can do it because every other western country somehow can.
So you're cool with paying half your income to taxes?
By most quantifiable measures (lifespan, infant mortality, etc) the US appears to be worse off than most other industrialized nations. This indicates that the US healthcare system is less effective than others.
If they were all measured fairly, I'd agree with you.
For example...
If we had a proper social safety net, we wouldn't have children dying of neglect in the most "advanced" nation on Earth. That's the problem, I stated it before you asked.
I disagree with your premise. Furthermore, I think it naive of you to assume that because we are a rich country, we can wipe out neglect. It's not societal neglect, it's personal neglect. It's irresponsible individuals that neglect a child, not irresponsible government.
We rank 29th amongst industrialized nations (behind such greats as Cuba mind you) in infant mortality. How can you live with that and not be outraged?
Because it's a shit statistic and can't be trusted. Particularly since the entire world doesn't make the measure using the same measuring stick. From here...
While the United States reports every case of infant mortality, it has been suggested that some other developed countries do not. A 2006 article in U.S. News & World Report claims that "First, it's shaky ground to compare U.S. infant mortality with reports from other countries. The United States counts all births as live if they show any sign of life, regardless of prematurity or size. This includes what many other countries report as stillbirths. In Austria and Germany, fetal weight must be at least 500 grams (1 pound) to count as a live birth; in other parts of Europe, such as Switzerland, the fetus must be at least 30 centimeters (12 inches) long. In Belgium and France, births at less than 26 weeks of pregnancy are registered as lifeless. And some countries don't reliably register babies who die within the first 24 hours of birth. Thus, the United States is sure to report higher infant mortality rates. For this very reason, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, which collects the European numbers, warns of head-to-head comparisons by country." [2] However, all of the countries named adopted the WHO definition in the late 1980s or early 1990s
I play the hand I'm dealt, but that doesn't mean I can't work to change things by voting my conscience
Ummm... the government manages a giant military, can put people on the moon, invented the internet and GPS, manages the largest economy in the world, and you're going to hold road construction against it? It's not even the same bloody level of government.
Cool. Great military and decent space program. (BTW, talk to a Marine and ask them how smooth the military runs) How's the IRS working out for you? And the TSA, how's that for a government program. Oh yeah, and social security, how's that looking lately. Freddie Mac? Fannie Mae? Why would Health care be different?
For goodness' sake, the same people on here who make fun of the religious for hanging onto their beliefs in the face of contradictory evidence have no problem doing so with their philisophically based economics theories.
My main point is what has the United States government done, including the military, that hasn't ended up being a corrupted mess destined for failure and reform? Can't we spend time just reforming private health care? How about figuring out how come it's way more expensive (administrative costs and malpractice insurance) and just go about fixing that? Why do you just assume the United States government can deal with it just because Germany can?
Since this is the federal government, you must mean the interstate highway system? Having recently driven all the way across the country at 60 mph without hitting a single pothole, what are you smoking?
Ok. I was joking there, but never the less. Touche.
Yes, you can walk into the emergency room, where treating you will cost me (a taxpayer) ten times as much as if I just paid for your health insurance so you could make an appointment at a primary care office.
Ok. So since our government has proved to be so smart handling medicaid at a reasonable cost, you'd like to have them handle all health care?
Well, I'm going to go ahead and discount your theories as long as you keep discounting the rest of the industrialized worlds actual experience, okay
Why is it fair to compare the way that the rest of the world does health care in a vacuum. Germany has good health care, sure, but they also pay around 50% tax.
Actually, I live near the city center where things are, but the job that I have is outside of town. Also, housing prices near my job have spiked due to the number of people looking for housing near there, so I (like many people in other parts of the country) live where the housing is affordable.
So you are as responsible as anyone else for the "sprawl" then eh? -- since you're feeding it and all.
God knows that ALL children are planned, don't you see that a social safety net provides a better and safer society for YOU to live in since desperate people do desperate things?
Yes, a social safety net is great. We've already got a bunch of them. There's a social safety net every step along the way of life in America. There's child services, there's welfare, there's housing assistance, there's medicaide, etc. Where's the problem?
You said it was IMMORAL that there are hungry children in our rich nation. I called bullshit on that since it's not up to me when your child eats. Plus, I called you a youngster, when I really should have just said that you're simply naive. If you think that the government can and should insure that every single person is taken care of regardless of their ability or desire to take care of themselves, then I don't know if we can actually converse.
Well, since you decided to ask. I do volunteer my time and was giving a good deal of money to worthy causes up until my financial situation changed recently. Glad you can ASSume though. I don't live in a glass house, which is why I stand up to throw stones. What, pray tell, do YOU do?
My point was, I assume you're not doing everything that you could possible do to feed every hungry child either. Go ahead and lie about it, it doesn't make it true. And by the way, that doesn't make you bad. Just a hypocrite.
I also happen to be far more liberal than the average bear and believe that I can't see meaningful competition in things like gasoline below a certain level since I MUST drive to work and to function in America's misguided sprawl.
Um. Ok. Of course you *could* move out of the sprawl somewhere where you could commute with no petrol footprint. Ah...nevermind. That would require you to *do* something.
I think it is IMMORAL that we live in the richest, most consumer driven society in the world yet we have children going to sleep tonight hungry, sick, and neglected. We should not stand for this as a people and I will vote my conscience.
OMFG. OMFG. You must be a youngster. If you think it's immoral, then I assume that you're giving all of your non-essential moneys to the poor and volunteering all of your spare time to shelters, food kitchens, etc. But, of course, no...you're not. You just think that the government should take care of everybody. (I assume you think that by your comments) How about this...how about everybody takes responsibility for what they do and when the consequences pile up, suck it up and accept them. Can't afford to feed a child? Don't have one or give it up for adoption. Can't afford a car? Don't buy one. Bought one anyways, and now you can't afford health insurance...die already.
Consider that when the rest of the world generally likes and trusts US leadership, the dollar tends to go up. When the rest of the world doubts our president or is unsure of what our president will do the dollar tends to go down.
I disagree with your basic hypothesis. You leave out the part where people will only like and trust the president when he's doing a good job, and not just spewing charismatic bullshit.
Every modern country is moving towards a mish mash of the various institutions and ideas that are labeled 'socialism' and 'capitalism', and has been moving this way for a long long time.
Thank you for not using the word "mashup". Also, I agree with you coward.
Slashdot Mirror
Basically, for all you people who think that this new fellow is going to be "different", tell me in four years time whether you still have to go to fucking work nearly every day of the week (for the vast majority who do). Heck, I would guess at least half of the things he promised aren't even possible without the Congress, and they aren't different, even if you think this man is.
Why is not going to work a goal? Why would that change? The point is for the last 8 years, we've had a mildly retarted person speaking for us. Now, we've got someone who can put together a proper sentence to speak for us. That's a good thing. Do I think he'll accomplish all the goals he's laid out? No way. Do I expect him to? No. Do I want the government to take care of me? No. But I do want, as a figurehead, a man who doesn't sound like an idiot when he's in front of the world.
We The People have pretty much the size of Government We The People want doing pretty much the tasks We The People believe to be Constitutional else We The People would have chosen other leaders.
Tee hee. Don't know if you're that naive or just plain stupid, but you seem to be making the fairly large assumption that our leaders do what we elect them to do. Like this here 44th president. Is he going to do *half* of the shit he's promised? No...probably not. So does that mean that everything he *does* do is what the people who elected him wanted? Um...no, no likely.
But just because you don't take the test, doesn't mean you won't get convicted.
If you're pulled over and suspected of DUI, then don't take the damn test, beacuse the accuracy of the breathalyzers are questionable. Plain and simple.
Worst. Advice. Ever. Let me qualify that, if you're a first offender, it's the worst advice ever. First off, depending on what state you're pulled over in, the consequences of refusing the test are worse than your first dui arrest. Second, prosecutors are now using the fact that you refused the test against you as proof that you were intoxicated. If you have no had prior DUI arrests, you should almost always take the test. You can always fight it later on, but you'll almost surely loose your license if you refuse.
A grand is not "budget."
Of course, 1000 AUD is about $700 USD.
I am constantly amazed at the level of ignorance and stupidity this country displays toward security. It's gutless and unreasoned. There are something like 1.2 billion Muslims on the planet, around 22% of the total population of the planet! We have problems with a few thousand of them. How long are we going to use 9-11 to justify continued fear and ignorance?
As opposed to "smart" people like you who can read about an incident and instantly understand what it was actually like being there and judge all people involved. It's good to be perfect eh?
As an Australian, I find it depressing that we are now apparently perceived by the rest of the world as one of those "overly conservative nations".
I think that many Americans feel the same way. I've got a link too.
Just curious, but why do you say that about Russia? From everything I've seen, they have no intention of rolling over to Anglo-American dominated interests.
Um...here's why.
Tee-hee. I wonder if anyone will actually read the story.
When will shoe stores get sued for selling boots and shoes that are painful to the person receiving kicks in the ass?
Gotta remember though, they're starting in Australia, which is a good idea considering their government's attitude on the internet and the freedoms provided therein. Interesting to me that they've started there. If it works there and the government buys into it, then look for it to spread to the other overly conservative nations. (I'm looking at you Russia)
I dispute that--on average. I'm not saying that it's cause-and-effect or even that the correlation is 100%, but I will go on record as saying that getting a PhD (at least in science!) is very strongly correlated with being able to think clearly, and to discover and question one's own assumptions.
Yes, but one could argue getting a PhD is very strongly correlated with the desire to stay in school without actually having to produce anything. Just saying...
Err....it did as he was leaving. Remember that dot com bubble bursting? Bush 2 essentially inherited a recession...
Nah. He's got you there. Say what you want about Clinton, but he did a good job with the economy. That's pretty much undeniable. He made it a priority early in his presidency to focus on reducing national debt instead of tax cuts as a good way to keep the economy strong and he was right. It worked. Huge surplus, record low unemployment, smallest growth in government spending in a while...He did a fine job. I don't think you can really provide evidence that says otherwise.
It's amazing how people complain about workers in America being lazy when we're the most productive in the world and the gains in productivity end up being redistributed to those that don't really need any more money.
But it doesn't work like that. Do you know anybody who has their own business and DOES make more than $250,000? Here's the theory. They got that way by growing their business. Maybe started off barely able to make ends meet but took all their extra money and corporate profits and reinvested to make the business grow. Then the business got big enough to give them a health salary. Now, with their big salary, they take their extra money and add a location, or buy a new truck or more equipment. That, in turn, creates jobs which allow everybody else to make some money. If the average profit margin for a company is 8%, which I'm not saying it is, but that works for the folks I've worked for, then increasing taxes by 8% pretty much wipes out profits. Wipe out profits, wipe out growth. Wipe out growth, wipe out jobs. Wipe out jobs....well...you guess.
I say: Government is us; We are doing a crappy job; We should do better. Take some fraking responsibility already.
In what regard? Why is health care any different from food? People are hungry because they were to lazy to finish school or too lazy to keep a job. Should we give everybody the same food too?
BTW, I should point out that I don't make crazy money. My wife and I make modest incomes, but we've got financial priorities. Health insurance comes before cars, restaurants, etc. It's not like everybody couldn't afford the same coverage I've got. It just takes a little discipline.
The IRS seems to work fine. I can understand people disliking them because they are the ones who collect the taxes, but other than that, they seem to operate well.
Are you serious??? A tax code that is over 3500 pages long that no one person can completely understand? That's good eh? Ok. I guess.
Social Security seems to be fine, the earliest complaints are in 2027, and I doubt will be the crisis everyone expects. It's doing better than my 401k at the moment certainly.
What? Given the current state of the trust fund, all funds will be depleted by 2041. So...that's a good thing I guess? It is a crisis right now...forget later on.
Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae may be th only thing preventing a horrible depression.
What are you talking about. Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae and their under capitalization kicked off this whole mess. They led the way on relying on the government to bail them out. A good idea, for sure, but once again, it shouldn't be the government's job to provide loans. And the worst part, when mortgages SHOULD have been harder to get and therefore home prices should have naturally dropped, good ole Fannie and Freddie keep them artificially inflated by giving loans to anyone who asked. (basically) So, no, they're not helping, they started it. (of course it was really started by the nasdaq bubble, but that's another conversation)
But tell me how good your HMO is. Do they let you see any doctor? A specialist right away? Do they make you wait for treatment while they cross the i's and dot the t's (reversal intentional). I've seen most of the problems that people assume exist in a "socialized" medicare system in every HMO. It's called bureaucracy, and private enterprise is not a panacea that magically makes it disappear.
I've got a PPO and yeah, I can see whoever the hell I want and have not had a single problem getting to see a specialist. I've seen two and my wife has been to two as well. Not including the birth of our child, which by the way, was done where we chose by who we chose. So, I have no problem with the current state of my health care, besides the price. The fact is, whatever I've paid over the last, say five years, is a shadow of what I would have paid had I not bought insurance. It sucks to pay the bill, but it's *worth* the price. I drive a shittier car, but hey...my family has coverage.
And I assume that the US government can do it because every other western country somehow can.
So you're cool with paying half your income to taxes?
By most quantifiable measures (lifespan, infant mortality, etc) the US appears to be worse off than most other industrialized nations. This indicates that the US healthcare system is less effective than others.
If they were all measured fairly, I'd agree with you. For example...
If we had a proper social safety net, we wouldn't have children dying of neglect in the most "advanced" nation on Earth. That's the problem, I stated it before you asked.
I disagree with your premise. Furthermore, I think it naive of you to assume that because we are a rich country, we can wipe out neglect. It's not societal neglect, it's personal neglect. It's irresponsible individuals that neglect a child, not irresponsible government.
We rank 29th amongst industrialized nations (behind such greats as Cuba mind you) in infant mortality. How can you live with that and not be outraged?
Because it's a shit statistic and can't be trusted. Particularly since the entire world doesn't make the measure using the same measuring stick. From here...
While the United States reports every case of infant mortality, it has been suggested that some other developed countries do not. A 2006 article in U.S. News & World Report claims that "First, it's shaky ground to compare U.S. infant mortality with reports from other countries. The United States counts all births as live if they show any sign of life, regardless of prematurity or size. This includes what many other countries report as stillbirths. In Austria and Germany, fetal weight must be at least 500 grams (1 pound) to count as a live birth; in other parts of Europe, such as Switzerland, the fetus must be at least 30 centimeters (12 inches) long. In Belgium and France, births at less than 26 weeks of pregnancy are registered as lifeless. And some countries don't reliably register babies who die within the first 24 hours of birth. Thus, the United States is sure to report higher infant mortality rates. For this very reason, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, which collects the European numbers, warns of head-to-head comparisons by country." [2] However, all of the countries named adopted the WHO definition in the late 1980s or early 1990s
I play the hand I'm dealt, but that doesn't mean I can't work to change things by voting my conscience
Good, vote your conscience.
Ummm... the government manages a giant military, can put people on the moon, invented the internet and GPS, manages the largest economy in the world, and you're going to hold road construction against it? It's not even the same bloody level of government.
Cool. Great military and decent space program. (BTW, talk to a Marine and ask them how smooth the military runs) How's the IRS working out for you? And the TSA, how's that for a government program. Oh yeah, and social security, how's that looking lately. Freddie Mac? Fannie Mae? Why would Health care be different?
For goodness' sake, the same people on here who make fun of the religious for hanging onto their beliefs in the face of contradictory evidence have no problem doing so with their philisophically based economics theories.
My main point is what has the United States government done, including the military, that hasn't ended up being a corrupted mess destined for failure and reform? Can't we spend time just reforming private health care? How about figuring out how come it's way more expensive (administrative costs and malpractice insurance) and just go about fixing that? Why do you just assume the United States government can deal with it just because Germany can?
Citation required.
Here
Here
Here
Just a start.
Since this is the federal government, you must mean the interstate highway system? Having recently driven all the way across the country at 60 mph without hitting a single pothole, what are you smoking?
Ok. I was joking there, but never the less. Touche.
Yes, you can walk into the emergency room, where treating you will cost me (a taxpayer) ten times as much as if I just paid for your health insurance so you could make an appointment at a primary care office.
Ok. So since our government has proved to be so smart handling medicaid at a reasonable cost, you'd like to have them handle all health care?
Well, I'm going to go ahead and discount your theories as long as you keep discounting the rest of the industrialized worlds actual experience, okay
Why is it fair to compare the way that the rest of the world does health care in a vacuum. Germany has good health care, sure, but they also pay around 50% tax.
Actually, I live near the city center where things are, but the job that I have is outside of town. Also, housing prices near my job have spiked due to the number of people looking for housing near there, so I (like many people in other parts of the country) live where the housing is affordable.
So you are as responsible as anyone else for the "sprawl" then eh? -- since you're feeding it and all.
God knows that ALL children are planned, don't you see that a social safety net provides a better and safer society for YOU to live in since desperate people do desperate things?
Yes, a social safety net is great. We've already got a bunch of them. There's a social safety net every step along the way of life in America. There's child services, there's welfare, there's housing assistance, there's medicaide, etc. Where's the problem?
You said it was IMMORAL that there are hungry children in our rich nation. I called bullshit on that since it's not up to me when your child eats. Plus, I called you a youngster, when I really should have just said that you're simply naive. If you think that the government can and should insure that every single person is taken care of regardless of their ability or desire to take care of themselves, then I don't know if we can actually converse.
Well, since you decided to ask. I do volunteer my time and was giving a good deal of money to worthy causes up until my financial situation changed recently. Glad you can ASSume though. I don't live in a glass house, which is why I stand up to throw stones. What, pray tell, do YOU do?
My point was, I assume you're not doing everything that you could possible do to feed every hungry child either. Go ahead and lie about it, it doesn't make it true. And by the way, that doesn't make you bad. Just a hypocrite.
I also happen to be far more liberal than the average bear and believe that I can't see meaningful competition in things like gasoline below a certain level since I MUST drive to work and to function in America's misguided sprawl.
Um. Ok. Of course you *could* move out of the sprawl somewhere where you could commute with no petrol footprint. Ah...nevermind. That would require you to *do* something.
I think it is IMMORAL that we live in the richest, most consumer driven society in the world yet we have children going to sleep tonight hungry, sick, and neglected. We should not stand for this as a people and I will vote my conscience.
OMFG. OMFG. You must be a youngster. If you think it's immoral, then I assume that you're giving all of your non-essential moneys to the poor and volunteering all of your spare time to shelters, food kitchens, etc. But, of course, no...you're not. You just think that the government should take care of everybody. (I assume you think that by your comments) How about this...how about everybody takes responsibility for what they do and when the consequences pile up, suck it up and accept them. Can't afford to feed a child? Don't have one or give it up for adoption. Can't afford a car? Don't buy one. Bought one anyways, and now you can't afford health insurance...die already.
Consider that when the rest of the world generally likes and trusts US leadership, the dollar tends to go up. When the rest of the world doubts our president or is unsure of what our president will do the dollar tends to go down.
I disagree with your basic hypothesis. You leave out the part where people will only like and trust the president when he's doing a good job, and not just spewing charismatic bullshit.
A number of countries provide universal healthcare for less than this.
It was the least efficient part I was concerned with.
Every modern country is moving towards a mish mash of the various institutions and ideas that are labeled 'socialism' and 'capitalism', and has been moving this way for a long long time.
Thank you for not using the word "mashup". Also, I agree with you coward.