Originally posted by whodey Isn't it ironic? The party that is proported as being the party that helps the poor and the middle class is the party that will ultimatly end upward mobility for them all, if they have their way with things. Of course, we can all rest in peace knowing that the "experts" will take care of us.
Another bill that has more sped and will be closer to the final product does,'t have the the penal provision. And the limitation on the fine is 900.00 plus there would no wage attachment - they would recoup out of your refund.
Originally posted by eljefejesus Different of freedom to the states (federalism) versus the growing size and power of the federal government. In the US many consider it a change with many problems attached. States rights allow more flexibility at the local level to chose their poisons in terms of government programs.
So why is the state level ideal? Why not have a different health care scheme for say, every county?
You know, the ivory tower elitists who have the wisdom and knowledge to micromanage everything from our health care to our energy expenditures. They are but gods in our site!!
Originally posted by whodey You know, the ivory tower elitists who have the wisdom and knowledge to micromanage everything from our health care to our energy expenditures. They are but gods in our site!!
I know who you refer to, but the question still stands. What experts?
Originally posted by eljefejesus Post offices are charging 48 cents and losing the country BILLIONS:
Despite cost reductions against the fiscal 2009 plan of more than $6 billion and actions to grow revenue, the Postal Service (USPS) projects a net loss of more than $7 billion at fiscal year-end. The organization’s financial situation is compounded by its obligation to pay $5.4 bill ...[text shortened]... he organization is working to mitigate a possible Sept. 30 cash shortfall of up to $700 million.
The problem the cost to send mail is rediculously cheap. I mean seriously, how much would a private courier charge to send someone to your house to pick up a package and fly it across the country to someone else's door step?
Originally posted by KazetNagorra So why is the state level ideal? Why not have a different health care scheme for say, every county?
That's like asking why not healthcare, why not expand social security. That's not the topic. Also, in the US the states are expected to have some autonomy under federalism.
Originally posted by USArmyParatrooper The problem the cost to send mail is rediculously cheap. I mean seriously, how much would a private courier charge to send someone to your house to pick up a package and fly it across the country to someone else's door step?
So you see that there are problems with the post office...
Originally posted by eljefejesus That's like asking why not healthcare, why not expand social security. That's not the topic. Also, in the US the states are expected to have some autonomy under federalism.
You're not answering the question. What is it about the states, that on a fundamental organizational level, makes it more suitable for organizing a health care scheme; more suitable than both federal and county level (or any other level)?
Also, suppose that this happens and the state of Washington decides to implement a universal health care scheme in that state. Would that be okay with you, considering it is the state who decides? If yes, why is it not okay if the country decides at a federal level? If no, what is the point of deciding it at the state level?
Originally posted by KazetNagorra You're not answering the question. What is it about the states, that on a fundamental organizational level, makes it more suitable for organizing a health care scheme; more suitable than both federal and county level (or any other level)?
Also, suppose that this happens and the state of Washington decides to implement a universal health care scheme i ...[text shortened]... country decides at a federal level? If no, what is the point of deciding it at the state level?
The answer is states rights and federalism in the US.
Furthermore, some states do have health care for all.
Most don't.
Under the federal model, all states would end up with them.
It's less of an American model and again more of a European model to force the entire nation into one national healthcare model. There may be gains some places, but at the cost of the traditionally valued states rights in the US.
In Europe, what makes state control of industries any sort of a valid option? What makes nationalized health care an option? It's more common there than in the US. Federalism is more natural to the US.
Originally posted by eljefejesus Post offices are charging 48 cents and losing the country BILLIONS:
Despite cost reductions against the fiscal 2009 plan of more than $6 billion and actions to grow revenue, the Postal Service (USPS) projects a net loss of more than $7 billion at fiscal year-end. The organization’s financial situation is compounded by its obligation to pay $5.4 bill ...[text shortened]... he organization is working to mitigate a possible Sept. 30 cash shortfall of up to $700 million.
Due to the rise of the internet, it may no longer be possible to profitably run a "snail mail" service. What if we just got rid of the post office completely? But I've never heard any of the conservatives make such a proposal. Why?