I apologize that I wasn't around for the previous bickering surrounding this topic, and to Orthodox for this going away from what he intended. I further apologize for the novel that I am unleashing below.
Nekhrun wrote:Fire departments, Libraries, Roads, Schools
These are state and local services. In practice most of those organizations should be easier to run because they are smaller, even Dune talks about the large organizations and bureacracies (sp?) being ineffecient and cruel. I'm glad these services are running smoothly and on budget in MN, they are not here in IL and elsewhere in the country.
The interstate system is Federal and is run fairly well, although it is majorily funded by fuel taxes which are paid by the users -not by taxes on others.
The federal government became involved in schools with the Department of Education in the late 1970's. Since then the two most notable things about the schools in this country are the quality of public education has declined and the amount of money spent per student has increased. There are other factors that have contributed to the decline in quality, but private institutions out perform public consistently.
I agree, I'm a big fan. Interesting how that organization is being shunned next to other more politically attractive items in the Federal budget.
I'm also a fan of regulation that provides clean drinking water, clean air, safe food to eat, safe transportation via land, sea and air. I could probably go on given a few more minutes.
I agree here as well. Although the deregulation of industries has led to lower costs and higher quality, like air travel, rail transport and shipping. Note, however, that federal regulation does not prevent there from being food poisoning issues with produce or meats.
The schools I have worked for have not exceeded budget. The district I work for is actually unable to even put up referendums to levy taxes and every year we get by. The services we have in MN that make sure the roads are plowed also work within budget. So does our Light Rail Transit system, which actually brings in more money than was projected by far. I'm quite certain I could go on here as well but I have a feeling that if you already think one way then these examples you've asked for will hardly change your mind. That's fine. At least admit that government does some pretty incredible things that we would not be able to do without out it.
If this is true then Minnesota is the minority among US states. However the examples you have are all local-to-state level organizations and not FEDERAL. Light rail may bring in more revenue than projected, but it is heavily subsidized and not a "free-standing" entity. By and large, the larger an organization the less effecient it is.
I will admit that the federal government can do some amazing things, like blowing up people in Iraq with stealth bombers that take off in Missouri.
If people don't like it then they can organize and do something about it. I will say it again, the government is us.
Many people protested, answered opinion polls with negative responses and are continuing to do so. In fact a majority of Americans did. Many voted for the current president and members of congress to enact change in the current system only to have it conducted in a manner that was different than promised and included language and items (taxes) that were promised not to. If "the government is us" because we voted for our representatives to enact our wishes via their promises...that failed to occur in this case. Many people were sold a bill of goods that turned out to be an unapologetic bag of crap.
We do not have anywhere near the "best heath care system in the world". Our health care system is an embarrassment to one of the most resourceful and lucky countries in the history of the planet.
The care that people receive in this country is the best in the world. The cost of it is too high and the access to it because of that high -and rising- cost is the problem. Rather than make everyone get insurance, raise taxes and "redistribute wealth"
in an overt effort to start the conversion to a single payer system there were other ways to try to attack costs and access. None of those were ever seriously considered and this is a point of anger.
A Thing of Eternity wrote:Slow down there partner, the USA has one of the WORST healthcare systems in the developed world. The quality of the healthcare itself is very high, and this is what seems to be confusing Americans, but the system of getting it to people is total garbage compared to the rest of us. Don't make the mistake of confusing the two things, they are very seperate.
I agree. That is why the governor of Ontario flew to the US to get treatment. It's the best quality in the world (which I said) but has too high a cost (which I also said). Attacking the high costs and their causes is the best way to solve that issue and make going to a doctor as affordable as many other essential parts of our lives. Taxing retirement benefits, medical devices, tanning beds and flexible spending accounts in order to redistribute the revenue as subsidies to purchase insurance is not the best method to lower costs.
We've been through this all before, I'm with you guys that the gov generally can't run anything well... but this has already been PROVEN to work better than your private system.
So, maybe your government is just that extra bit incompetent, but if the rest of the developed world has better healthcare systems than you, that might
I missed the proof, and if you have a link to it here please provide it. If it includes survival rates for cancer and other dieseases, life-span expectancy, doctors-per-capita and other measurables I would appreciate it.
Now that all of these countries have their health care issues solved it must mean that they have vibrant, dynamic, growing economies with little unemployment. Which countries fit this description? At what rate are their economies growing and what is their unemployment rate? How has their standing in the world economy changed since their conversion?
Also, the whole argument that this will kill the private sector insurance is utter BS - we have private insurance up here in Canada on top of our public healthcare, and they haven't suffered in the least.
The fact that you require two tiers is an indictment in itself. In my opinion.
To answer Orthodox's question, this will not be overturned.