Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
sorry strel i couldn't let that one go. if you think hsr was a good idea you've obviously never been to tampa (where i live) or orlando. it might've been a good idea for disney and the cruise liners who operate out of the bay but if they want the line so bad then why don't they build it themselves. this is just a typical example of how big business wanted to have their business expanded at the cost/risk to the taxpayer. other than that, nobody else would ride that train, the taxpayer would've been stuck with a huge bill regardless of guarantees (you're a lawyer and would know that unless they cash collateralized, the guarantee wouldn't be worth the paper it'd be written on)
sorry for going off track
Love everything you've been saying 58robbo! Your opinion on the train matches mine, too. I wrote into the St. Pete Times years ago...when I first heard talk of taxpayers paying for a train to Disney. I couldn't believe such a dumb idea was even being discussed. I was livid. I said if Disney wants a train to their darn park, let them pay for it.
you are right, scott has perhaps taken the view that keynesian stimulus is not the way to the promised land. at somepoint one has to take a ideological stand because if you allow one corporation to feed at the trough, the rest will follow shortly. he's probably the best person in the country to vouch for that.
in tampa for instance, the county is funding the revamp of the st pete times. it's insane. $40million dollars to upgrade the stadium. like disney, the owners should fund their own revamp. they always sell it as a job creator and people fall for it all the time. some rich dude gets all the small businesses and households to fund his revamp and then he tells us it's for our own good!
Woo-hoo! I wish I could rep you again for this one!
is that was what was happening before reagan enacted this? kids dying in the street. it was a bit of a loaded question. ever heard of shriners, the red cross, doctors without borders? that is besides the point. i will look at this issue from a purely economic standpoint even if it is off topic.
there are 2 sides to this equation a demand and a supply side. we have a situation in america where there is not enough supply to meet that demand and that is why the price is going up. there are other factors like medical malpractice insurance where some doctors are paying in excess of $200k pa, but i've just come to the conclusion that there aren't enough doctors.
every year 50000 of the nations brightest kids apply to med school, 17000 of them get places. i've argued that there are monopolies in palce which make this so, but whatever it is, this needs to change. if we can accomodate most kids in every other vocation i don't see why medicine isn't meeting the demand.
you also need to consider that a nurse who is 'qualified' to treat our soldiers in iraq for broken bones, isn't allowed to practice that same thing at home. why? this type of nonsense further diminishes supply.
on the demand side, we have an 'insurance' system where many don't contribute co=pays or have deductables. this means that people go to the doctor more often than they need to because it's free. my grandmother, mother and sister all have these healthcare systems where they don't contribute the first dime. the result is that they abuse the system heavily. when i lived in england on the nhs, we also abused that system heavily, though i'd argue that when i did need it it didn't come through for me.
if you address these issues, the cost for medical fall dramatically as do insurance costs. the numbers of kids whose family could not afford this insurance would be more than adequately covered by charity hospitals
AMA...one of the worst, if not THE worst, monopolies that exists. We need to dump this thing off of a cliff.
I truly am confused by your posts. On one thread you state your opposition to the Fed Govt and how everything should be left up to states. You seem disappointed that the Fed Govt's powers were increased thru the post Civil War amendments, and yet you defend Obamacare here. You stated how you don't believe you should have to accept Fed laws you don't agree with. This gentleman doesn't agree with Obamacare, yet you are basically asking him to accept it as opposed to have people die in the streets. I'm confused.
You really don't have reading comprehension do you?
I don't want government healthcare, but because healthcare has been mandated by the government since 1986, we have to pay for it. Thats what I think.
I would love to repeal the 1987 Emergency medical treatment act, and then crack down hard on hospitals that charge extra for those with insurance.
But as I said, that would mean that hospitals could turn folks away at the door, a situation that most Americans couldn't stomach. Thus, you have to pay for the care, and now we have obamacare.
Love everything you've been saying 58robbo! Your opinion on the train matches mine, too. I wrote into the St. Pete Times years ago...when I first heard talk of taxpayers paying for a train to Disney. I couldn't believe such a dumb idea was even being discussed. I was livid. I said if Disney wants a train to their darn park, let them pay for it.
yup, those same people who moan endlessly about corporations making too much money, swindling the taxpayer etc support this train to disney. it's hilarious and sad at the same time. hilarious because disney is doing exactly what they hate and yet they've convinced the left that it's a solution to unemployment, traffic, global warming! in fact, they've convineced the left and many on the right that this train represents the 2nd coming! sad because so many can't see that this is just a taxpayer funded cattle train to take cruise passengers to disney and vice versa.
imagine how sweet life would be if we could all quit our jobs and start our own business. imagine how much sweeter it would be if the taxpayer paid for the start-up costs and took all the risk
for a start it should be a state issue as per thread. some states like mass, will choose the romney/obamacare route and other states will choose something else. if individual states keep emtala, that should be their decision. besides, on the mandate, i'm conviced the scotus will strike it down because the act is blatantly unconstitutional
Then you should know that Obamacare has a provision to allow every state to go about it, as they wish. Texas, for example could go with just tort reform if its government can deliver on its claims. Vermont, OTOH, can go about implementing a single payer system that its people voted for. No?
OTOH, you think ALL states should be subjected to a federal law that uses tort reform. No?
My respect for States Rights ended with "Right to work laws" and the making abortion a crime. These are violations of individuals' freedom to associate and control their own bodies. I wonder why State Government still exists.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
