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.
California also pays more in federal taxes. I'm all for turning the country into 50 independent budgets with minimal contribution for the federal.
How do we build a star then? NM always tops these lists, low population and some very expensive federal facilities that contribute to the entire nation. Sandia and Los Alamos by themselves add about $2800 in per capita federal spending.
But what about the children? Do you hate the children? This is great, I love having this conversation
They should take that up with Donald Trump and Paul Ryan, who did not come up with a plan to address their needs. If my blue state solves the needs of my blue state's existing residents, that's what we did for ourselves. The Republican Party can answer for the rest of the country.
Quote:
Originally Posted by thecoalman
How do we build a star then? NM always tops these lists, low population and some very expensive federal facilities that contribute to the entire nation. Sandia and Los Alamos by themselves add about $2800 in per capita federal spending.
Let my state vote on it and we'll let them know if we want to chip in. Maybe we will want to do something better ourselves because we have a lot of tech. Does it generate revenue? Will we participate in that revenue generation? We should be able to decide if it's economically beneficial because we love science, but we also love money.
That's how I feel about the top five states in the South currently on disability - which also qualifies them for Medicare. In West Virginia, almost 10% of the population is on disability. Almost 10%!!! Those are my tax dollars. The top five states are West Virginia, Arkansas, Alabama, Mississippi and Kentucky.
Sonny Ryan, a retired judge in town, didn't hear disability cases in his courtroom. But the subject came up often. He described one exchange he had with a man who was on disability but looked healthy.
"Just out of curiosity, what is your disability?" the judge asked from the bench.
"I have high blood pressure," the man said.
"So do I," the judge said. "What else?"
"I have diabetes."
"So do I."
Does it generate revenue? Will we participate in that revenue generation? We should be able to decide if it's economically beneficial because we love science, but we also love money.
It's a moon shot , Sandia where that machine is located has an annual budget of 2.4 billion dollars. It's one of many existing machines and not yet built machines that *may* lead to fusion reactors. It's a big and very expensive gamble that could have an enormous payoff. It would literally be a game changer and be looked at as mans greatest invention for thousands of years.
Getting back to your post were you arguing that people getting subsidized insurance under Ocare should have to contribute ten years to the federal government to get subsidies? If not why not?
It's a moon shot , Sandia where that machine is located has an annual budget of 2.4 billion dollars. It's one of many existing machines and not yet built machines that *may* lead to fusion reactors. It's a big and very expensive gamble that could have an enormous payoff. It would literally be a game changer and be looked at as mans greatest invention for thousands of years.
Getting back to your post were you arguing that people getting subsidized insurance under Ocare should have to contribute ten years to the federal government to get subsidies? If not why not?
Most did. I'm not on Obamacare but I certainly have been contributing. If it's a national approach, then fine. But if we are becoming more and more state based, I say let's go all the way. I have far far more faith in my blue state of Washington than I do with Trump or red states. Let us fund ourselves, draw a hard line and vote on the federal expenditures to decide if we see value. And definitely let us no longer fund the health care of red states. That's Trump and Ryan's problem, not ours.
I really hope the state takes a hard look at how to curtail costs while offering better care. The UC hospitals & medical schools and research facilities are among the best in the world-that should be a major component of a statewide healthcare system.
And definitely let us no longer fund the health care of red states.
The problem with this comment is you are relying on statistics for all federal expenditures. Such a simplistic and basic stat can;t be used for what is a very complex calculation.
So what you are saying is if some poor minority moves from New York they will not be covered under your states plan?
You are also saying if someone immigrates from another country they will not be covered under your plan?
I have another scenario for you, presumably if you lived in Mass you would eligible for this plan even if you have been on welfare the last ten years?
If I was going to move to Mass. with my family with the intention of starting a business there would you deny me for ten years too?
bahahahaha....
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.
